First of all, it is not a “handful” of Muslims that have extreme views and refuse to integrate, and it is not just in Australia. We know Islam is not practiced in a single uniform manner – but there are certain generalizations about Islam and Muslims that are absolutely valid. The fact is that Islam is intolerant and Muslims, when they immigrate, bring their hate and intolerance with them. Of course, it is not all of them, but it occurs in far greater numbers than Muslims care to admit and it is so common that it constitutes a problem for any society dealing with Muslims.

In case Mr Zreika hasn’t noticed it, another thing that separates practicing Muslims from other folks is their admiration for their prophet – a man that did many vile and abominable things. In case anybody here doesn’t know it, but Islam’s own writings tell us that Mohammad was a slaver, torturer, murderer, wife-beater and permitted rape. And this man is their great moral example.

Most Australians don’t care who you criticize or who you worship. Muslims think Allah and his prophet deserve special protection so that Muslims’ feeling don’t get hurt. They feel that their right not to be offended supercedes other peoples right to freedom of speech. Yes, it is the ordinary Muslims that believe this and it is the ordinary Muslims that want to silence all criticism of their religion and their dear prophet.

The fact is that Mr Zreika really has no answer as to what is the true Islam. I don’t think he wants to know. Let me take is own words about men who shout “Allah Akbar” and then do disgusting things: he says this neither means they represent mainstream Australian Muslims nor does it mean they are correct in their view of Islam. Notice the denial. So I guess it is also his position that this also does not mean they don’t represent mainstream Muslims nor does it mean they are not correct in their view of Islam. Think about this!

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.

Kactuzkid

“Although a lot of them probably don’t speak much English”. NOT Australian, for starters.

If Muslims wish not to be stereotyped, they should stop acting out the stereotype – a good start would be for the author herself to stop wearing her most un-Australian, Muslim garb. Muslims decking themselves out in this medieval clothing automatically put up a wall between themselves and other people.

After waffling on about a very few Muslims who have been here since the year dot, she admits that the recent arrivals have “usually” started life here in detention centres. That’s also un-Australian, entering a country illegally. Australians would rightly ask what else people who do that are capable of.

We can’t take much notice of what this author says, though. She starts off her piece by saying that the “only things” separating Muslims from the rest of us is that they don’t go to pubs, and they don’t have sex before marriage, and they pray five times a day. But, towards the middle of her ramble, she suddenly remembers that some Muslims do drink, refuse to pray, and party with girls. Not good Muslims girls, of course.

She says that some Muslims do talk about jihad and world domination. They do indeed, and they are telling the truth of Islam. The author fails to mention other Muslims who talk twaddle to take our minds of the real intent of Islam, which is to take back what was taken from it, plus what the West has.

Zreika finally devotes a couple of paragraphs to defending Islam against the way it supposedly treats women. Actually, she is probably right about this aspect of her faith. You only have to see the hate filled faces of women garbed in black, waving placards in the Middle East to doubt that they are abused innocents.

Make no mistake. Salam Zreika is a warrior for Islam, in her own way

SALAM SAID:

"The only things I can think of that separate practising Australian Muslims from other Australians is that we don’t hang out in pubs on Friday night after work, don’t eat pork, generally don’t get involved in hanky panky before marriage and are obligated to pray five times a day."

COMMENT:

1/ For 'pubs' substitute 'malls' and you have the Muslim version.
2/ Pork. ... will you accept a dinner invitation to eat with non muslims if they (out of courtesy) don't serve pork ? (if ur in Melbourne, come and have dinner with me and my wife.)

3/ Generally no hankie panky b4 marraige ? (I just about fell over on this one) errr.. for the girls... sure. but the BOYS ? eeeuwww..

4/ Obilgated to pray 5 times a day.

Sooo.... in the middle of a highly active production environment, you expect to be 'let off' for prayer ? (I don't agree with cigarette breaks either !)
Or.. have free time on Friday ? This is one point which makes the practice of Islam highly UNcompatable with Australian life.

RADICAL/MAINSTREAM

The point about 'radical' verses 'mainstream' and 'how' Islam is practiced, needs to have close scrutiny.

Just as a Christian needs to be 'scrutinized' on the basis of the foundation documents and principles of his/her faith, so does a Muslim.

You just have to ask "Are they true to the foundations/fundamentals"?

Clearly, the answer to this for Islam is that the radicals are closer to the Quran and Hadith and Histories than mainstreamers, who are probably described as 'nominal' by the radicals.

There IS a command to 'behead' those attacking the Muslims in the Quran.

There is NO such command for Christians to even fight for their faith.

We have one weapon, and one alone. "Christ, crucified, raised"

Salam: Of course only a few pagan moslems get up to 'hanky-panky' they call it rape! The writer must know that a lot of moslems are on welfare more by ratio than any other group. She must know that some 'pious?' five times a day prayers have taken more than one wife, which itself is un-Australian and illegal. Further she must know that these women,using their family name are getting single mother's benefits. How much of this money goes back to the "husband?" so to enable him to continue bludging? Then these pagan moslems want to assimilate?
Should, it will not happen, pagan islamics take over this writer would be out of her job, would lose her driver's licence, would have to be accompanied by a male relative whenever she left her, actually his, home. Then if it was only alleged that she made eyes at a Christian one of her "loving?" male relatives would possibly murder her. Back to 'hanky-panky' when the male X-rated paradise is full of perpetual female virgins and eternally untouched boys all for the use of. Then she claims that only a few of these pagan moslem "men?" are sex crazed. As someone else said in her way this writer is a soldier of pagan islam. numbat

Multiculturalism and mass migration have never been approved by democratic vote in australia. They have been inflicted on us in an undemocratic and dishonest way. When you start by supporting the lie that Australians have deliberately adopted multiculturalism, it calls the rest of your statements into question as well.

Salam asks: "What is the Australian way of life?"

Not so long ago Australians didn't have special 'swim' times set aside at the council owned pool for people based on their religion and sex.

Australians have long since abandoned the practise of having slaves.

Not so long ago, on any Sunday people could be observed going to church with the startling sight of the congregation comprising men and women.

Not so long ago, Australian women who went about their 9 - 5 routines did so without the need to cover their head.

I don't think it's ever been the practice of Australian men to remove a piece of skin between a female's legs in order to limit her sexual pleasure and guarantee she remains faithful.

The appearance of pork on the menu of any Australian local council did not cause headlines in the local paper.

The above and many more everyday scenes and practices captured the zeitgeist of the 60's and 70's.

Watch the god bothers pounce. Just remember who have more in common with your Moslem brothers and sister then you do with main stream Australia. Christianity speaks of love but we only ever see hate form these people.

For the Author well done one thing you have to remember though is a jaguar doesn't change his spots. Little Johnny's views have not change from his early years , just now he feels the wind is in the right direction to remind people what they are have a read of his speeches from the 70's.

More power to you Salam - keep on slugging.

To Leigh, Muslim garb is Australian as anything I have seen. It is every where I look. There are now even dedicated outlets for the gear in places like Sydney Road Brunswick a precinct all the richer for them being there.

There will probably come a time when elements of the gear finds its way onto our cat walks - we've poached every other good idea from other cultures - the day of the trendoid hijab and burkha isnt all that far away.

Salam request for people to move past these stereotypes is as reasonable an expectation as us hoping people no longer see us as a bunch of Barry McKenzies or Les Patterson's - although both seem to be alive and well on these pages from time to time.

And Kactuz - I may be way off the mark here but the author strikes me as being a Ms, Mrs or Miss - not a Mr - but hey, what would I know?

And to others when we will get over this "why wasnt I asked?" nonsense. Try paying some attention to the political process and you might gain some understanding of what politicians are thinking - or at least look to what they have donein the past - we have had immigration programs for decades - every election essentially is the opportunity to voice dissent over long standing policies.

To Salam's credit at least she is attempting to open and maintain some sort of dialogue in the face of a bunch of latter day students of Islam sniping at their faith form the sidelines - the inconsistencies in Islam are no more prevalent than the internal contradictions within Christianity for example.

And as reprehensible as the few isolated and relatively inconsequential terrorist attacks over recent years they pale into insignificance to acts of violence committed in the name of the Christian God - the extreme Muslims just seem a bit more transparent in thier intentions

It still amazes we why so many are preoccupied with such a trifling issue.

The day muslims and Aussies can have a barbie together and get on, they are Australians.

Religion will always be the wedge. both sides are blinded by their beliefs and it appauls me.

People have debated for thousands of years on religion to no avail. We are still doing it now. Quit the debating, become an Australian, quit your religion and if you need support and guidance get it from one of the many avenues available. if you want to give back to the community, do it away from your religion.

Religion is like being addicted to herion. You cannot see the other side of the fence, it is hard to break away but in order to live your life in Australia and feel a part of the wider community, you must.

It catches the vulnerable people at vulnerable times and hooks them, their time and their money indefinately. People will kill, steal and destroy things and eachother for it. And it is imported here, whether 200 years ago or now.

Ban religion, you increace the peace and unify the people. This will be overlooked by the fundamentalists brainwashed with religion, as they would be lost without it. Stand on your two feet, your ancestors somewhere along the line did not have religion, and you are here today. If you need to help others or make your peace with the world, great, just dont live on a set of principles given to you.

I will give you some commandments instead if you need it. Call Me 'Realist the Great' and give me money. Cool, this religion stuff is a better business than im in.

1/ For 'pubs' substitute 'malls' and you have the Muslim version.

--- What's wrong with going to coffee shops or restaurants instead of the pub? I used to have a scarf wearing friend back in the UK that used to be a pool shark, though never went near the bar section of the hall.

2/ Pork. ... will you accept a dinner invitation to eat with non muslims if they (out of courtesy) don't serve pork ?

--- I know that I and my wife do regularly, mostly Chinese food or Indian. Nothing can beat home cooked food though. No one can make haggis well here, alas. I have to make do with Lebanese Kibbe instead.

3/ Generally no hankie panky b4 marraige ? (I just about fell over on this one) errr.. for the girls... sure. but the BOYS ? eeeuwww..

--- As the article said, stereotypes are there for a reason, but let's not paint every Muslim guy with the same brush. I know plenty who are not like that.

4/ Obilgated to pray 5 times a day.

Sooo.... in the middle of a highly active production environment, you expect to be 'let off' for prayer ? (I don't agree with cigarette breaks either !)

--- Not necessarily, but if people can have breaks to smoke, why can't we have breaks to pray? Islam allows to combine prayers if there is no alternative, and also to make up late prayers.

Or.. have free time on Friday ? This is one point which makes the practice of Islam highly UNcompatable with Australian life.

--- There are many arrangements that can be made to accomodate this, such as working back a few hours another day, or other days etc. Let's not make out that this is the be-all and end-all of Australianism. Unless you live in a Muslim majority area, I find it unlikely that every Muslim male in the workplace drops everything to head to the mosque on Friday. I know plenty who do, and plenty who don't/can't.

Realist: We do that all the time. My wife and I have friends from "Anglo" heritage (as am I), Chinese background, Indonesian Christian background and a whole host of others and we regularly meet up, hang out and eat food together. We even used to go to Cronulla till all this trouble happened.

Just because it's not reported in the major media outlets does not mean that it doesn't happen.

If you saw the local Cronulla press last week you would see there was an interfaith initiative there uniting people from Muslim and Christian backgrounds, of all major ethnic groups. They all went down to a seafood place at Cronulla after having a series of talks and lectures and ate lunch.

I must agree essentially with kactuz. You sum up this issue very well mate.

One thing though. You say Islam is intolerant. Indeed it is, but so are all religions. It is religion which is the main problem, for Muslims, Christians and any other religious group you care to name. I don't want any one coming to my door or spouting in the media about what are their private beliefs. That's where it should stay, private.

Any organisation which demands compliance to rules which cannot be shown to be effective or useful are simply tools, political tools to control groups of people.

Just look at the cults that spring up and die regularly. I would guess that all Christians, Muslims and other would sneer at those cults, rightly. But they can't see the same in their own cult which is what these groups are. Cults ruled mainly by rich, old men, much the same as politics. As ever.

Islam has no place in this country until it treats all people as equals. The one thing that really gets up the community's nose is the instant squeals of "racism" and "prejudice" whenever anything is asked of their community that some would prefer not to confront.

I don't care who it is, the repetetive claims of racism do no more than continue to deepen the habit in the young, those that have a chance at a new freer life rather than the one their parents etc bring here and reproduce.

I must say that Muslims are not unique in that though, many races gather together for obvious reasons but eh mistake they make is trying to prevent the young expanding their views and opportunites in life.

When and if the Muslim community starts to eject the radicals and stand up to them then they can consider themselves Australian and not outposts of their country of origin.

All of us are subject to prejudice, racism and other forms of exclusion etc. simply for being who we are. It's human nature.

Salam is a defender of her faith (Islam) of course, as all of them are they will never admit to being in an antiquated,backwards religion that never changes.
REAL,Christians try to keep ,with the times,but won't relinquish the Bible ,even though it is old,but just as new as fresh daily bread to the converted .
We (Christians ) know when we are doing wrong ,our laws tell us (all from the Bible) and our calendars (from Jesus Birthday) that He is God and Messiah and in charge .
Yes,we love al mankind as Jesus NEW commandment was to love one another as He loved us .That's to die to our flesh,man's ideologies,self and wanting our ways instead of God's

Islam was originated by Mohammed ,"a nut case", read Alberto Rivera story and history of Mohammed in the comic book form called "The Prophet", he had first hand knowledge of Mohammed's plans to take over the world and it is still on,. Read is online .His.http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0117/theprophetindex.asp

The Bible tells us and Jesus Christ tells us, in the book of Revelations, that an army will surround Israel,by kings of the east in valley of Meddigo to try and annhialate Israel and all Jews,with an army of 200 million (now possible) but GOD will have wipe them out with blood shed up to a horses bridle and their faces will melt as wax and their tongues cleave to their mouths.
This is Islam's plans ,for all who side with Israel (read the book of Zecharia) and Revelations it is all up to date, I don't think the koran is.
What will happen Salam when world war 3 is declared with the west vs the middle east soon? It also says they will be a people who will behead anyone not accepting their religion .
So that is NOT Christians ,who will it be ?

Will the Muslims in Australia stand for Oz or the opposite?
When Italy joined the Germans in WW 2 all Italians in OZ were jailed or sent back to their real homelands .
I pray our government awakes .

"Ask Islamic leaders for advice". Why? We have NO Islamic leaders in our government and ,hopefully, never will.
You are a stereotype of all we see in your religion.
Augumentive, demanding, aloof. Always ready to complain and always ready to play the victim.
And always ready to criticise how Australians live and play.
You are and always will be the outsider...because that is how you see yourself.

Salam,
As far as i'm concerned you are more of an Australian than many of the above posters. Some here would like to see a fundamental constitutional right of freedom of religious expression taken away from us. Now that is what I call un-Australian.

Dawood,

Good to read from you.

fair go, open, honest and fair, add value to the community, work hard and pay your taxes, obey the law, contribute to the community.
These are the Australian value that I enjoyed in this country for a decade now and what overwhelming majority of Australians (Muslims included) honour and live by.
But the Mosque-teers would have us believe that Australian values are pubbing and clubbing, drinking and eating bacon!
So a praying vegetarian is 'un-Australian'!

News flash people: drinking is a key reason of all harm on our streets from road accidents to domestic violence.

Salam,
"how Australian do we have to be before we can say we fit in just fine?
What is the Australian way of life?"

That you even have to ask this questions is a worry.
I assume from your story, and the example of sneaking off to the movies that you did grow up here, if not, surely you went to school here and went to Uni here. Have you segregated yourself from the wider Aussie community so much that you don't know?

There are no degrees of being Australian, you either are or not.

I agree with some of the previous posts about religion (regardless which one it is). In Australia, most people that choose to have a religion as part of their lives, is just that, a part of their lives, not a way of life. I suppose thats why Islam seems so alien to Aussies, and why most adamant belivers of Chritianity keep it to themselves (spare a few in this forum).
pj

The term “Australian” means a lot more than a person’s place of residence. It could be equated with “brother and sister”. It is a term which signifies the common kinship of a group of people.

Winning acceptance from any group is always difficult, because it is the candidate’s group's responsibility to display behaviour which shows acceptance of the social norms of the group to which they aspire to join. Any candidate group which displays behaviour which clearly indicates a rejection of the primary groups cultural norms, will not be accepted. This non acceptance is exacerbated if the candidate group insists upon wearing cultural uniforms which openly display their primary allegiance to their own kinship group.

It is further exacerbated if members of the candidate group are seen to be threatening or parasitic to the primary group.

Where significant numbers of a candidate group are perceived to be hostile to the primary group, the primary group may judge the entire group to be hostile. The onus is then upon candidate group to make it absolutely clear to those of it’s own members who’s behaviour is ringing them into disrepute, that their beheviour will not be tolerated. Any attempt by the candidate group to justify the behaviour of their own members who are threatening or hostile to the primary group, simply reinforces the attitude within the primary group that the entire candidate group can not be trusted.

One very important factor in Australian hostility to Muslims, is the Muslim’s own ideology which most Australians see as fundamentally hostile. If Muslims have a religious conviction that people who have sex outside of marriage must be put to death in a cruel way, then the Australians will obviously consider them hostile and dangerous.

If Ms Zreika truly wishes her Muslims find acceptance with Australians, then as an absolute minimum first step, it is up to her and her own communities religious leaders to unilaterally renounce this particular aspect of their Sharia Law. Failure to do this will simply reinforce the already prevalent attitude that Muslims are dangerous and worthy of hostility and deep mistrust.

This is a nice piece, and I am stunned by the ignorant, hate-filled reaction from some of these respondants. The author is reaching out to be heard, but these people behave in exactly the way they accuse Muslims of behaving.

Dawood
I see no reason whatsoever for either 'smoke' breaks or 'prayer' breaks. Neither are good for productivity.

Friday etc..nope.. don't agree at all.. why should an Aussie employer even have to think about ways to accomodate some minority religions idiosyncracies?(includingChristian)

Next we will have the followers of the evil galactic lord Zur (or whoever the scientologists believe in) telling us they can't work between 10.00am and 2 pm.. just an example.. not a real one.

Your approach actually underlines the incompatability, you are going to great lengths to see how we can 'accomodate' a particular faith, and its just not on mate. (for me anyway)

Your willingness to share hospitality with non Muslims is welcome.

Dawood.. you say you are of Anglo Background, could you please have a look at the range of charges made by Kactuz (Mo is a 'murderer, child rapist,torturer,thief,adulterer etc) and give some kind of response ?
It truly stretches the boundaries of credibility that you, with an Anglo background have allowed yourself to be drawn to such a manifestly evil person as Mohammed. Sure, he had his good days.. but also his AWEFULLY bad ones.. He enquired after the health of the Jewish lady who through crap on him, but he had Kaab bin Al Ashraf (and others) MURDERED.. and the list goes on..

I'm guessing that you had a sense of meaninglessness and lack of direction in ur life, and found some 'good aspects' of Islam in the 'screen saver' but by the time you got to the 'real program' it was too late, you had said the prayers, burned your bridges, made public statements.. would look an idiot if you recanted, (plus endangering ur life) and made new friends etc... a gonner.

I'd be fascinated to hear the rationalizations on those SPECIFIC issues from one who claims to follow such a man. Let there be no mistake here.. you are following 'Mohammed' because you confess his divine connection 5 times a day.

Mher..please get a grip and stop reading 'hate' for 'disagreement' this is a FORUM for crying out loud.

Salam

I'll answer your question...Just how Aussie do we have to be?

I'll use Peter Costello's words and the words in the official policy of Multi-culturalism .

Costello

"'The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation tries to capture the essence of what it means to be Australian, it reads as follows:

“From this time forward [under God] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:- loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs:- democratic beliefs; to respect the rights and liberty of others; and to respect the rule of law.' "

Official Multi-cultural Policy

"All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society. These are: the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, the rule of law, acceptance and equality."

Quite simple really. Anything else is shallow and utter rubbish.

To be Australian?

Is to not have "community leaders" but instead to have elected representatives.

To not be represented by religious authorities: yes, they have a place in the collective conscience (I actually like hearing Archbishop Jensen speak out about social policy in relation to Christianity), but they are not 'authorities' from the perspective of their voice having more weight because of who they are.

To believe in democracy, not theocracy - at any level. Most Christian churches have the right to kick out their religious ministers if that is what they want, religious ministers being appointed by a mandate from their flocks.

Not having anyone recognised as 'the representative of Australian..(insert religion here)..'

Not being particularly religiosly distinctive by personal appearance - and I know that I am going to be attacked by some people of the Jewish faith here - but there is nothing in the Tora which tells a Jew to wear a black suit, big hat and curls from the temples of their heads (if there was all Jews would be so attired)

There are ways to protect modesty that do not signify 'Islamic'.

To publically condemn those who use the Islamic faith or culture as an excuse for anti-social behaviour.

To all who knock Christianity ,then get a life ,(a new lifein Christ) (born again one) I would have ranted on like most of you before I chose Christianity as a lifestyle (wasn't forced to be religious)like most Muslims are told they are born one.

You will NEVER believe ,or understand what is going on. Have any of you heard of the NWO (New World Order) taking over all nations ,who are using Australia as an experiment before the whole world HAS to accept a new religion designed by them or you are out?
Too much trouble with free religion ,so we will fix it syndrome.

It's all in The Bible ,you are crazy not reading it, as it becomes a reality daily.

This whole rucus is spiritual,and you won't get it, unless you are born again of God's Spirit ."He will tell you all truth" ,said Jesus Christ ,"and show you things to come."
It is awesome ,many changes will take place this year 2006.

Go to The Prophecy Club website for confirmation, or to websites on prophesies for 2006 and look at what is up for Australia this year .
We know the future, that's why I am on this forum and trying to get it to you ,wake up!It's not what you think. I have listened to and read so much on this for 27 years ,read Barry Smith's Final Notice and The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey all his prophesies came to pass from this book written 25 years agoabout what is happening now, he has more books now and a website as well as Dr Hilton Sutton expert on this too.

Kenny,
I am not a God botherer. I don't care much for any religion. I skip over the religous posts. But I do care about us having a cohesive society, where people show respect for others, our country and our laws.

I can't work out if Salam is naive or thick as she is still portraying Muslims as victims and saying that we (non-Muslims) must move past (or ignore)the common stereotype of Muslims. She certainly did not read the vast majority of the posts from the last article she had on this site, or she did not learn anything from it.

The common stereotype of Muslims is that they are intolerant, rude, arrogant and contemptous of our society. They either cannot or wil not integrate with others, and this is true. They are the problem. They have earned their bad reputation which cannot be ignored.

The problem seems far greater in males than females as there are few complaints about the conduct of Muslim women.

I considered what the PM and Treasurer had to say to be most reasonable. My only disagreement is, that while there may be only a few Muslim extremists (that blow people up) there are many that fit the common stereotype.

The question that must be asked is, what can be done about it?

We have accepted many people into our society and most have integrated and we adjusted our culture accomodating them.

If Muslims really want to be part of the Australian community, they will have to make some cultural adjustments also. The only way for Muslims to improve their reputation is by their own words, actions and deeds.

Salam,

You said: '..it makes you wonder why Islamic leaders aren't approached for advice. Although a lot of them probably don't speak much English, surely a translator is available for something as important as a national statement?'

Why don't they speak much English? Why should Australian taxpayers have to pay for a translator whenever 'Islamic leaders' want to make a 'national statement'?.

I'm living in a country outside of Australia at the moment, and I can't speak much of that country's national language (although I am learning). I would never in my wildest dreams attempt to establish myself as a 'community leader' for Australians in this country, without first becoming fluent in the native language here!

I teach people who want to improve their English skills. I would be happy to teach English to any of those 'Islamic leaders', if they want to learn, and I'm sure there are many English teachers in Australia who appreciate the extra work too.

Making all Australians fluent in the national language - English - is a major key to solving this debate and improving social cohesion in Australia.

This is not about private religious practices, pork, or flirtatious behaviour…

Wake up guys – read between the lines – detect the arrogance? – islam is here to stay: better like it or else leave. It’s their way or nothing else!

No amount of dialogue is going to change a religion that is set IN CONCRETE.

sneekeepete,

“It still amazes me why so many are preoccupied with such a trifling issue.“

You could have spared us all 2 minutes if you just said the above and posted it. Obviously you don’t have a clue about the dangers of islam.

(Same goes for Pegasus)

Mickijo,

I wouldn’t bet on it mate: “no muslim leaders in government?” They come in all sorts so you won’t recognise them outright. If they are not there in person, they have a lot of clout on politicians by proxy (vote buying).

Keith,

Excellent point mate (loyalty to Australia) – that rules out at least 90% of all muslims...citizenship? what a joke!

Banjo,

Muslims will not change their ways. They follow a book that is unchangeable. If they try to “normalise” their ways – they are harshly chastised by their own.

The real problem that most “naïve” Australian overlook is that “WE” ARE IN THE WAY OF ISLAM’s GLOBAL PROPAGATION.

It says in their book that all the earth belongs to their god ‘Allah’ and it is their duty to invade and regain it – being Australia or Palestine, doesn’t make any difference.

Anyone in their way must convert to islam or accept to live under its authority. (Dhimmitude).

On subject :–

Salam - The only way you can humanly assimilate in ANY country is to give up your beliefs. As long as you remain enslaved to your Qur’anic doctrines you will never fit PEACEFULLY anywhere.

When reading through the article, I was pleasantly surprised to discover a clear, intelligent opinion on this matter.

When reading the comments, I was appalled by the ignorance, the black&white views and the lack of openmindedness of some posters.

When you claim that some "generalizations" about Islam are valid and true, don't you realize that, in se, this article itself is a protest against those very generalizations? A generalization is by definition ignoring large portions of reality. A generalization is NOT an absolute truth. It's not because all the cats I happen to know have 3 legs that "cats have three legs".

And how can you claim Islam to be antiquated when the head of the Catholic Church - and therefore perhaps a "real" Christian - has for ages prohibited the use of condoms in a society where sexually transmitted diseases and overpopulation are strongly present. VERY modern..

And one more thing: religious zealots can be found anywhere, among redneck Southerners in the States, orthodox jews, or 'missionaries' of the last century. Thing is: these zealots are easy-to-portray twodimensional figures, the media feast on people like this, whereas we tend to forget that these people are only a minority. Not all muslims are involved in Al Qaida, not all Catholics are part of Opus Dei and not all blondes are dumb.

Good on ya, Salam!

If I see a brown spotty dog, it would be ridiculous for me to conclude that all dogs are spotty brown. Seems obvious. But that’s about how silly stereotyping can be.

We live in strange times. The word ‘Muslim’ presently evokes in some people a wild paranoia, just like the word ‘Socialist’ did a few years back.

Travelling through Asia, my impressions of various Muslim societies were fantastic. Family devoted. Generous and hospitable. Highly moral. Peaceful.

How different this experience was from the general stereotype being pushed around today.

To decry Muslim culture because of the actions of a few is akin to labelling all Catholic priests as child molesters, because of the actions of a a few of them.

In fact, many male clergy admit to feeling embarrassed and suspiciously stereotyped as ‘potential child molesters’ as they go about their community work. This exaggerated public stereotype is grossly unfair to the majority of clergy who are horrified and disgusted at the actions of a small minority of their colleagues.

Grossly unfair. Ditto for the fanatical disparaging attitude being directed at all the good Muslim Australians out there.

Coach - I have a reasonble idea about Islam - I have undertaken a personal inventory and found myself not wanting - I have also undertaken a risk assesment in relation to the dangers associated with extreme Islamism and rank them with the prospects of me, or any one else not living in Iraq - as about the same as being taken by a shark in my lcoal swimming pool

mhar & others of the same ilk: Not hate filled against pagan islamics. Just expressing what we see and hear from around the world concerning these death-loving, misogynistic pagans. Don't you people read, don't you people get on the net, don't you pathetic bleeding hearts watch television? Please read the hate filled koran or even portions [on the net] where ALL moslems are encouraged/commanded to lie to unbelievers when it is in their interests- it's termed "al-taqiyya". Moslems trustworthy - oh! yes?
How can we not sterotype moslems, these people see us as unbelievers deserving death, see Australia as a moslem nation which they must reclaim. This because there have been some Afghans here with their camels since year dot.
Donnie: Should these militant pagans take over then and then only YOU will lose ALL your freedoms of religion. If you are a woman also you will subject to your husband and all male relatives. No work, no driving licences. Please read the nasty koran or portions of it and wake up. numbat

If we want to be pedantic, the Christian Bible is filled with incredible violence, not least this notorious endorsement of slavery: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have; You may buy your male and female slaves from among the nations around you..... You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever." Leviticus 25:44-46

I give as much credence to the Koran as I do to the Bible. Not a lot.

These comparisons should inform us that religion per se inclines its followers towards narrow mindendess - and mindless fanaticism in some cases.

Despite the sordid, violent history of both faiths, this history does not reflect on the majority of their devotees, many (perhaps most?) of whom ignore the literal words of the Bible or Koran and manage to live moral, peaceful lives.

Religion is the wedge.

Take off your blinkers and open up to the world, and eachother.

We are Aussies first, second and third, and affiliates of religious, sporting and the like organisations forth.

Get off the soapbox, and step down with the rest of us.

Debate over, but many of you may not have the strength to survive on your own.

I dare you to prove me wrong, get your religion out of the forefront of your mind, and dont look through religious glasses at everything. Worship in private, preach to those who want it, not who you think may need it.

I feel like a schoolteacher when i watch mud being slung over eachothers fence all the time in regards to religion.

I wish i could cane all of you and put you on detention, and ban religion from your arguments.

Act like a mason, keep your beliefs to yourself, and WE as a nation are better off, as are your kids.

Give it a go, a real 'Aussie' would.

Dear Gecko
Your criticisms would have much more impact if they were based on something more solid than a 2006AD world view being imposed on a -1400ish BC period in history.

I've struggled with the same concepts myself (as a Christian) and the biggest challenge has been to actually place myself into that mindset of the period in question and ask myself some very down to earth questions.

Please bear in mind, that the commands/rules given to Israel of this nature were not at all like those of the 10 commandments, which were (to borrow a Howardism) 'core' commandments for all time.

Given that the treatment of slaves was always subject to laws about well being and fair treatment, I think I get a rougher deal from the Commonwealth Bank than those slaves experienced. To 'buy' a slave was similar to buying their mortgage. Or..they would have been already made captive by the surrounding nations, and so, buying their existing status, and enhancing it with treatment subject to God, may not have been the worst thing that could happen to them. It also included some pathways to freedom, specially for the females.

If you give me your email, or.. write to me, jdrmot@tpg.com.au I will show you exactly the kind of relationship that can exist between real world Christian slave owners and Slaves. Actually you can add 'former' to those, because when the tribe concerned embraced Jesus as Lord, it was unthinkable to keep the slaves they had, and they not only freed them but gave them resources and land as well. I'll send you a couple of photos. Former owners, and former slaves, who regard each other as 'family'.

The Quran authorizes the sexual use of unmarried captive girls Surah 23:5-6 whereas the Old Testament does not. It specifies you may marry them, and if the marraige fails, they are to be freed unconditionally.

Sharia Law does include acceptance of 23:5-6

A sensitive subject, requiring humility and honesty in dealing with it.

Another typically defensive article by Salam Zreika.

To state that it's simply a "handful" of extremists should give even the most sceptical leftist an understanding of just how defensive Muslims become whenever they feel under attack.

A type of collective identity, herd mentality.

I'm truly sick of hearing ethnocentric migrants ask the question "what are Australian values?" as though we don't have a culture or something.

Zreika, the reasons your family decided to come here, as opposed to living in unstable nations where corruption is rife (a recent UN study showed that 1/3 of the entire planets bribery takes place in the Arab world) and minority groups are treated like dirt.

Those values, for those of you who don't know either are, the ability to dissent, that there are no disgusting ethnic problems in the sense that, say, people from QLD don't simply hate people from NSW because they are of a different tribe.

It never ceases to amaze me how much division there is in the Islamic world, they are so ethnocentric they can't get along with outsiders. No wonder there are so many young Muslim men in Australia who think Australians are "skippy trash".

They think collectively, and are ethnocentric to the core. This explains how one can see endless Lebanese flags being waved at a Canterbury Bulldogs rubgy league match, even though the only link to the far-away nation is the heritage of one player!

Our values are those of the European enlightenment, and those of Christianity, insofar that the teachings of Christ (although I'm not religious - I see the logic of Christ's message, the universality of his message, as opposed to, say, Mohammed's) are the truth, i.e, consider everybody equal, women included.

Why Muslims themselves aren't disgusted at some of the verses in the Quran, particularly 4:34 and numerous hadiths - where Mohammed likens women to a curse, and evil, is beyond me.

Zreika, it is ethnocentrism that holds many Muslims back from feeling part of Australia. Australians, like all western Europeans, are incredibly welcoming & tolerant, and have successively incorporated countless cultures into our national body. Only those who are ethnocentric have difficulties.

Those who feel superior to, by, say, practices such as turning people away from rockpools at the beach so that Muslim women in burqa's can swim uncontaminated from the "kaffir".

Muslims have to stop seeing themselves as superior entities, and live as equals with the rest of us.

I'm also sick of the derogatory comments like, "well Muslims are like Australians, although we don't get drunk or have sex before marriage".

Australians see your racism in those comments, you should at least try to hide it. Again though, a woman is not a slut for having sex before marriage.

This is a concept Muslims need to be educated about, but I guess I won't be able to educate you since you wear a veil. By default, any woman who wears a veil is saying that any woman who doesn't has lesser morals.

It is the values of western Europe that allow for you to even be in our great nation, as the western world are the only cultures that are truly tolerant of others. This is because we are secure in our identity. We aren't so fragile that we can't accept criticism. Our culture is self-criticism.

Be happy Zreika, for it is only because of western values that you are allowed to write such an impotent article, betraying your racism, but not be harmed. These are the values of what it is to be Australian.

Oh, and volunteers. Do any of you Muslims volunteer in the wider community? I have NEVER seen one working for the S.E.S, fire brigade, and so on. Community spirit type jobs show you value our nation.

I realise this is slightly off topic, but I find it odd, Boaz_David, that you are able to apply a historical reading to the Bible but refuse to allow modern muslims to do the same with the Quran? Why do you assume that Leviticus should be read as 'of the time' but assume that none of the Quran or Sunnah should be read that way also? An odd dichotomy.

Fellow human, true that drinking grog causes trouble in Oz but at least ,so ,far, we have been spared the decapitations and indiscriminate bombings that have been so rife in the other countries.
I watched "Insight" last night and the subject,once again, was the problem of Muslims versus Australia.
The audience was thick with aggressive, chip on the shoulder Muslims including the author of the above piece. Also there were a couple of intimidated young Aussies, obviously nervous about speaking out. A couple of bemused cartoonists who could not seem to understand why muslims have no sense of humour.
There was one extremely belligerant Palestinian woman who would do well in a straight jacket.
And I asked myself why these people wanted to leave their homelands where everything was run to suit their religion and come here to a country that was totally opposite to their ideas.
All that has happened is that there is a lot of disgruntled, malcontented Muslims and a hell of a lot of totally fed up Australians. It should not be that way because no one is satisfied.

Am I the only person who is getting fed-up with the "holier-than-thou" self-righteousness opinions out there? All the talk about Islam being a war-like violent religion should remember this -
What do two World Wars, the use of nuclear weapons, the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments, the killing 6 million Jews, 8000 Muslim men and boys and the 800,00 killed in Rwanda all have in common?
All done between, on behalf of, or by Christians.

The shape of the world map is the way it is because, while Muslims for the most part, stayed at home reading books, their Christian counterparts were out conquering the world for Jesus.

Another type of hypocrisy involves the blurring of religion and culture when it comes to clothing and the oppression of women. The wearing of hijabs and such is more related to culture than religion. The ex-Prime Minister of Indonesia was a woman and I never once saw her in a hijab. Some oppression! Religion and culture are trying to justify each other by using each other as an excuse. It's the same all over the world and in every culture.

I could just as easily say that Chrsitians were black hats, coats without buttons and ride around in sulkies because that's how the Amish dress and the Amish are Christians.
Better still, extemist Christians wear white hoods and gowns because the KKK are a Christian organisation and justify their actions on Biblical passages.

I'm less afraid of extremists than I am about who it is that's deliberately trying to drive a wedge between law-abiding citizens along religious lines and for what purpose.
I saw similar stuff growing up here as a "wog" in the sixties. My parents saw it in Europe before the War but not as all-pervading and misleading. There is a degree of organisation at work here and not just prejudice and hatred.

People should be aware when somebody is "yanking their chain" - and on both sides.
Whose agenda are we following and why?

Every religion on the planet has had it’s history written in blood, Mr Wobbles. But today, all the non Muslim religions in the world get on OK with each other. But Islam has a problem with every other religion.

The shape of the world today is because of many factors. Europe today would be yet another backward Muslim cesspit holding out the begging bowl, if a French King had not defeated the Muslims in France, and the Iranians had not been such a thorn in the side of the Ottomans when they attacked Austria. The reason why Islam prospered was because of it’s geographical position at the centre of three continents. It sat on all the trading routes between the continents, and it became so prosperous and arrogant because of that, that it demanded that the rest of the world come to them to do business. Muslims would not even allow diplomats to live in non Muslim nations. They were so disinterested in the outside world that the very first book about the USA did not appear in Islamic bookstores until 1860. Once the sea route around the cape was established, Islam’s decay accelerated.

If I immigrated to Greece and walked about with board shorts and rubber thongs, and doing everything I could to display my allegiance to my former kinship group, I would not expect the Greeks to accept me as a Greek. What people wear is important. Would you let your daughter go out with a man wearing a swastika armband?

The Amish keep pretty much to themselves and are not noted for suicide bombings. Nobody has a problem with the Amish because they are productive and law abiding. Them KKK are not noted for beheading journalists or flying airliners into buildings.

I do not know from which country you come from, but I will bet that your own people today are just as angry as Australians are about the increasing waves of immigrants barging into their own lands. I guarantee that your own people have racist names for unwanted foreigners too. Right?

Fide Mae,

Thanks for your patience.
Muslims are not allowed to call for invasion of other nations (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) since the Quran rejects transgression. Muslims can fight other Muslim nations who transgresses (like the first gulf war scenario when all Muslim nations fought Iraq).A Muslim leader as you claim ordering the invasion or aggression on another nation cannot be obeyed and would be immediately discredited for conflicting with the Quran. If God tells us ‘shall not transgress’ it means no mere mortal can break this law.

If Australia is being attacked by another country (Muslim or non-Muslim) I will defend it. Clear and simple and I don’t think any Australian Muslim is confused about that.

Your financial question is about wealth creation from borrowed capital versus re-investing your own savings. As a Muslim I chose the later because its safer and inline with what I practise. As mentioned above, If you claim that Australia is secular and should not have any religious factor in its legal system is an acceptable point of view.

Dawood,

Good posting and agree with your view on both.

Reality Check,

The Quran states there is no compulsion in religion and that faith is a matter of choice.
The death penalty is substantiated only by hadith in Shiite and wahhabi references and is in direct conflict with the Quran and the prophet and caliphates behaviour. Even when I examined early precedents during and post the time of the prophet, the apostate’s wars were waged on those who stopped paying the poor dues (ie today’s equivalent of tax evasion) not because they changed their religion. Except for a couple of countries, apostate penalty is not enforced.

GZ Tan,

“Islam has no room for common sense”

Huh? Now this is comic books material. There are no supernatural miracles in Islam and the Quran is the only scripture I am aware of that every few verses ask people to think and/ or reason.
Islam for us is about common sense.

Wobbles,

A sensible comment thanks. OLO sometimes looks like the KKK and the Christian Taliban school reunion.

-DENMARK; Something rotten in Denmark? How about the 200,000 Muslim immigrants trying to dictate their anti-Israel, anti-America and anti-Western values upon 5 million Danes? Even though they represent only 4% of the population, the Muslims consume upwards of 40 percent of welfare spending. They also account for 65-75% of the country's convicted rapists... with almost all victims non-Muslim Danes! Demographers have predicted that in just 40 years, one out of every three Danes will be Muslim. At this point, we're sure the Danes wish it were their Jewish population which was growing faster than rabbits on a hot tin roof. Jews are almost always model citizens! But the Danish Jews only number 6,000.

-ITALY; 95% of all rapists are Muslims. Eighty-five percent of all murderers are Muslims. Ah, such a wonderful religion of peace! What does the Pope and the rest of the Vatican Church have to say about this? Nothing! And what will the ordinary Italian say when, in ten years, Muslims will be the majority in Italy!!

-HOLLAND; The Muslims now number about 15% of the population. In 20 years' time the majority of Holland's under 18 year old children will be Muslim. In fact, 50 per cent of the newborns during the next twenty years will be Muslim! In Amsterdam, the most popular name for a newborn boy is Mohammed, and a majority of residents will be Muslim within 10 to 15 years. Muslims collect 40% of all welfare.

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16374

-FRANCE; Muslims are already 25% of all French under the age of 21. In twenty years, one out of every five Frenchmen will be a Muslim! And if the French-Muslim birth rate continues as projected, France will have a Muslim majority in less than 25 years! Another telling statistic is that although the Muslims are 10% of France's population, 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France are Muslims! All of France's urban suburbs are being roamed by Muslim black African or Arabic gangs. One-fifth of all births in France are Muslims! Mohammed is one of the most common names next to Pierre! And Paris has the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East! This is a result of a lenient immigration policy, high Muslim birthrate and conversions. A very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that segment of the population that relies not so much on education and work as on welfare and predatory activities. In fact, over one thousand Muslim neighborhoods are under monitoring throughout France. Seven hundred of those Muslim neighborhoods are listed as "violent" and nearly 400 hundred are listed as "very violent." Violence ranges from rape (95% of rapists are Muslim), murder (85% of murderers are Muslim), theft and looting of cars (58% committed by Muslims) and street fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants. Periodic outbursts of large-scale unrest or rioting sometimes occur. And, most distressing, are the high numbers of assaults or rebellions against the police. As does England, one thousand mosques are said to operate in France.

The point is that Muslims, whether it is called religion or not,have to obey their prophet mohammed, and take over the world for allah by lying (which allah approves of) or stealth and war.They say,"allah akabar".
We Christians must obey our God ,Saviour and God who says to "love,forgive,not to harm anyone" ,so they are opposing religions.

One is motivated by love ,the other by fear.

The Old Testament was with wars and power ,today New Testament Bible with Jesus Christ's WAY is by peace and love.
Choose this day which one you will follow.

Coach, you say. "Muslims will not change their ways. They follow a book that is unchangeable."

You may be right and if so what then? Will the current situation remain the same, improve with time or worsen?

Will the Government eventually have to restrict or stop Muslim immigration?

The likelyhood of that happening, in the short term, does not appear high. Even if it did we are still left with the current problem of Muslims not integrating. Do not forget that most Muslims here were born here or have become citizens.

How do we resolve the problem of Muslims not integrating with our society?

In the interests of a cohesive society, we need answers. Any suggestions anybody?

To all muslim to non-muslim negotiators... give up... the war is on. It is human nature

Hey Redneck - opinions are one thing but facts are another. I think it was Spain, not France that was taken from the Visigoths by the Moors. Far from being a "begging bowl" at this time, the capital of Cordoba was recognised as the "jewel in the crown" of Europe and was the most advanced city of it's time. It was in turn conquered by Christians during the "Reconquista".

I concede that the Muslims were very wealthy and aloof but the Western world owes the survival of most of the great books (including the works of the Greek Philosophers) to the Muslims who rescued them during the dark ages and help kick-start the Renaissance. A lot of things we take for granted today came from the Muslim world.

No I wouldn't like my daughter to go out with a man wearing a swastika armband but I wouldn't like her to go out with a man draped in the Australian flag and fresh from a riot in Cronulla either.

It was the Chinese in the late 1800s who "have no allegiance, would not integrate and may be carrying typhoid", the Europeans in the 1950's who "would not integrate and may have Nazis among them", the Asians in the 1970's who "would not integrate, may be carrying TB and have Communists among them". I remember the "ex-wogs" having a go at the Asians and now my son's immigrant Chinese friend is violently anti-arab. Must be something in the water here perhaps?

My parents were refugees from Europe in the 1950's and I grew up as a "wog" during the 60's. They probably brought some of their own prejudices here with them but they certainly didn't pass them onto me. I had to learn my own.

One thing they both agree on is that the mood is very much like pre-war Europe here at the moment. "Ein Folk, Ein Flag, Ein Fuhrer!"

The question should not be how we got into this situation but how do we get out of it.

Hi Laurie

that was a most important question!

I'll try to explain the difference.

The chapter 23 in the Quran is titled 'The Believers'. It is an outline of a number of specific things which are meant to characterize "Muslims" That chapter may be likened to the 10 commandmants in gravity. There is no "historical context" issue for Sura 23, because it is describing how Muslims should be, but not in regard to just one particular situation, no, it's general, and enduring.

Bear in mind, that while some schools of Islamic law would allow some mild 'tweaking' or contextualization, there is another feature of Islamic law which is held to be binding, and that is 'consensus among the Muslims' This is a very important factor. If there is no disagreement among the various schools, the issue is regarded as 'decided'

I'm not aware of any school of Islamic law which suggests Sura 23 should be interpreted in any other way than 'literally and forever'
but perhaps Dawood and Fellow Human can assist here if they know of such a school.

I don't have a problem interpreting the 'Fight them' passages contextually because I've read the background. But even they set precedents "You may fight those who have driven Muslims from their houses" is the principle here. It is an enduring one.

The Old Testament is a complilation of many documents, and one needs to take each background into consideration when interpreting their content. For example "Numbers" is about the listing of the Israelite families. More of a census document.
Exodus is historical, referring to real events, but not all of it is 'teaching/commmands' We have to use normal logical reasonable principles to determine that which is enduring and not. Example is how God establishes the Covenant, and re-affirms it, as the central focus of His self revelation to the world. The Covenant is characterized by the 10 commandments.

It's advisable to have a good relaxing read of Genesis from Chapter 11 up to the end, then Exodus all through, keeping this theme in mind.

Hope this helps.
Cheers
BD :)

These are the current basic Australian requirements for citizenship for migrants.
'You are eligible if you can answer yes to all of the following questions:
- Are you a permanent resident?
- Have you been present in Australia as a permanent resident for two years in the previous five years, including for twelve months in the past two years?
- Are you of good character?
- Do you have a basic knowledge of English? (This requirement won't apply if you are aged 50 or over)
- Do you have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of being an Australian citizen? (This requirement won't apply if you are aged 60 or over)
- Do you intend to live in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia?'
(ref: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/how.htm)

So, Australia requires that a person lives here for 2 years before they can become a citizen.
Switzerland, for example, requires a person to live for 12 years in that country before being eligible for citizenship.
Norway requires 7 years.
Another example is Japan, where only 11,000 migrants are accepted as citizens each year, under very strict conditions.

Australia accepts 70,000 migrants per year as new citizens.
There are currently 900,000 foreign nationals living in Australia with 'permanent resident' status who are still eligible for citizenship.
(ref: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/why.htm)

The requirement for Australian citizenship of 'a basic knowledge of English' MUST be raised to a higher level. A basic knowledge of English should NOT be sufficient for Australian citizenship. I would NEVER expect to be allowed to become a citizen of another country without first learning the national language of that country. Should I be allowed to become a citizen of France with only a basic knowledge of French? Or a citizen of Greece with only a basic knowledge of Greek? Indeed, Greece requires a good knowledge of Greek.
I would like to repeat the point I made before:
'Making sure all Australians are fluent in the national language - English - is a major key to solving this debate and improving social cohesion in Australia.'

For Salam,

Firstly how about simply being Australian and cease complaining about why you think you are not included. You and all immigrants are Australian once you have become a citizen. The problems of prejudice and racism are part of all cultures and Australia is no exclusion. To me there will be little change until all Australians accept Aboriginals which we have failed to do in over two hundred years. Their acceptance and integration is first priority to me and should be to you and everyone else.

Pointing at alcohol as the only real difference (plus pork etc) is quite silly really. I understand that Islam requires devotees to not drink alcohol.

That doesn't happen for starters. Many Muslims do drink alcohol and still claim to be Muslim. What is your attitude to them? Are they still Muslim or excluded?

In your last point you stated "We are not all oppressed by our fathers and brothers.".

Of course not but the fact you have qualified it by stating "not all" indicates what is well known. Many women are indeed oppressed, less so in Australia and other Western countries than the nation of the family's origion. It happens in Christian families too. In other words religion does not stand up to the written word in all cases. Some people do follow the commands exactly but there are so many versions of what is supposedly "law" that it really just makes a mockery of the religions as a whole.

I am encouraged by the numbers here that have written off religion for what it is, a fraud. Continue spreading the non Word guys.

As to quoting the Bible as an authority on anything! Such people claim the Bible is the word of God, so do other religions. Which one is the "real thing"? Anybody? Anybody?

Above all it is fact that a God did not write the Christian Bible. Men did, and changed it regularly over the centuries to suit the political climate at the time. Flexible religion? Adapting to change? How can that be if the word is written? Credibility, NOT.

Laurie & Boaz: I agree with you Laurie... Most chapters are split up in to various sections. The claim that a whole chapter is universal in import does not always hold to be true (apart from say, some of the smaller chapters towards the end, which are 3 lines or so). The beginning of Ch 23, for example, until verse 10 outlines the general characteristics of 'the believers', which most would agree to be pretty "universal". It then goes on to talk about other events mentioning biblical prophets and other things. These are also continued elsewhere and at different times, so a narrative has to be created. Some of the Qur'an, however, addresses a specific situation that happened to the fledgling Muslim community, and other information needs to be consulted to understand it's context and scope.

Part of the Islamic interprative tradition includes understanding if a verse has a general or specific condition, and a legal or non-legal import (some are merely moral, for example). But it's this section that both Muslim extremists, and other extremists, attempt to ignore or change from the classical discourse, and make Islam out to be a MacDonalds type of fast-food religion. In reality it is not; it's something that is constantly developing from the sources based on new situations. Although it seems that plenty wish "we" would go back to riding camels in the desert and so on.

pegasus: I think the author is complaining more about the innane steeotypes that continue to exist about Muslims, and Muslim women in particular (of which she obviously is one, so experiences them).

If you read the latter part of the article, the author clearly states that "There is a wide variety of Muslims, from those who do their five prayers and fast for Ramadan, to those who have not seen the inside of a mosque for years; those who drink and party with girls, to those who simply follow what they feel is best. There is a place for everyone here and that is the beauty of living in Australia."

Dogmatically, people who do such things as drink are classed as sinners and so on but are still Muslim, no questions asked as veryone makes mistakes and has problems to overcome. Some of the earliest schools of islamic law allowed such things as cider and malt to be drunk because the original arabic term used refers to that which is derived from grapes. Now that's literalism!

Textual sources do not mean inflexibility necessarily. The scriptural sources give pointers to principles, as explained in a specific historical context. These principles (and some rulings, such as worship, which do not change) are applied to the new situations Muslims find themselves in. The problem comes when literalism takes over and a piecemeal approach to understanding the scope of Islam is used, avoiding the methodologies that classical juris-consults have used throughout history. This is a huge problem facing the Muslim community today.

Programme on ABC ,I think it was Foreign Correspondent, and a gentle old Imam being interviewed was asked what would happen to a muslim who changed his religion.
"Why", said the gentle old man,"he would have to die."
Enough said.

Leigh, are you the same Leigh from the conservative blog house of wheels?

Banjo, do I know you from a certain radio show?

I could write about all those racists, who find enjoyment bashing Muslims, this discussion has brought them all together. many belong to same God Club that spreads the hatred of Muslims, are we not supposed be discribing 'what it means to be an Australian. it is difficult to put a Australian lable on any one, other than the original Australian aboriginals, most of us believe we are Australian. how many with duel citizenship say they are Australian, There is one group of people who have duel citizenship they use the Aussie Passport to be able to vote, but when push comes to shove, Australia is their second choice homeland. they are not Muslims I could say much about this group, they are the front runners spreading all the hate,
Many members of my Family have won Gold for Australia, so you could say we are true Aussies, we have a problem with the Aussie[British Flag] there are over five hundred different flags with the Union Jack taking pride of place on those flags , they are all British Colonial Flags, we will become Aussies when our Flag becomes a true blue Aussie Flag, wanabee Aussies need a new Flag for the future, the past is over,
The past is over, but not for many writers to this page they slide back 3000 yrs to dig up false information to support their racist propaganda, sorry mates you are not a Aussie so stop pretending, and stop bashing Muslims,

Mangotreeone1 - I object strongly to your implying that those with dual Australian/British citizenship are those that are spreading hatred. I hold both passports - it is quite convenient and like all migrants I still love my 'homeland' but if I had to give up one it would be the British one as after 13 years I consider myself Australian first and foremost. I love this country and coming here was the best thing I ever did for myself and my family. The majority of British born Australians are good citizens of this country. I have friends from a variety of nationalites and some are Muslim. I have supported moderate Muslims on these forums and do not appreciate being associated with the anti-Islamists that frequent OLO. I do support their right to express their opinion though - it is quite informative. From your last post you are no better than they are. And you have the audacity to complain about racism!

Fellow Human

'Muslims are not allowed to call for invasion of other nations (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) since the Quran rejects transgression.'

I let this go thinking people would challenge the lie.

In a word...Israel

Now is every Arab leader or cleric who has called for the destruction of Israel and the Jews not a Muslin?

I'd love to see your rationalisation for this lie.

Yep...I don't expect you to answer. As with so many of your and others 'moderations' of Islam facts just don't stack up against the rhetoric. Your statement makes you appear a blatant liar.

Hey Wobbles. Spain was primarily Celtic before the Muslims cleaned them out. The Muslims then crossed the Pyrenees and invaded France where they were defeated at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer.)

I have heard all about how Muslims “saved” the books on antiquity but I have always taken that with a grain of salt. The Muslims destroyed the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople. The Byzantines hardly needed the Muslim’s help top preserve their own culture. If the Muslims preserved a bit of what they destroyed, I don’t feel we should thank them for that.

Thank you for confirming that what people wear is an important factor in how other people view their behaviour. It makes me wonder why you denied it in the first place.

You opinions on racist behaviour are valid. Everybody is racist to one degree or another. I asked you if your own parent’s homeland had racist tags for people that they did not like and not surprisingly, you dodged the question. Too embarrassed to admit that I was right, eh? Human beings are all tribal and territorial. They do not like people from a different kinship group trespassing on what they consider their people’s property. That is a cultural universal and everybody thinks that way. So please stop the feigned moral posturing where you pretend that you or your people are different to everybody else.

The mood “here” is happening all over the western world. It does not matter if you are an Italian, a Serb or a Dane. People are getting fed up of the immigration of unassimilatable ethnic groups who consider their adopted country as little more than a flag of convenience who’s culture and laws they can ignore.

Irfan,
No, Have never been involved with any radio show or had anything to do with the Media industry. I occasionly write letters to papers on various issues.

I was most interested in what you had to say about some Muslims in Indonesia and somebody mentioned here on OLO about Muslims in an another Aisian country. I do not recall exactly what you or this other person said, but it gave me some hope that things might change.

While I have you. Do you know anyone who has migrated here recently?
I would like to know what information they were given about our society and our laws before they decided to come here. DIMIA will not tell me because of some legalities preventing their staff from giving out this information. English is my only language.

Lets not make a fuss now...
it would be great to be a muslim country...If theres a wedding, you fire your gun into the air. Same as when theres a funeral, an election, a footy match, pretty much any event or just for the vibe.
I guess some are just testing the weapons in readiness for one of the afforementioned happenings.
Of course, to make ommelette, one must break eggs. So sorry girls- hand in your licences and for goodness sake, cover those faces. the skin cancer rate might go down as crime goes up.
Its a very up front way of life, if your not happy about something then blow it up.
The actual beliefs probably arent that bad but like christianity and every other religion, open to misinterpretation and abuse. Its obviously a thinking mans religion as all those people died s a result of some cartoons, and really showed the world how its done.
Umm..What do these evidently superior peoples really see in this sunburnt dump full of beer drinking infidels and bikini clad temptresses?

I am with pride a member of and activist for the Australian Labor Party.
I want not to see Howard leave under his own steam but to see him beaten in an election.
Yet I agree totally with his words on this subject and very little of what this threads author says.
Do not be suprised John Howard , no friend of mine reads Australian public opinion better than my side of politics does.
We bog down in political corect views never to be shared by the new conservative voters we made.
We are a multi culture country, some however defend even those who while a minority, would distroy even them.
And far too many from minoritys refuse to see we have a right to think as we wish in Australia.

Keith,

Israel is predominently a political issue and not an islamic issue. Simple proof to that is that Jews lived amongst Muslims from Morrocco to Iraq for the last 14 centuries pre-Israel 1948. If there was any truth to your c laim "fighting jews is Islamic", there wouldn't be any Jews left by now or would there?

The 1948 UN decision partitioned a state called Palestine (not Israel) to two territories one for the jews escaping the nazis and one for the Arabs. Even though we believe it was a mistake not to accept the partition decision, there is a country called Palestine somewhere and its under occupation. The sooner there are two countries the better for everyone and I think Sharon acted cleverly with Gazza.

Peace,

Thankyou for your article Salam. I appreciate you effort to approach a topic contructively, despite the wealth of ignorance and bigotry that you no doubt expected in response (and which the majority of posters on this thread have unsurprisingly carried-out).

Fellow H and wobbles - I agree immeasurably. A person such as Salam is as Australian as anyone out there. I see no distinction. In fact, her positive attitude, love for country and universal tolerence would make her, in my opinion, exponentially more Australian than the majority of people on this board.

It's high time people stopped pointing fingers and theorising about how 'Muslims are taking over' and approach issues with an open mind. There is no difference between an Palestinian suicide bomber and an Israeli Army general firing missles at refugee camps. There is no difference between Christian intolerence and Muslim intolerence. As Salam correctly point out, beliefs come in degrees. There are extremists of every belief out there. But this does not mean that the base belief system from which they stemmed holds the same extreme views. I would have thought that was base logic...

jkenno,

You are Wrong,

"But this does not mean that the base belief system from which they stemmed holds the same extreme views. I would have thought that was base logic... "

If you mean "Islam" does not hold the same extreme views than say The Taliban - you are completely in the dark or have been living on a different planet than the rest of us.

____________

Fellow_Human,

“Israel is predominently a political issue and not an islamic issue.”

Camel Dust! Who are you kidding bro?

But funny nevertheless… Thanks for the laughter.

>>“If there was any truth to your c laim "fighting jews is Islamic", there wouldn't be any Jews left by now or would there?”<<

The ONLY reason that the Jews in Israel are well and truly alive is because GOD promised that it will be so until the end of time.

To the Jews, Islam is the new (aggressive) kid in town. Three million Israelis surrounded by 100 time their numbers.

Watch out God is on their side as He has always been.

"Even though WE believe it was a mistake not to accept the partition decision….”

Who is “we”? Was that a Freudian slip on your part?

Which Hat are you wearing today

Coachie, you say I am wrong, but like a lot of folks on this thread, fail to provide anything to substantiate your point. I assume you apply the same logic equally to Christianity, or does it only apply to those with a darker shade of skin?

In fact, pretty much all of your post is point-less. To say Jews have a mandate in Israel because ‘god promised so’ is both rationally misguided and plain stupid. Wake up mate. Israel IS a political issue because it is primarily about land. It would be in the same spot right now irrespective of religion. Sure, go ahead and try and turn it into something different so you can take a shot at those ‘crazy Muslims’, but anyone looking at the issue with both eyes open can clearly identify culpability on both sides, if not more-so in the one with infinite resources and American backing

Pegasus you don't know what you are on about.God wrote the Bible gave the first 5 books to Moses & holy men wrote it after that, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

I hate religion ,so did Jesus I am a Christian ,not "religious",it's an insult . He rebuked the show off religious priests for praying in the open and saying much ,also for wanting recognition of their religiosity and outer appearances.

People say that we all worship the one God.
No way,Jesus ,Son of God came down from Heaven to clean us up ,Read Genesis ch 1-2. The Bible was the first book on Earth.

Jesus divine ,was single,sinless,wore a robe ,taught in the Temple at aged 12 to their amazement,died and rose again ,walked ,ate and walked thru walls,was around for 50 days after crucified ,,and was seen by 500 people rise into Heaven with 2 angels alongside Him,He also said He was coming back and that Israel and Jews would be attacked and persecuted by all.

Wake up,it is happening,Iran and Muslims want Israel and Jews wiped off the map. Why ?.Because they are The Apple of God's Eye.

Mohammed ,on the other hand was an ordinary man,was deluded,had fits,was married ,divorced ,married an 8 years old girl,called for wars and revenge ,hate,taught sex in Heaven for martyrs who blow people up,never mentioned love and tolerance ,he died was buried and is dead.
While Jesus lives and is appearing in Mosques,dreams ,and visions to Muslims all over the world telling them He is the Way .
Mohammed cannot, he is in Hell. Jesus told them there is no sex in Heaven and no marriage He said they will be as angels.

Jesus said ,"I came to give you life and give it more abundantly, but the devil came to steal ,kill and destroy" John 10v 9-10.(Islam)
He aslo said to ,"bless those who persecute you,and to love one another and to turn the other cheek".
What I am getting at is that we cannot accept this religion takeover plan in Australia.

Interesting 8 pages from <frontPageMag.com> written by Gudrun Eussner PhD specialising 'among other topics' in Iranian philology and has lived in many moslem countries.
Quote: "The moslems are not living any longer in a hostile surrounding, they are almost dar ul-islam. Professor Nezvat Yalcintas, member of the Istanbul parliament made an interesting statement. During the inauguration of the Murabitun mosque in Granada, Spain in July 2003, he told an audience that 'Paris, Rome, Madrid were now components of the islamic world due to the erection of new mosques'.
But as moslems are still obliged to wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit, the jihad is continuing in Dar ash-shahada, and people not behaving according to the qur'anic [sharia?] laws have to be punished. The trick of introducing these new definitions has had a severe impact on moslems' consciousness, especially on young moslem men. People not behaving according to qur'anic laws are to be punished stronger now.. The moslems are not any more restricted by the laws of Dar ul-harb, that has evaporated without notice, merely by changing the definition. The inhabitants of our countries are to obey to moslem male supremacy and qur'anic laws. What better a justification for conduct towards women?
The jihad against infidels is conducted on each and every level, not only as terror and suicide bombing. The jihad against women who by their behaviour in the public sphere are 'asking for rape' as the Danish mufti Shahid Mehdi, a qur'an teacher of young moslems in Copenhagen" end of quote.
But according to our resident pagans it's different in Oz. Moslems here are nice pagans, friendly pagans well they would be as they are not in the majority yet eh? The nice comforting words we hear from them, both male and female, are they 'al-taqiyya' that's lies to placate the stupid infidels? numbat

Just in reference to Numbats constant reference to Muslims as pagans:- most definition of a pagan make reference to those followers of polytheism - and most exclude quite explicitly Christianity, Judaism and Islamism - they are considered the three main religions of the world for better or worse.

The only conclusion I can draw is Numbat is either innocently mistaken or uses the term as an insult - but then insulting Islam is a sport on these pages.

And as for those who subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Muslims are shagging (within the sanctified union of marriage - lights off of course) their way to world domination, their poplation growth trend has slowed of late - although there was a spike post 9/11 in anticipation I guess of reprisals.

In Australia estimates put the muslimpopulatin at between 250-300 thousand, less than 2% of our population, most of these are home grown and the second biggest contributors are our frends from the Lebanon and Turkey, then it's Bosnia, and a few also rans.

So lets take a deep breath and put the potential threat Islamism has to us into perspective both in terms of being "run over" or blown up.

Lets be frank, football season is upon, the tests agaisnt RSA are about to start so there are better things to occupy our minds other than these flights of fancy about Islam.

sneekepete,

From your earlier post above:

"I have also undertaken a risk assesment in relation to the dangers associated with extreme Islamism and rank them with the prospects of me, or any one else not living in Iraq - as about the same as being taken by a shark in my lcoal swimming pool"

Well it depends which local pool and what day of the week.

______________

Today,

Same idiotic rubbish. Are you related to Scout by any chance?

I give you one point for consistency though.

Islam’s claim to monotheism does not exclude it from being an idolatrous religious movement.

Islam is riddled with Paganistic rituals – here’s a few:

Fasting.
Hajj (pilgrimage)
Stone worship (Ka’aba).
Circling and throwing stones at brick walls.
The Ka’aba itself was an idol base full of gods and statues for travellers well before mohammad appeared on the scene.

Allah is the god that Mohammad acquired to substantiate his hallucinatory claims to prophethood.

He then went all the way and equated Allah with the real God; promoting himself to a real prophet in the Judaic line (equal to Moses).

Two problems though:

1. Mohammad was not a Jew.

2. Jesus (700 years earlier) claimed to be FULL revelation and the Son of God; and the Fulfillment of all the prophets and the law.

Solution:

1. Make up a link toooo…Abraham. Yeah.

2. Declare Jesus’ death and resurrection as fraud… and demote him to mere prophet… stick a verse or two it in the “book” ….Voila! We have ourselves a new religion.

I would strongly suggest you continue to research and learn to differentiate…for Australia’s sake.

coach, you've finally proven the wrongness of Islam compared to your faith. Just a quick search of the holy book showed their dedication to the pagan ritual of fasting

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

Matthew 6:16 When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting.

Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
(That guy must have been really bad to fast for 40 days and nights)

Clearly this is a pagan religion given to fasting. There are other references but you get the point.

Some reports suggest that they nicked the Christmas celebration from an earlier religion as well.

Wait a second, that stuff is from the Bible and Christianity not the Quran and Islam. Anyway we all know that fasting and nicking religious observances from other religions clearly shows a false idol worshiping religion don't we? Thanks for helping us understand the evil ways of faiths which include fasting so much more clearly.

FH I'm having a joke with coaches list - just in case it is not obvious. This list is almost as good as the list on how to spot a mossie based on their liking for hotted up cars or 8 seater vans, picnics and other types of family gatherings etc.

R0bert

sneekeepete: There is one God that is the Creator God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This God through man wrote the Bible in this book, that many deride, are enough prophecies that have come to fruition for me to see that it is true [though there are many things I do not understand - yet!]. Now AFTER many prophecies especially those concerning Christ Jesus had come to pass. Then up jumps a clown from arabia - big mo - who claims that he has from a spirit being [there's only two types of spirit beings and one is God] a new book. This book corrects all the "falsehoods?" of the Old/New testaments. But most of the Biblical prophecies had already come to pass.
This same bloke described a paradise in where a male, especially if he has murdered innocent men, women and children,will have for himself some say 40 others 70 perpetual female virgins as well as 32 'pearls' or little perpetually untouched boys with bottoms like peaches or an X rated paradise fit for a ignorant tribal arab.
As I see it those who follow the Creator God are Christian ALL the others be they moslem. sikh, buddhists, confusionists etc, are follows of a false god or gods. These can be termed as pagans or heathens. No real insult intended it is just what they are - pagans.
Christianity has its faults and bad people but look around this globe and see where 99.99% of all inventions originated.Look around this globe and see where 98/99% of manufacturing is. Look around this globe and see where a 100% of charities that cater to everyone,even pagans,in the world are.Look around and see where the arts are - music, dance, paintings etc are. Then look again and see which countries are dictatorships, which countries are endemically corrupt, which countries kill and rape. Which countries are sordid messes. Then have a look at the top hospitals, universities etc - yes all in western Christian or nominally Christian nations.
As I have said before "by their fruits you shall know them" numbat

Pagan, an insult to Islam? Oh, uh I thought that was supposed to be a compliment. Yay pagans! They rule. Some of the best religions on the planet. Not given to all this our god is the only god and you stink kind of hatred.

Prophecies-pfft written after the fact, numbat-easy to do. You just like crying "EEvvill...Eevvill"-oh, hang on that's Abe Simpson...relative of yours?.

You should drop all the hatred-not good for you, proven to give high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, stroke, cancer and indigestion, insomnia-not to mention the bowel problems. Then again, excessive fear and the feeling that others are evil is also a symptom of a wide range of mental illnesses too.

there is something really funny about numbat misspeling confucianists as confusianists.

the last few posts by the bat and coach display an amazing level of "confusionism" about history, language and even their own religion.

most of the athiests on this form are less ignorant about the historical and theological basis of christianity than coach.

anyhoo.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

seems numbat falls into the category of: "Pagan" as a general purpose "snarl" word to refer to cultures or religions that are very different from the speaker's.

e.g.

"Jerry Falwell appeared as a guest on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" program on 2001-SEP-13. He said that God became sufficiently angry at America that he engineered the terrorist attack on New York City and Washington-- presumably to send Americans a message. He said: "I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ...all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " Pat Robertson responded: "Well, I totally concur..."

hey wow, does that mean that they believe the god was guiding the al qaieda terrorists? so when the terrorsits say they were doing god's will they were telling the truth? perhaps they shoulda thought this one through first (probably beyond them).

Alberto was a Jesuit undercover priest renounced Catholicism in front of 30,000 in Guatemala,Read Alberto comic he was real as the Catholic church said he was a fictious person. I met him is Australia and said ,"hello fictious person". He was Spanish with a stronga ccnet and looked exactly as shown in pics of hid .May God rest his soul.He knew about mohammed and a plan to take the world over read "The Prophet".

http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0117/theprophetindex.asp

The Story of a Jesuit Priest

Alberto The Godfathers
The Prophet
Part VI of Alberto Rivera's testimony. Learn how the papacy helped start Islam, only to have this new daughter rebel against her. You'll understand the Arab's place in Bible prophecy.

Because "The Prophet" is a full-size, full-color comic book, it is impossible to make the files small for quick reading.

However, we offer two methods of viewing the "The Prophet" comic:

Read the entire comic on one page.
Estimated time to download entire book:
- 28K modem - 30 minutes
- 56K modem - 15 minutes
- 128K modem - 8 minutes

Read four pages at a time. If your computer has problems downloading or displaying the entire comic on one page, this is your best solution.

Also read Alberto

After you have read Alberto's story, read Frequently Asked Questions about his message.

Please forgive me but what has Christ got to do with Muslim terrorism?
In what way is He involved in failure of some to execpt Australia as it is?
It could be a few posters who follow Christ are them selves a threat to Australias way of life.
However if nothing else the thread highlights the vaste difference between some of us and the simple fact the gap will widen for some time.
My view that men made all Gods remains unchalanged here, shame is some of us made him to serve only part of humanity.
And others made him to force humanity to love him.
Most however wish to harm no person in Gods name true followers of any God would be like that.
Muslims are not served by constant denials of the crimes of some in their name.

Hi Robert,

Got it this time!

Coach,

My comment to Keith explains why there can't be a conflict between Judaism and Islam on the religion/ religious practice. The Quran confirms that the only commandments ever given are to Moses and the Mosaic laws prevails until the end of time.

Your theology is at best shallow at least on Islamic theology. Here is a little example from your own writing:

“and demote him to mere prophet”
Its the other way around. Jesus never claimed to be anything higher than a prophet and a ‘metaphoric’ sentences of relationship to God. When asked about judgement day, he said ‘only the father knows it’ clearly identifying himself as a different entity than God. The same goes for talking to God on eth cross saying ‘Elahi (Aramaic for Allah) lema shabaktani. He wasn’t talking to himself or was he?

You promoted Jesus (pbuh) to God status and thats your choice. The promotion is based on philosophy and not theology since we all (ie Islam, Judaism and Christianity) agree there is only the Mosaic law & commandments.

We don't judge you for our difference on above matter we are all free to worship whciever way we like. Our position is it’s safer to stick with God is One rather than toying with what you don’t understand.

“Voila! We have ourselves a new religion”
Wrong again, Islam never claimed to be a new religion but every few verses the Quran claim to be a confirmation of the Torah and Bible.

The right statement should be “Voila! We are back in line with God commandments as all previous prophets taught: Monotheism”

The theological difference between Islam and Christianity can be summarised as follows:

- The 72 hours between Good Friday and Easter Monday: Muslims stop at Good Friday with his disappearance, no philosophy or buts and ifs.
- The philosophy of crucifix / resurrection: whether it happened or not is not a faith matter to Muslims. Gospel of Barnabos (one of banned Bible) has a logical explanation that is inline with Islamic theology.

Fellow_Human,

“Jesus never claimed to be anything higher than a prophet and a ‘metaphoric’ sentences of relationship to God.” “…The promotion is based on philosophy and not theology…”

WRONG!

Some questions you should be asking yourself are:

1. What proof does islam have that Mohammad received any revelation?
2. Why did he change the Kiblah from Yathreb (Madinah) to Kaa’ba?
3. How can Mohammad offer or promise paradise when he himself was never sure to go there?
4. Why is Jesus revered above Mohammad in the Qur’an?
5. What miracle or prophesy did Mohammed make?

Was Jesus God?

Absolutely.

Colossians 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Jesus says it about Himself.
The apostles say it.
It is said by the Jews and the Romans who killed Christ.
It is said in words.
It is said in actions (worship and praying to him).
It is said in miracles.

Scriptural Proof that Jesus is God:

John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him,…making Himself equal with God."

The prophet Isaiah (Isa. 7:14); declared that “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son… “Immanuel,” which signifies “God is with us”.

Jesus said: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

John 1:3 - "Through him (Jesus) all things were made; …"

John 1:1 - "…and the Word was God."

John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,…”

"God said to Moses, (Exodus 3:14) 'I AM WHO I AM'; …”

"Jesus said to them, (John 8:58) 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.'" (The Jews understood the significance of this statement, they wanted to stone him for blasphemy)

Revelation 22:13 "I (Jesus) am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

John 20:28 - "Thomas said to Him, "My Lord and my God!

Coach,

You missed my point again. We can argue forever.
My truth is mine and your is yours. at the end everyone believes whatever make sense to him/her.

I accept you as your are and I don't judge you even if your faith does not make sense to me..The question is: can you reciprocate?

Peace my friend,

I note again another interjection by Irfan, with no other purpose than to insult a post that attacked his ideas.

Again, again, and again we see this in Muslims. Salam Zreika's last piece on OLO had an excellent comment that 100% betrayed her racism towards Australian culture, something like "The only area where Muslims aren't Australian is that we don't get drunk or have sex before marriage".

Any language expert, and those with commonsense, can tell you that such a statement, where the person pours out some acidic remark, reveals much about the character of that person.

It's always the same with Muslims, from community leaders to those on the street. It's under the surface, but it's unmistakeable racism. Probably comes back to how they FEEL they are always under attack.

Anybody who saw that Insight forum will know what I mean. Not one Muslim there admitted their community has problems, and one notices that whenever the conversation steers that way, the Muslim replies "But we are all Australian". They shift the responsibility for their cultural conditioning that leads to the violence we see all over western Sydney, all over Islamic diasporas in the western world for that matter.

As for bizarre comments like no sex before marriage, it annoys me that many Muslims think 100% wrong in these regards.

It's Muslim youth that are known for sleaze, who ask young Anglo females for sex at shopping malls, beaches, and so on.

It's Muslim youth who are xenophobic and hang out only with their own kind - and that ridiculous excuse of "they were picked on at school" is a classic.

While I agree that for those who came here after WWII, they were picked on, as they were the minority. My dad copped it heaps too, the British were hated bad, although, like he says, there were no knives, or twenty bashing one as there is these days

Different cultures, different values I guess.

But my generation, which went to school with the Vietnamese & Lebanese, it was white Anglo's who were the minority at schools, as they came here on mass. Of thirty in the class, two would be Anglo, about five Yugoslav, mabye another two or three from somewhere else in Europe, and the rest Vietnamese & Lebanese.

It annoys me when I hear about how people say they were picked on, everybody out west knows it's the other way 'round.

Racism these days is almost entirely suffered by Anglo's, indeed I recently took part in a HREOC initiative regarding racism. I believe I'm the first white to be included, and while my story was about twenty Lebanese bashing "skips" because they were "skips", and how police reports show how often the cops came up to our school, all the other stories were one off things like "I was called a wog".

Well, mate, if that is the worst you copped, you're in heaven. Going to a public school (I changed to a private boys school in year nine) as a minority white Anglo was a nightmare, with scores of Aussies being stabbed, beaten, threatened with pack rape. Even the principle had a gun held to his head by a Lebanese student, although THAT wasn't in Don Weatherburn's recent report into school violence!

It's a joke how much they hide it all, it really is.

Anyone interested in reading my story on racism, go to the HREOC website, the Voices project. You will have to download the 6MB file, mine is on page 47. It's well worth it, and I encourage all whites to come forward with their stories of racism to HREOC. It's the only way things will get done.

Although whites have had it ingrained in them from day one that we can't suffer racism, we need to get beyond that nonsense. It is us who cop it the most!

FH,

How can a religion that claims to confirm the previous religions be different?

Islam claims to be the completion of all religions - So how can a god that reveilled himself "personally" to his creation - becomes "unknowable again in isalm?

How can God give assurance of salvation then retracts from that and make "paradise" such unsure place to reach?

Jesus assured us salvation - why couldn't Mohammad do at least the same?

Why did mohammad revert to the jewish law when Jesus was the full completion of the law?

Why is it that the bible talks about the death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the Qur'an says it never happened?

How can the place called heaven is where we will see God face to face and your paradise is such an eathly brothel for men only?

It you say Allah (God ) is unknowable, how could he have breathed his spirit into Adam?

How can Mohammad represent Allah if he could never "know" him? Was he just a parrot for an unknown god?

Is it possible therefore that he was representing another spirit and not Allah?

Oh NO you must engage in these questions as our audience is waitnig for your answers. Take your time consult all your references but don't take the easy way out.

Islam is a fraud unless you can answer (ALL) my questions.

coach, interesting that you demand that others answer your questions when you don't make any kind of serious attempt to answer questions that you are uncomfortable with.

I've asked you a number of times to present the case for your belief that you should intefer in other peoples domestic arrangements when you claim that your god has left the issue until judgment day. So far no answer that addresses the question at all, just some rambling about free choice regarding accepting Jesus.

I'd really like to know if you have any rational for thinking you should/may intefer in other peoples lives or if it's just something you like to do.

I suggest that you take the consenting adults involved in polygamy (with no direct harm to others not in that "marriage") as an example, rather than looking for some case where there is clear harm to others or something which your god has clearly outlawed - less muddy.

I suspect thats its just a belief that you should be able to tell others how to live while without a clear rational.

R0bert

RObert and other pagan moslems and bleeding hearts: Please open your eyes and SEE - it's not difficult even for types like you! The nations that live in squalor, ruled by cruel corrupt dictatorships, nations that do bugger-all for other nations in times of crisis - except toss a few dollars to pagan moslems only. Nations which have NO! 'Care, Red Cross, Christian Blind Mission International, save-the-children' etc. etc. {who assist people of ALL religions,pagans and Christian}. Nations which have no or poorly rated universities,{None in the top 100 universities of the world}no decent teaching hospitals no music, no art, almost no sport, definately no female sports.Nations who execute "criminals?" in public. Nations who rape virgin female "criminals?" {some as young as seventeen} so they will not go to paradise {how bloody tribal,unthinkingly brutal as well as totally stupid and completely uncivilised and pagan}Yes that's right all followers of the "peaceful", loving pagan isalm-YES!all brutal pagan moslem nations.
Whereas on the other hand even nominal Christian nations help people, nations in distress. Even so-called nominal Christian nations have excellent universities, teaching hospitals,art and music as well as dance and sport.Even nominal Christian nations, in the main, are democratic and free. In these free nations the citizens religion is their business that is they are not executed or levied a special tax if they change. AGAIN - BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM! What are the fruits of pagan moslem nations? please look and tell us unless you are too stupid to see their fruits that is? numbat

It's good to see that certain types of Muslim are not the only ones who can rant and froth at the mouth when they feel no one is listening to them.

Interesting, you now move on to SE Asians because no one is listening to your rantings about Arabs and North Africans? Specifically bringing up a practise which is widely condemned even within that country, as well as outside it.

http://www.karamah.org/articles_quraishi.htm is an interesting article, for example.

I am interested in seeing the various responses to R0bert's question too.

“However, our Prime Minister goes as far as to use the word “assimilate” - a term I thought dropped off the map when we declared this a multicultural society.”
Multi-culti didn’t work, so assimilation is back on the map.

“When terms like “jihad” are thrown into a casual interview with a journalist by a person who probably knows as much about jihad as I know about being a Prime Minister, it makes you wonder why Islamic leaders aren’t approached for advice. Although a lot of them probably don’t speak much English, surely a translator is available…”
There is nothing “casual” about jihad. It is genuine concern to infidels world-wide.
Islamic leaders have not proved trustworthy.
Why don’t they speak English? What entitles them to be provided with interpreters?

“I am disappointed only because he is not doing a better of job of breaking down the stereotypes.”
It is the Muslims who are responsible for breaking down stereotypes, not the PM or any else.

“…the obligatory responses come out mentioning how Islam treats women, and that jihad does not mean a holy war to crush the infidel and so on.”
Obligatory? Apparently. Over-used? Very. Believable? Not.

“…regardless of what the Islamic tradition actually says…”
We’d rather heed what the Islamic tradition actually says. It’s called self-preservation.

“…usually via detention centres…”
That’s what happens when you enter a country illegally and usually without ID.

“…talk about jihad as though the ultimate aim is global domination...”
It is. We can read too.

“No doubt about it Mr Howard, some women are oppressed by the extremists you talk about, in many parts of the world…”
Not just “by the extremists”, but by those who adhere to the teachings of the Qur’an. You seem so casual about that. Marching in comfort and safety of Australia doesn’t exactly have a huge impact on the oppressors, does it?

How many teenage girls from any culture around the world can say they have had a similar experience?
Which proves what?

Dawood...
still waiting for your specific responses to Kactuz and my own specific charges against Mohammed.

1/ Toture
2/ Murder and Genocide
3/ Terrorism (raiding)
4/ Sexual abuse of a child and captive women.

I had a 9 yr old girl at my little table yesterday in Church (collecting payments for family camp), she was with mum and dad, and it blew my mind that a man MY AGE (57) could be sexually involved with such a child.. IN ANY CULTURE.. Irrespective of cultural practices, that has to be one of the most predatorial, pernicious,evil, and self gratifying acts of sin on the face of the earth.

Yes this man, is portrayed to the world as The most wonderful example of anyone to follow:

THIS...man (seeKactuzLinkabove)

<A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him.

So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her.

A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.>

There you go...from the hadith of Islam -"MURDERER" !

How DARE they say "peace be upon him".. rather may the wrath of God Almighty be upon this act for eternity. It was for THIS...that Christ died.. his and our sin.

a) 'weak' hadith ?
b) Is there an 'underlying wisdom' ?
c) Did you KNOW this about him before you committed your life to him ?
e) If you DID know it...would u have reservations ?
f) Have you resolved your cognitive dissonance by changing your beliefs about what is 'right' and wrong, in order to justify this murder ?
g) your BELOVED prophet ?

Does anyone wonder why we attack his character and contrast his with that of Christ ? seriously ?
Is it fair claiming this is 'my religion is better than yours'ism ?

pagan numbat (used in the sense of someone who follows a false god rather than as a general slur although that is tempting) do you really think that the way you and other christains are giving your warnings about the muslim threat that you will taken seriously by anybody who is not already in agreement with you?

Your own posts are for the most part vile obsenities filled with name calling and little substance. You and other christains remain quiet and fail to correct coach when he gets it undisputably wrong in his posts (Islam is wrong because of "fasting" being one of the more recent classics) - why doesn't one of you suggest he go away and actually read the Bible so he knows what is in it?

Christains in this site duck for cover in relation to the barbarity of your Old Testament hiding behind "completion in the New" or not judging God, happily declare that all christains who've done the wrong thing are or were not real christains while endlessly attacking muslims over the actions over Mohammed and extremist muslims.

You (as a group) are morally outraged that muslims "might" seek to influence the political process in Australia whilst supporting organised christain involvement in the same political process.

Your protests have the look of a turf war over who gets to control the lives of the rest of us, one which fundamentalist christainity has a big start in both by numbers and existing representation in Australian politics.

Start contributing balanced posts which show some of the "love of christ", which address failings in the christain church and the barbarity of the Old Testament and I might treat what you have to say more seriously.

In the mean time you for the most part remain biased crackpots with little interest in the well being of Australia but rather an obsessive focus on the power base of your own faith at the expense of this country,concepts like fair play and common decency.

R0bert

Redneck,
As for what people wear, a swastika is more a confronting political statement than a demonstration of personal faith. The banning of headscarves won't improve the situation, it's more an assertion of authority and another way of creating another oppressed group within a society. To me it would be yet another personal freedom taken away. These things tend to fade with time. When was the last time you saw a European widow dressed in black?
Besides, if they didn't dress differently, how could we tell the good people from the bad people? There are probably lots more "plainclothes Muslims" out there that we can't easily identify. Perhaps we could pass a law to make them all wear, let's say, a yellow star on an armband - just for identification purposes of course. Then we could round them all up easily whenever we needed to. Worked a treat last time.

As far as racial vilification goes, I didn't dodge anything. I have never heard my parents disparage any other racial group. They came here for a new beginning and that's how they lived their lives. I'm not claiming to be different from "everybody else" - just different from you.
From most of your 340+ posts I think you have a problem with Muslims and tolerance generally.
I bet you're a John Laws fan, a tabloid junkie, probably anti-abortion but pro death penalty, against saying "sorry" to the aboriginals but proud on Anzac day, a One Nation/League of Rights follower, a bit of a loner, frequently angry and have trouble making friends.
You're not part of the solution but part of the problem

My reasons for converting to Islam are simple: Islam is not what you and others want to make of it. You are as bad as the extremists within Islam and walk hand in hand regarding the misrepresentation of our religion.

But you could at least have quoted the whole hadith and other information instead of being intellectually dishonest and making it appear that Muhammad condoned the crime, when there is no evidence of it. It goes on to state that the Prophet gathered the people ("He assembled the people") and called on the guilty man to stand up and testify ("I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up"), then proceeded to state that "Oh bear witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

Which we later find out is because the slave-woman the man killed was his own partner, and she had no other family present but the 2 young children she sired who could claim retaliation (as in, that the man, their father, should be killed). Islamic Law gives the family of the murdered the right of seeking the killer's death, or monetary compensation. As there was no other family of the deceased of a mature age to deal with this issue, he was telling the community around him not to take matters in to their own hands and observe the law (as in not to retaliate - why else he state that to everyone who had gathered?). As well as simply giving a pronouncement on the case, that there was, in fact, no retaliation possible. It also does not tell us what happened to the man afterwards, so it is nothing but conjecture to say anything regarding that.

Not to mention that it also mentions that the guilty man was trembling and nervous - why would that be, I wonder...?

Of course, feel free to twist everything as much as you like to show that I am using "al-taqiyya" or trying to cover the 'truth', and so on. It's expected.

Dawood...you are quite correct and I have to conceed factual error in my last post. Apologies for that.

I misconstrued the use of the personal pronoun 'he'. I don't withdraw the charges though, I absolutely affirm them, in particular and in this case factually correct is the murder of Ka'ab bin Al Ashraf for the same reasons "Mocking Mohammed". He himself did not carry out this murder, but he authorized and arranged it. As guilty as if he had himself thrust the dagger. That this was clearly murder, and not an 'execution' is evident by the circumstances. There was no hearing, just a 'who will get rid of' cry from the guilty party.

Dawood... I still ask you those questions a) to g) in my last post, and you can re-direct the basis for them to the murder of Kaab rather than this woman and add the torture of captives and dismembering of criminals.

You say "Islam" is not what we make it out to be... I disagree, we claim that it was invented and shaped by a man who was a murderer and other things. Yet is described in such glowing terms in Islamic literature as though he was a spotless saint without blemish.....

So, I affirm that "Islam" is exactly what we make it out to be. That you, a man of reasonable intelligence would follow it simply amazes me, and probably just accept the propoganda of a group which is founded on fear and terror that the Christian scriptures are 'nothing like the originals'.

I maintain Buddhism is 'exactly' what we make it out to be.. nothing like Islam, it is the idea of attaining "freedom from suffering" through meditation etc.. not a difficult subject.

You cannot separate 'Islam' from its founder, same with Christ and The Faith.

Robert, yes, we are a weak and biased lot. Not many among us are noble, as per the scriptures. But let our weakness point to His greatness, we are nothing. He is everything.
"Shall that which is made ask its maker 'why have you made me thus'" ?

Coach,

Religions are ideologies, beliefs and methods of practice. You can say that one suits you better than the others. To claim that a religion is ‘fraud’ because it doesn’t agree with the way you worship is at best childish.

Islamic theology is a simple story board: God send the commandments to the chosen people to spread his teachings (ie the Hebrews/ Jews). When they deviated God send Jesus (pbuh) to refocus them on spirituality and meaning practice. When they rejected Jesus God asked him to spread the message directly to mankind. When people worshipped Jesus God send Mohamed (pbuh) to refocus on the old eternal message of monotheism and salvation. Plane and simple.
God have no representation or representatives and your savior is your faith, intent and deeds. The road to salvation is the struggle to be a better person and add value to your family, society and enrich their lives. To be good and respectful to nature and animals (‘for they are nations like us’). Heaven is for all good being men & women. Obviously you never read the Quran.

The Trinity is the only conflicting theology with all other teachings of monotheism (ie Judaism and Islam). Islam is actually the common ground for Judaism and Christianity and not the opposite.

If you are that desperate for debate start at you own backyard: Ask yourself where did Jesus divinity come from and why did the Holy Spirit became divine only 56 years later (ie 381AD)? Where did the communion (blood & wine) come from (Check Osiris communion) ? Why Christmas is on the 25th December? Where is the Gospel of Barnabos and why was it excluded even though only Barnabos Gospel was written during Jesus ‘s time? Where is the tri-headed God come from? What happened to anybody who questioned the Trinity (including Pope Honorius 648AD)?
As I said, I accept your faith even though it does not make sense to me and I don’t judge you. You judge me & my faith.

Dawood,

Insightful postings as usual, keep it up.

Peace,

RObert: Your NOT! a bigot? deary-deary-me. numbat

The first religion handed down to human kind was Judaism from God to Moses in the first holy Book, the first 5 chapters of the Old Testament. God said "I Am not a man that I would lie"' He is the same yesterday today and forever (NT)
He is a God that NEVER changes,He is the Alpha and Omega The beginning and The End.
Jesus said "Heaven and Earth will pass away ,but My Word will Never pass away".

He said,"call unto Me and I wil answer thee",
The Bible has hidden mathematics in it ,read "The Seal of God", online ,page by page absolute proof that only God could write and inspire the Bible from cover to cover ,all 66 books are mathematically created by God .

Does the Q'ran line up to this can it be scrutinised to prove it is from God?
God inspired Holy men to write what he dictated to them by The holy Spirit. Do Muslims have The Holy Spirit ,do they speak in God's language by The Holy Spirit ,the umblical cord to God ?

Have you seen people raised form the dead after being dead 3 days in Allahs' name we have proof today of people being raised from the dead in Jesus Name .
Can Muslims call on Mohammed and do this ?

If not it is an inferior religion anyway,who wants second or third best?
You can verify what I am on about by going to website for CFAN in Africa ,and read about the man killed in a car accident embalme dwith chemiclas ,sealed in a coffin and body bag for 3 days in heated place
and came back to lif eafter being in Paradise (heaven) also Ian Mc Cormick story (similar)from NZ and also website of David Hogan in South America for 25 years ,where over 330 people have been raised from the dead, you can view his videoes and see yourself. Do you need more proof ?
The Old is in the new concealed,The New is in the old revealed .(Bible) check it out .

I am not disputing religious practices or personal preference here.

My accusation of islam being “fraud” still stands. Unless you can prove to us beyond doubt that:

Allah Amkaru al Makireen Sura 3:54 (the deceiver of deceivers) is the same as Jehovah (God) of the bible who never changes His mind

So don’t give me answers like Allah means god in Arabic, therefore it’s the same thing. I want evidential proofs.

Until then any further discussion will prove meaningless.

It is obvious that you cannot understand Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, his blood sacrifice etc… Since we are talking about two different Gods Two different revelations.

Salvation - according to God - is by faith in His Son Jesus Christ alone and not through “works” and religious practices. You are being deceived big time.

____________

WARNING: Islam is a false religion that attacks the heart of Christian beliefs: “Jesus”.

The price of “accommodating” Islam in our societies is extremely high - it goes against all that we stand and once fought and died for.

R0bert,

My demanding of FH, to come clean and answer some crucial questions regarding the validity of his religion, was in reference to him bluntly avoiding to answer them as he is in the habit of doing.

As for me not answering you may have been a slip of concentration – (I though I did answer you) - I don’t keep track of my posts – it’s easy to get side tracked…

Let me tell you from the onset that God is not only my God but everybody’s God including you, believers and non-believers alike. Wether you like to know/accept it or not.

Also the notion of polygamy being harmless is a contradiction in terms. You could argue that euthanasia, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, pornography, are OK if they don’t harm anyone and are performed by consenting adults. They are all departures from God’s intentions for His creation.

So from where I come from, God’s plan for humanity has always been that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two (Not three or four) becoming one.

All biblical accounts of “polygamy” always incur dire consequences. Solomon became an idolater, David a murderer, etc… We all know what happened to Abraham when he took another wife…

So only Jesus (God) will judge people at the end.

Should “I” let people to the final judgement or do “I” interfere in their affairs?

Should I warn people of an incoming tsunami?

1. The rational is “love” and knowledge of the consequences.
2. I am not allowed to judge. Only God judges his creation.
3. My function as a Christian is to tell people the good news of their salvation in Christ Jesus.
4. Only if the person is a close friend – I would probably counsel him/her within the confides of our friendship; the aim is to redirect them to God’s way. There are many scriptural models for that.
5. I would definitely pray for them and for myself.

Free will allows people to make wrong choices.

Being away from God gives a false impression that (Insert sin here) is acceptable

Coach,
You stated earlier that "Muslims won't change" and about a week ago I asked you. what then? As yet no answer. Surely you do not find the present situation of non-integration acceptable. Have you no ideas or suggestions that may improve integration.

I also asked anybody else for suggestions and I'm amazed that none have been forthcoming. Is not the future well being of our community more important than arguing over nit picking issues of one religion verses another.

How can we improve integration between Muslims and non-Muslims?
Is the question too difficult? Surely some posters here have given the matter some thought. Why not try to get something positive out of this thread.

coach, thanks for the answer. I had the impression that you supported government restrictions on peoples lifestyles where they go against christain standards but if I've understood the content of that last post correctly that is not the case. If your approach is to not personally support some lifestyle choices but to leave the judgement for those choices till judgement day rather than in the hands of the courts then we're not so far apart on this.

banjo, I've posted some stuff in that vein before but can't remember how far back. I started putting together some bullet points and realised I'm to tired right now to make a job of it.

One thing I would desperately like to see is the anti-muslim mob back off on these threads so that we could start engaging more muslims in discussion about the issues. Being constantly under attack does not make for constructive discussion and I suspect that most won't even bother staying to cop the torrents of abuse.

I'd like to understand more of what muslims think are the issues rather than just the snippets I see on TV which are probably very selective. We are unlikely to get the least integrated muslims posting here but other muslims may have a better understanding than I have of the reasons for an apparent lack of integration by some.

R0bert

Phew, slogged my way through all this and found there's only really ONE poster who really hits the nail right smack bang dead centre.

First prize goes to.........wobbles. Bloody well done mate. Excellent stuff.

Stay away from the religious stuff, believe whatever you choose to believe, you are FREE to do so in this great country, of course it is expected, that this be recipricated in kind.

I share your view, WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED, and as you say, you'r parents lived through this once before, as did my parents.
It is very clear to me, we are being set up for something very sinister and there are many fools out there who appear unable or even unwilling to look at this issue from this angle.

A good 20 years of my life was spent under exactly the same vilification that our Muslim brothers claim they are labouring under.
However, I, and my family got on with the job and made a life for ourselves in this fantastic country, even surrendered 6 years of my life to SERVE this country, how many others, BORN here can lay claim to this ?

I feel our Muslim brothers and sisters are crying victim far too much, sure things are tough when you come to a new land, that's how it is, get used to it, learn the ways and get on with your life.
If you can't make the grade, that's fine too, we'll help you go back to where you came from. Better to be a HAPPY person there, then an unhappy person here.

And as far as the division goes between US and THEM, get real people, the only division I see, is the one being deliberately placed there by persons who see something to gain from it.
We all bleed the same colour blood when cut,feel the same pain when shot, even enjoy many of the same things, maybe that's cause WE ARE ALL SIMILAR and it's high time we learned to bloody well live together.

Wobbles

I don't know Redneck's background completely so I can't tell you how he arrived where he is today but I think it's from personal experience.

The reason I've got a problem with mossies is my personal experiences with them in four different countries. They may me of different nationalities but their behaviour is much the same. Until then I was quite the lefty.

By the way I've worked with many different ethnic groups in this land, if you think Redneck is trouble try asking what Serbs, Croats, Chinese, Vietnamese etc think of mossies. They want to kill them.

Fellow Human says "Where is the Gospel of Barnabos and why was it excluded even though only Barnabos Gospel was written during Jesus's time?" - when it was written in the fourteenth century. This book has never been more than a badly attempted propaganda campaign, the lack of effect in Christianity can be seen in its basis in reason, Islam does not share this reasonable nature. Check out the reference to a law introduced in Rome in the fourteenth century (within a book supposed to be written in the 1st or 2nd), the use of Islamic terminology, the incorrect details of the geography of the Holy Land. This so called gospel was not cited during it supposed life until the fourteenth century despite being the only supposedly christian source which argues the Islamic position. Also check out how bad Islamic scholarship is, they do not notice that there is a epistle of barnabas (from early christianity) but not a gospel, sometimes Islamic scholars quote from both even though they don't recognise the epistle.

It should be noted that the source critical problem noted above, where islam accepts what a text says about when and where it is written, is the basis of the corrupt thinking in Islam. The conspiracy theories promulgated by Islam regarding 911 contain the same problem, newspaper articles are sourced without checking for updated details or contradictory ones etc. Same with the holocaust. But most important of all is this problem within the sunna (hadiths) adn the quran, which both show clear problems of source criticism, particularly the way the governments of the ummah were able to manipulate the propagation of the sunna.

FH - so you accept that you are not able to accumulate wealth in all the ways non-muslims are. logically this will mean you are not able to accumulate wealth at the same rate as non-muslims, do you accept that this will leave you and yours falling behind more and more in successive generations. Will this be blamed on me and mine?

Dobbadan - "The first religion handed down to human kind was Judaism from God to Moses in the first holy Book, the first 5 chapters of the Old Testament." It is not the veiw of mainstream Christianity that the Bible is either immutable (uncreated by man) or that the first five books were written by Moses. Dobadan, why don't you seek out some mainstream answers to your questions as well as your rather wild or outdated answers. If you do not accept the scholarly position, which may not be certain, but is certain that moses was not the author, then you need to say why, not just ignore the issue.

At the moment you are representing a movement more similar to the self imposed ignorance of Islam. I suggest attending a theology course to test your ideas, if you are confident of them then this should be a plus for you (you should have no fear of them being shown to be markedly ignorant). CSU offers a distance course on theology which is excellent, and willing to tolerate all understandings of Christianity, but your position will be tested.

Hi Fide Mae,

Almost there! Let me clarify a step further: the relativity of the word ‘disadvantage’

Running a non-interest investment or finance is the boundary within our faith (we believe it is also in the Torah and the Bible).

You can't describe what is outside your boundary as a 'disadvantage' because its your choice even if others outside your boundary may think so. You chose to follow and practice what is compatible with your ethics & beliefs. To give you an example: a drug dealer can see an honest man disadvantaged and a prostitute can see an honest woman also disadvantaged. An honest man or an honest woman will see the opposite: they are actually advantaged.

I accept that it may look like disadvantage to you because you are outside this boundary.

On GOB: Barnabos was a follower of Jesus (pbuh) and his Gospel was one of the banned ones (Banned by Pope Glacius I in the year 492 AD ie 78 years Before prophet Mohammed 's Birth). The real question is whether the one in circulation today is the same banned one and that is a question to the Catholic Church.

You touched on may topics and some of your views are correct others are not.
The 911 conspiracy theories are predominantly adopted by Americans and is not ‘Islam’s position’ as you referred to it. Few people in the Muslim world believed it others didn’t. Many Muslims view Bin Laden as an Ex CIA man went horribly wrong.

Apologies if my comments to Coach offended you. The point I was making is it’s a good idea for everyone to look examine his own faith which few posters on OLO (who insist they are Christians for some reason) constantly overlook.

Dear Coach,
Who gave you permission to speakout on Gods behalf, certainly not God, you say the only reason the Jews in Israel are alive and well is because God promised them that it will be so untill the end of time. that may be sooner than you think, because the Holy Mosque in Jerusalem is being put forward for demolition , the plans are now being dicussed, it will be nice to know world war three was started becaused God said it was going to Happen. maybe you could help out here ,because you seem to be in contact with God, why not ask him to come down to earth, appear on the steps of the Sydney Opera House to prove we are not dealing with a antichrist disguised as God , only a antichrist would want world war three to begin, this will not happen so why allow people/religious fanatics, who use Gods name commit one of the greatest crimes against humanity

F-H: I do as you ask in your last post, I am Christian not perfect but forgiven. I add as I have for yonks "I DO NOT that's DO NOT HATE PAGAN MOSLEMS or any other PAGAN". I do hate their bloodthirsty, death loving, lying, brutal, animalistic religion because it's leading many to perhaps eternal death, including yourself.[There's no 70 perpetual virgins or 32 perpetual untouched little boys with bottoms like peaches for you mate] Now if you on your mighty throne do not believe that then it is your problem!
I read a lot about what I call pagan moslems, Having seen what is happening overseas in barbaric, uncivilised islamic countries I DO NOT WANT AUSTRALIA TO GO THE SAME WAY'.Up to now we have been OK but with you mob who knows?
I read what you pagans say in your lying placating posts none refute what I have said you just cry and bleat "Oh we are being persecuted again by right wing rabid Christians" At least you haven't been beheaded by rabid, murderous pagan islamics. At least you haven't had your pagan mosque burnt to the ground. At least you do not hear rabid Christians from Church pulpits condemn you to death as we have heard from both here and overseas from your pagan leaders. At least no islamic nation's embassy has been burned down. At least no islamic nation's embassy has had a bomb detonated at its entrance. You pagans can build your pagan temples, you can proselyte can have study groups, you can distribute anti-western literature/pagan newspapers. In many pagan nations we can do none of those. So stop bleating and peeping, AND stop trying to claim Christianity, cease trying to re-name/re-title the Son of God Christ Jesus by calling Him a pagan prophet. Stick with your ONE bloody, murderous, lying, robbing,misogynistic, pedophile prophet big mo. Whenever I read any pagan post I remember "al-taqiyya" where you are commanded to and told that it's not a sin for you to lie to unbelievers to placate them to get ill-advised 'bleeding hearts'on-side. numbat

Numbat my old mate ....
You really do have a way with words now don't you.

The only problem I have with you saying them is that you not only say then better than I, but you say them first, thus beating me to the post almost every time.

I did post previously, saying that I was thinking of being a moslem just so that I could blow myself up in an attempt ...... but someone rained on my thoughts saying that not only were virgins in short supply (they tde-virfinated all of them down here already) but more than likely any of the professsional virgins would probably be ultra feminists - and would really clamber onto me asking - NO DEMANDING - equal servicing, thus leaving me with a perpetual limp strand of spaggetti - and even you know just how usefull that would be to some perpetual virgins.

As for the 32 perpetual untouched little boys with bottoms like peaches - sorry mate, but as I am no poofter, I would most definitely rather be hounded by the perpetual virgins (I hear the Yanks have a new surgical process that facilitates this feature and has been used by Condi?)

You see, I am damned if I do and really buggered if I don't - so it looks like I will be condemned to stay forever and a day in a little dark room surrounded by posters from OLO - or should that be Oh Ho Ho....

Banjo,

Sorry mate – I thought hard about your questions – but could not come with workable solutions.

Open debates, scrutinising all islamic teaching materials, penalise anti-social behaviour and anti-democratic impositions, obedience to our secular laws …could be a start.

Unfortunately I insist that Islam is a misfit anywhere it goes.

They will blame everything and everyone except their own cult and false prophet.

Mango,

You are obviously not a believer in God. I speak with authority from His word. The prophesies contained in the bible have all come true. The few remaining ones including the end times have started to unfold.

Interesting that you mentioned the antichrist. It was once thought it was the Catholic Church (no offence fellas) - but now "islam" fits the glove perfectly.

fide mae,

Islamic "Halal" Finances are really no different from conventional banks, except in the euphemisms they use to disguise interest. They call it profit instead.

The reason why interest was banned is because of pre-islamic “usury” lenders.

Today Islamic banking is booming – namely with Saudi Petro-dollar investments.

RObert,

I can understand your angst re: backing off muslims. I believe you have a point there – it might improve dialogue.

On the other hand judging by their obvious superior attitude, their general disrespect of others, untruth or semi-truths, circular reasoning, etc…; I wonder if it would really work.

Islam is a cult that was started by an Arab – not a Jew – it has no resemblance to Christianity or Judaism except for some rituals they copied from the latter.

It is all based on arabic tribal paganistic folk rites and customs.

The frustrating part is that they claim truth and are imposing their beliefs by force or ruse. World dominance is their main agenda.

Islam goes against all the freedoms that free societies ever enjoyed.

Christianity has no interest in an earthly empire or governance. Jesus maintained that His Kingdom is in Heaven.

There will never be peace on earth.

Australia has accepted countless cultures into our community with little, and with some, absolutely no, problems.

Australia has laws that consider ALL people equal under it, men, women, blacks, whites, yellows.

Australians don't practice ethnic marriage. I have never seen a racially mixed couple that doesn't have one white, this shows our tolerance. Contrast this with Muslims who have left Sydney's ghetto to go and live among the wider community. Death threats from their own families?

Same with marriages, although most Muslims just accept the bigotry of their culture, that they can't marry outside their ethnicity.

Australians don't need to have seperate swimming lessons because if our women will be contaminated. Australian men aren't jealous lunatics who need to put bedsheets on our wives. Muslims need to know how that practise looks to an enlightened culture like ours.

The only way to get rid of Muslim stereotypes is for the Islamic commununity to start outing the thugs among them, get rid of leaders who have said disgusting things.

Muslims need to know as well, that, for Australians, religious people are viewed as decent, empathetic people. All we see in Muslim leaders is vile, racist bigoted comments, yet no Muslim has a problem with this.

Decent Muslims have a lot of work to do for sure.

Islam is a very weird religion only weird people must and want to believe.
It is cruel,vengeful,hateful,murderous ,lying,religiosity is so openly displayed and god is allah not the God of the Bible.

Jesus Christ Emmanuel (which means God with us )
He is the first born of many brethren (Jesus)
He is the first and the last. The alpha and Omega,the beginning and the End.

God said that ,"you are to have no other gods before ME".
So,there are no other god after the first God Almighty and His Son Jesus (God in the flesh) It cannot be changed ever.

So stop your hooting mon, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved ,from God's wrath that is coming on the whole Earth to cleanse it of the sin ,wars ,hate and sin to start an new Heaven and a New earth for all Christ's believers (Followers).

Not the Jehovah's Witnesses who say only 144,000 will be their bunch,No,no they are 144,000 male virgin Jews , 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel (boys)who will preach the Gospel to the lost in the last days tribulation that is starting anyday.

It may have already begun with all this killing,Muslims blowing up anyone including muslims, wars and turmoil everywhere.

Jesus said ,"when you see these things happening,look up your redemption is near."
He is the way the truth and the life . There is No other name under heaven in which you may be saved.
There is ONLY ONE GOD .Jehovah Rapha.
Don't waste time read the New Teastament.Luke Ch 21 Matthew Ch 24 and Mark Ch13 last Revelations of Jesus Christ.

Benjy,

Over the weekend, I stayed at the house of a South African Muslim who married a Jordanian girl. His mother is a Cape Coloured whose brothers were anti-Apartheid activists. His maternal grandfather was a Hyderabadi Indian who married a Malay woman.

Whilst in Melbourne, I visited an Egyptian friend whose wife is half Anglo-Aussie and half-Kiwi.

I was best man at my best schoolmate's wedding at St Andrews Cathedral School. His wife was a Japanese Buddhist.

I have a Bangladeshi friend who recently married a European/Aussie girl.

Benjy, I think you need to get out more often.

Salam, well done! 108 comments!! Is this your maiden century?

Coach,

You keep ignoring my comment even though you initiated the challenge.
I illustrated the theological difference between Islam & Christianity is the character of Jesus and the famous 3 days gap that makes the difference.

Many statements in the bible confirms Jesus humanity and him being a lesser of different being than God : his statement on the cross is one example but the obvious one when he was asked about the judgement day he said ‘ only the father knows’.

In this statement, Jesus (pbuh) makes a clear statement that there are difference between Jesus knowledge and God knowledge and them being totally separate beings.

Christians until the year 325 AD worshipped Jesus as a prophet.
Islam preaches exactly what early Christians believe since it’s a confirmation of the Bible & the Torah.

Can you explain how & why did the Trinity come to light?
In case you are wondering why you need to explain: It’s the responsibility of the inconsistent to explain (ie yourself).

Another question you claimed many times the Bible tells about everything in the future. Where does the bible mention prophet Mohamed?

He can’t be the Anti-Christ since:
- He (and Muslims) accepted Jesus as the Messiah and honoured his followers.
- Both prophets (pbut) warned from the Anti-Christ and described him as a man with Jesus ‘like miracles (Prophet Mohamed had no supernatural miracles).

If you challenge, go all the way amigo.

Benjamin,

So you think that lebanese thugs go and pray in Mosques and then practice 'thuggery' after hours? You can't be serious.

The BSK gang rapist never prayed and mocked Islam and Muslims in his school. Thugs and gangs are law enforcement issues.

Peace,

"The only way to get rid of Muslim stereotypes is for the Islamic commununity to start outing the thugs among them, get rid of leaders who have said disgusting things.

Muslims need to know as well, that, for Australians, religious people are viewed as decent, empathetic people. All we see in Muslim leaders is vile, racist bigoted comments, yet no Muslim has a problem with this."

---- I am in total agreement with most of what you have said, apart from the last few words. Plenty of Muslims have problems with plenty of things, which is why many younger people are trying to get rid of these old-boys networks that supposedly represent 'us", yet don't know a single thing about us.

F_H: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, also claimed that if they [Disciples] saw Him they saw God the Father. Now The Christ is not so stupid as to pray to Himself so here are two that are very close, so close that we puny humans just cannot understand it. Then He said that the Jewish leaders sinned by blaspheming the Holy Spirit. One can only blaspheme a God so it seems there is three and the Bible says they are one. If God intimates that there are three that's fine for this grubby little mortal smelly human.
Christians including many Christ dealt with [before Christianity] fell down and worshipped Him, Thomas called Him "My Lord and my God. Christ did not tell them not to do so.
The Trinity is alluded to throughout the Holy Scriptures trying to explain them to you would take too long and you would not understand.
The Bible does not mention big mo,buddha,etc why should it? All pagan leaders are totally insignificant nothings. They were only false pagan so-called prophets, and they died Jesus lives.
Pagan moslems have never accepted Christ Jesus as THE Messiah. The Messiah is the Son of God and by human lineage is descendant from David - A JEW!. Go on I suppose you pagan clowns claim David as a pagan moslem as well?
Big mo can't be the antichrist this pedophilic, misogynist, robbing murderer [that's in your terrorist h/book the bloody- as in gory - koran] is as dead as a doornail.
I did read that your pagan Mahdi [spelling?] or messiah is hiding in a hole in the ground in Iran.
You ask a lot of questions - how can it be that homosexuality is forbidden, but not 'sex' between men and prepubiscent boys in pagan islam. As well how come that your pagan heroes, those who murder defencless civilians, have 32 'pearls' or eternal untouched boys with bottoms like peaches in your so-called paradise? numbat

Numbat (soon to be promoted to Numbrain),

- You don't understand the meaninng of messiah in Hebrew (maybe then you will understand why they rejected Jesus).
- You don't understand that Muslims believe in Jesus being the Messiah (Messiah for us means the 'bearer of good news and kindness).
- You finally inserted a Shiite sect belief portraying it as "Islam".

Study some real theology, Mickey Mouse and MAD magazines are not a reliable source.

F_H: Thanks for those kind words but I did notice no comment on what I wrote. I do not give a fig what messiah means to a pack of death-loving, misygonistic pagans. Yes, surprise! I do know why the Jewish leaders rejected their Messiah. But He is still their Messiah and He is to return and settle them in their land.
By then allah and the mad despotic, murderous mullahs will be well gone.
F_H You do know that we Christians win in the end eh? isalm will disappear just like their moon god - [hudna, I think or something like that and you use the moon symbol on your flags and pagan temples as well] and the big pedophile mo. It's in your terrorist h/book the LITTLE girl was six when he began indecently fondling her and he raped her when she was nine. Fine upstanding prophet, guide and example - Yes I do feel for you and your deceived fellow pagans. If only you would ask Christ to lead you then you will understand His Word. numbat

Folks,

I have an email notification when someone adds a comment. I dont mind that i have had too many for my inbox, but when i get on and you have bible bashers from both sides of the fence still having a crack days after the thing was published, i find it disgusting and it proves why you are all brainwashed and petty.

Religion is like a fart, your own smells good but everyone elses stinks. You are not going to make the other side say, 'hmm yeah your right i should trade my religion for yours', so why bother, except to justify your own position in your own mind.

They fight wars in the name of the lord, and idiots like you all are the grass roots of hate, propoganda and Religious based conflict.

Wake up, go and live in another country if you are like what your words portray (christian muslim haters especially), we dont want your kind in our wonderful freindly nation.

Stop carrying on like kids throwing stones at eachother i have had enough, your ancestors and religious associates have done enough of throwing stones.

Wake up, keep your religious opinions to yourself, and open your mind. We can all get along if you all accept differences and deal with it.

Hi Fellow Human

Of course Israel is a political issue although I tend also to see it as a human rights issue. I fully agree with your assessment of the occupation and it's implications. The wisest Israeli leader will be the one who abandons the Israeli settlements or dismantles them.

However your original statement was:

'Muslims are not allowed to call for invasion of other nations (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) since the Quran rejects transgression.'

Your rationalisation suggests that for Muslims political action is exempt from Islam's peaceful tenets and nature.

In support of Realist

To: those who fling vitriol and hate at others in order to "prove" the superiority of particular religions, quote the OT and the gospels ad nauseum,and use Jesus Christ (or in some cases Christ Jesus) as a jousting stick.

I have seen others write that the instant they see one of these religious rants they skip the post. So do I, so you gain nothing.

Attacking the poster rather than the ideas presented in the original article is bullying of the lowest order. Indulging in a "mine is better than yours" slanging match is just plain childish. Sinking to the depths of foul language and personal insult says some very unpleasant things about you, not about the object of your venom.

Hi Keith,

"Your rationalisation suggests that for Muslims political action is exempt from Islam's peaceful tenets and nature"

Thats exactly my point. Islam in essence is based on Judaism and Moses commandments. I grew up in Egypt and world, politics and religions history was a must in my school. There was never reference anything "Anti-Jewish' in Egyptian history (or religious history before 1948.

Early 1900 and late 1800 most of the well know Egyptian writers, thinkers, artists, activists were in fact Jews (Jacoub Sannouh for example). Many Egyptians of both Jewish and Christian faith fought against the British in the 1919 revolution of independence (History shows that Priests, Rabbis and Imams exchanged speeches in Mosques, Churches and Synagogues).

The largest retail stores in Egypt until today (since nationalised by Nasser) are still named after their Egyptian Jewish founders until today (Sidnaoui, Cicurel, etc..).

This whole “Anti-Jewish” Islamic movements had no religious basis but have political basis (post 1948). Even the political basis is falling apart as last year I was holidays and the Israeli decision to pull out of Gazza was very well received by Arabs countries and local newspapers. The more Israelis will do to fast track Palestinians control/ state over their territories both the political and religious argument of ‘anti-Jews’ will eventually fall apart.

Zionism helped establishing Israel at its early foundation and over time but in my view its time to re-assess its benefits. It seems to have grown out of control and could be on a collision course with Israel’s security and benefits on the long term.

FELLOW HUMAN

It's not MY belief that the thugs pray in mosques, it is factual information. An SBS crew that went to LAKEMBA (the main mosque) after the gang rape trials to get their thoughts about it.

Guess what happened? They were, as usual, BASHED. But before this, they got some great evidence of Muslim racism. They asked about what they thought of the girls, and one guy yells out "those girls were all sluts anyway" and everyone burst out in laughter.

And this is a religious place?

Worse. Some of the thugs are CLERICS. Where have you been Fellow Human? A Madrassa in Pakistan learning that it was really Arabs that gave all the tsunami aid and those evil westerners didnt?

Sheik Feiz - "All unveiled women deserve to be raped" comment? Didn't hear that? This same comment has occured from IMAMS, clerics, all over the Muslim world, although we only hear about it when it happens in a western nation. the actual MUFTI of Denmark said the same not long before FEIZ did.

I will forgive you of your ignorance, but yes, there is countless evidence that the THUGS are mosque-goers.

After Cronulla, the THUGS met up where? Lakemba mosque. One Muslim put it PERFECTLY when he said on 4 Corners the other night that "They weren't thugs that went to the mosque. It was everyone, students, professionals, everyone".

Couldn't have said it better myself.

IRFAN

Give me an example of a racially mixed Muslim couple where the woman is allowed to remain non-Muslim.

Most racially mixed couples I've seen involve a white. Do you deny research by Dr.Birrell from Monash UNI that Muslims hardly marry outsiders, that 75% of Lebanese males go back to LEBANON to find a wife? Are you serious that this isn't xenophobic?

How non-Muslims are turned away from the rock pools at Cronulla beach while burqa clad women swim, as it would make such women impure to share water with infidels?

How groups of young males form gangs based solely on ethnicity, and racially target others for sexual harassment, rapes, and bashings?

FELLOW HUMAN

I read that you grew up in Egypt and that you found no evidence of anti-semitism.

I would suggest, after reading about scores of Egyptians who have said the opposite - that they grew up being told to hate Jews, Christians (have you never heard of the suffering of the Copts?) and westerners in general.

Is your message true, or are all these people liars? Perhaps you grew up in a really westernised, wealthy part?

Anyway, there is much evidence of anti-semitism. Not only do I suggest going online to the various sites, MEMRI's a good one, that deal specifically with racism & intolerance from Muslims, but speak to some Christians from your home country.

Do you really not know how poorly they are treated? It sounds astonishing that's all.

I don't know whether you're Muslim but I may have an explanation if you are - about why you don't know.

Brainwashing.

I'd encourage everybody to read widely about the treatment of Christians in Muslim nations. As a non-religious person I get annoyed that nobody seems to care about how intolerant Muslims are in their own nations towards Christians. There is not even one nation where Christians are treated equally (except Turkey sorry) and this is even disturbing the Pope, who hopefully will pressure the west to act.

After the Pakistani earthquake, Christians were turned out of their homes to make way for homeless Muslims.

After the cartoon stoush, where Muslims worldwide showed that THEY judge an ENTIRE CULTURE based on drawings by a few people, a Turkish priest was killed by a Muslim angry about the cartoons.

What about the Simpsons? The Arab audience is so RACIST they have removed Krusty the Clown, Apu the Hindu, Rev. Lovejoy and won't show Homer drinking beer or eating pork.

Is it really only a few Muslims who are intolerant? How many phone calls have the police recieved regarding Cronulla reprisal attacks?

THIS IS WHAT WE JUDGE MUSLIMS ON, NOT THE COMMENTS OF ONE CLERIC.

Can we not get back to the article? Salam is asking that she not be judged as being a nutbag, simply because of her religion and the colour of her skin. Seems fair enough.

No one looks at me and wonders my intentions and assumes I am evil despite the fact that my surname is similar to that of Hitler, that my skin is the same colour as that of Martin Bryant and Timothy McVeigh, that some of my relatives were born overseas.

Surely Salam and her friends and family are entitled to be judged as themselves not as 'people belonging to just that group'. Surely we are mature enough people to be able to separate the stupidity of certain INDIVIDUALS who happen to be muslim from the majority.

To continually go on about how "moderate muslims MUST DENOUCE" the stupidity of some individuals is narrow-minded. Why should Salam have to be out there denoucing the views of people who happen to share her religion or racial background if we do not ask the same of myself and my friends and family re McVeigh and Bryant and Hitler and Stalin? Or even President Bush and some of his stupid "Crusades" comments? The entire white population of the world is not tarred with that brush, why should Salam be tarred with that of a couple of nutbags?

Realist: Will answer your 6 points.
1. This is an open forum - you can always leave.
2.So "delicately?" put but my flatuance pongs also, though unlike some I do not try to 'taste' it and/or comment on it.
3.I am not fighting a war and 'idiots?' like me are just responding to pagan moslem posts and at the same time letting others know about what I have found from various sources.
4.I've probably been here longer than you and have seen first hand the results of 'hiding'and/or excusing the actions of bloody terrorists. In those days we had our 'bleeding hearts' and nazi sympathisers as well - we called them traitors when the war began.
5.It's caled debating,it's a forum if you want recipes and love advice go elsewhere.
6. See above! So if we obey you debate subjects that are sweet and nice we can all get along with you -oh! get a life.
SandiM:1. Personal vitriol and hate not from me only hatred for a pagan death-loving cowardly man made religion.
2.Don't have to as Christianity is far superior in every way.
3. see No.1. The reason I attack moslem lies is so people like you won't get sucked in by the glib lying moslems talk.
Laurie: I have not personally attacked Salam because of her colour or religion,I have not called her a 'nutbag'. But I have and will continue to 'attack', as you put it, the false pagan man-made religion and the lies spread by pagan islamist. numbat

Indeed Numbat, you shall see if you look directly above your post that I did not say "attack" at all.

I understand that you view your religion as superior (as all religious folks should, if they did not think so they would not believe as such), but surely you can refain from your sneering tone of "pagan muslims". Insulting hundreds of millions of people's beliefs (both those who identify as muslim and those who identify as 'pagan') is simply inflammatory and does nothing to advance your cause.

Listen to yourself Numbat.

You did not recieve the message i tried to send to your kind.

You are a bigut, a coward and are looking for a place to vent. Go and stand outside a mosque and vent yourself if you hate them so much. I dare you.

I am not a bleeding heart either moron, i am as tough as nails and no religion means no restrictions....i dont do things in the name of the lord, i do things because i choose to, i dont hide behind excuses to be a small minded, petty, PC hero.

Face facts, you dont like the other side of the fence, dont look. Irfan did not ask for you to be a bigut, he was not asking people to respond as biguts. calm down and be civil.

realist, numbat is hiding behind the "Christian's aren't perfect, just forgiven" sticker he has attached to his life (as are quite a few other posters). He does not seem to understand how his posts reflect on his faith.

Nor does he understand how telling the contrast between posts by most of the known christains on this site and posts by the few muslims who've managed to stay dispite the ongoing abuse (nothing like debate) is on the christains claims about the evils of Islam compared to their "true faith".

Thankfully not all christains are like that, I have known some who understand that that their faith must be lived to have any meaning, who understand that their actions speak louder than their claims about their faith.

It would be easy to develop some stereotypes of christains based on what we see of christains on this site but as with muslims they are not all the same.

Robert

Benjamin,

Please read my posting carefully, I was talking about pre & post 1948. There was no anti-semitism before 1948.

As for Egyptian Christians it’s a little more complicated but here is my views in bullet points:

- Egypt rates poorly on human rights and anti-discrimination laws. Its still a preferred destination to torture and extract confessions regardless of whether you are a Muslim or Christian (recent example the Mamdouh Habib one).
- The issues with Egyptian Christians have a recent (mid 1970s) political background and was initially triggered by President Sadat encouragement & support to Islamist movements (There was no discrimination of any sort or form before 1970s and any Egyptian Christian will confirm that to you).
- Many of the discrimination claims I saw on some Copts websites are exaggerated for a political purpose. There are sites promoting Coptic separatism movements and a tip for you is they will always ask for ethnicity based parliament representations rather than asking for human rights and anti-discrimination laws to be enforced.
- The issue of discrimination arise mainly in the south of Egypt or people with low education/ social status. Many cases are plain theo nepotism where a Christian business owner hires only Christians and the opposite. But majority of Egyptians don’t abide by that crap. My 2 brothers and my father in law employ Christians and I did when I was working in Egypt.
- The discrimination in Egypt is between those who have and who have not. Many rich Christian families in Egypt are wealthy and own large businesses and are treated like movie stars (Mobinil is the number one Egyptian telecom owned by a Christian family for example).

Fellow_Human,

Your nose is growing longer yet again - what did Allah say about lying on your pagan's day Friday?

You say:

(There was no discrimination of any sort or form before 1970s and any Egyptian Christian will confirm that to you).

I know of many many many cases of racial, religious, discrimination post 1950s. It has strived under Abdel Nasser... Until he put an end to the Al-Ekhouan Al-Moslemun, which contributed to his death (poisoned).

How about promotions at universities, the army, government agencies, permits for new churches or renovations of ancient ones?

How about the identity card with name, photo, finger print, AND RELIGION?

Egypt is, was and will always be the pearl of the Mediterranean sea. You don't need to embellish the stories to paint a rosier picture.

’Rich and poor’ has always been an issue there. Socialism after the 1956 revolution has ruined the country. Forcing all foreign heads of companies, Christians and Jews, (manufacture, infrastructure, resources, etc…) to flee the country leaving everything behind for indigenous people to run them:

The result: "chaos".

Discrimination - you bet.

Islamic influence – definitely.

As for our debate here I don't think we can come to any agreement.

My position is based on centuries of revelations, historical, biblical, prophetic, facts. All have come true, all provable.

Not one word announcing Mohammad. Jesus categorically warned us of FALSE Prophets coming after him.

Your position is based on a cultic following of a nomad warrior with a megalomaniac ambition to equate himself to Judaic Prophets “by force”. You can call that a religion and follow it but don't insult others and impose it (by stealth and ruse) as the ultimate religion that all should come under or else…

Sorry. You have not answered my previous accusations regarding your sect; instead you tried to wave the white flag, and when that hasn’t worked, you tried to attack Jesus.

It is only fair that you do answer before you raise your own questions.

laurie: I apologise for misrepresenting you.
realist: A bigot? not really but I do not like PAGANS [by Bible definition , they call us unbeleivers and infidels and preach our demise]claim that islam is a religion of peace when it is not that at all. Not all islamics are terrorist but over 95% of terrorists are islamic. Your not a bleeding heart and I'm not a moron. Your as tough as nails - well bully for you!
When someone tenders blatant lies I respond whether he/she is Christian or heathen [you don't like pagan]
Abuse or the truth? I have not attacked a person I have attacked a death loving man made religion that calls for the death of ALL unbelievers. I do attack a man made religion which not only lauds cowardly suicide bombers but encourages them. I do attack a man made religion that decapitates young Christian schoolgirls because of their religion. I do attack a man made brutal religion that beheads civilian captives. I do attack a man made religion which destroys embassies.I do attack a cowardly man made religion which starves and callously slays innocent Russian schoolchildren. Turn on your TV and read a newspaper or listen and/or read a foul anti-western sermon from a pagan preacher in a pagan temple. numbat

Desperately need people with ethnic background to answer a survey!

I'm a Finnish girl writing a Thesis about effects of ethnicity on employment in Australia and I'd truly appreciate if someone is interested to help me out. If so, contact me : pearl80@jippii.fi and I'll send you the questionnaire by e-mail. won't take longer than a couple of minutes!

Laurie

Your post can't go unanswered. There are several fatal flaws within it, and I don't mean to be rude but you appear extremely naive.

Salam Zreika is a racist through & through. For you not to pick up on that through her revolting comments that "Muslims are Australian except we don't get drunk and have sex before marriage".

Look to the subtle Laurie.

Further, nobody judges All Muslims. The only examples I've seen of this is of judging an entire culture because a few people of that culture drew some cartoons.

It's not about moderates denouncing extremists Laurie. If you've watched Insight Forums over the years you will know that the moderates intrinsically defend the extremists. Only on 30-8-05 an Insight forum where the bigot American sheik, Yassin, commented that Muslims can't have non-Muslims for friends, and so on, he said the media did a "SOUNDBITE" on him.

All the Islamic representatives there, including the President of Muslim Councils, all clapped. Could you imagine the outcry if our leaders clapped after a comment by, say, David Irving - the holocaust denier?

Moreover, mainstream clerics are yet to denounce Bin Laden. After the meeting late last year of John Howards Muslim council (who, by the way haven't been able to agree on anything and may be about to split up alltogether. The head of it, Dr. Ameer Ali, believes that the topic of extremism isn't worth discussing at all, for an example of the madness) journalist Matt Price asked the 13 to condemn Bin Laden. Most smiled and refused, walking off, but three spoke.

All wouldn't, with the most insane comment going to the moderate Sheik Fehmi, of Melbourne. He said "I can't condemn Bin Laden because I don't know him".

Think about what that means mate. Think about how disgusting it is that Muslims across Australia haven't demanded he, Sheik Hilali, Sheik Feiz (the women deserve to be raped Sheik), and the scores of others that have said appalling things yet NEVER has there been a protest to remove them.

Muslims sure no how to protest, we saw it over a bloody cartoon. So they obviously don't want to protest against him.

Add to this the fact that Sheik Omran (another Bin Laden lover) has a readership of 10000 and you should start to see where we are coming from.

FELLOW HUMAN

I agree with you, I know the Israelis were terrorists before 1948, and that some communities lived in peace with Muslims.

I personally believe Jerusalem should be run by the UN, as a sort of Vatican City type thing, it's own state perhaps.

I'm not certain but isn't it true that Muslims built that mosque over top of the Jews most sacred site? I know they believe Mohammed was taken there when he ascended (if you ask me he was taken for a ride by aliens - which is what i believe the star of bethlehem may have been.

Any thoughts?

Hamas released a 220-page volume entitled: "Participating in Political Life in the shadow of Contemporary Regimes" written by Musheir al Masarai. I have included a couple of paragraphs Remember all pagan islam is one state that is why to renounce islam is seen as treason and incurs the death penalty.
Quote: The book opens with a directive to hamas to "follow the prophet's example when it concludes temporary pacts [with non-moslems] to gain an opportunity for strengthening and expanding islam". Why? Because, in the course of time, when hamas [or ANY moslem organisation] is strong enough and reaches the right path it will be free to violate those accords as mohamad did.- It's called
"al taqiyya"
Quote: " When flexibility serves its ultimate objective of [my capitals] IMPOSING MOSLEM LAW in all the lands it rules - and those lands it aspires to expand. Hamas will therefore accept even long term ceasefires or non-belligerency arrangements [my capitals] AS LONG AS SUCH DEALS OFFER THE ISLAMIST ORGANISATION A CHANCE TO ENHANCE ITS STRENGTH"
Trust pagan moslems?- sure can't. PS What a sorry, shamefull man-made lying pagan religion eh? numbat

Laurie and others.....

I hope to God you all noticed and noted Numbats QUOTES from Hamas.....

That is straight from the pit of HELL.... it comfirms EVERYthing we have been saying all along.. and underlines it and places a 100 exclamation marks after it....

It could not be stated more forcefully by even a non muslim. Strange how our 'attacks/accusations and tirades' are in fact actually mirror imaged in the Hamas document. Instead of we 'charging' that they believe thus and so, they themselves are showing the true nature of Islam in their own documents.

One key point in their document is 'Following the example of the prophet'....in making temporary truces, treaties etc.. with the GOAL
of advancing Islams final triumph, clearly by IMPOSING its rule.

Israel would be quite within its rights (humanly speaking) to declare full scale final and 'take no prisoners' including women and children against Hamas right now. If one wants to gain an inkling into why God commanded the Israelites to 'utterly destroy' the Canaanites, all you have to do is look at Hamas and the fanatacism, the brainwashing of babies with toy Kalashnikovs, the lying videos etc.. to the point where the total community has been shaped into one huge 'bomb'.

If this is how Hamas acts now, imagine how they would act if the Mosque was destroyed and replaced by the Jewish Temple ? just think.

The driving force in Hamas is 'Islam'....not land justice. The withdrawal from Gaza and the documents quoted by Numbat clearly show this.

So, our attacks on Islam, are nothing to do with paranoia, hate, mental difficulties, recent input from National Socialist cell meetings, or even a 'bad day'...they are the accurate, focused and truthful exposure of that which is now clearly admitted by Hamas.

Hi Benjamin,

I actually like the idea of UN run Jerusalem.
There was many stories of whether Al Aqsa mosques was build on the temple or not. Israelis promote that it was and Muslims believe it wasn't. I have seen no independant archeologist report.

Coach,

I will only comment on your personal attack: you claimed I attacked jesus and this is an absolute lie. All I did I explained to you (based on your challenge) why we view him as a prophet.
I can't be a Muslim if I attack or insult Jesus pbuh

F_H: You are not insulting your jesus the prophet - he doesn't exist and never has existed. But you could be blaspheming the Christian Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of all mankind.
Just image the furor in your pagan temples if us Christians claimed big mo and even put him in our Bible. The story of his life would differ completely from the one in the brutal koran. As well we would give him a new title other than shown in your koran. You and your mates would get most upset, then so us Christians at your portrayal of the sinless Son of the Almighty as a insignificant, lowly pagan prophet.
By the way your thoughts on the hamas letter of mine.
I feel that I must again re-iterate that I DO NOT HATE PAGAN MOSLEMS THEY ARE TOTALLY DECEIVED [I include you here F_H] and I really do feel sorry for them all. But I do hate the man-made death loving,suicide promoting misygonistic, cultish religion. numbat

Why on earth would anyone choose an inferior religion after Jesus Christ,Son of God who came down from His Father God in Heaven to show all mankind His Love and forgiveness 700 years before mohammed had his visions of all sorts of things ?

Why follow (after you are shown ) what Christ did for you Muslims and all other religions invented by man?

The Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Christ will show you ALL truth IF you will just ask Him to show himself (God ) to you.
First of all He loves you,forgives you and wants you to accept Him.

This religion (Islam) is definitely anti Christ religion,it is laws,rules,rituals and religious,controlled by mere men and is a blood thirsty religion that tries to generate fear by Muslims fed lies to promote riots and terror .
Compare Jesus teachings, which are far apart from Islam's ones,The Love gospel of Christ The Son of God is freedom,liberty and love.

We do have Christian cults who have altered the Bible to suit themselves as well ,such as Jehovah's Witnesses(Watchtower slaves)propmoting their man made false doctrines and the Mormon's,but they don't go around killing unbeleiver's and Christians who have and know the truth.

I ask you to study the Bible and copmare it with your books and teachings that are antiquated for 21st Century belief anyway,.But The Bible is as up to date as today's fresh bread. Call on the Lord Jesus and you wull be saved from the wrath to come.

After wading through the above posts, I am very pleased that I do not believe in a God who would ban pork, bacon and alcohol. Or would ban condoms or abortion. Or would ban sex outside of formal marriage. Or would ban sex and/or love between adults of the same sex. Or would ban girls taking their tops off on the beach, or people taking everything off on some beaches.

And if it makes anyone feel any more righteous to think that I am going to hell because I don't share some of their beliefs, well go for it, it's not doing me any harm. And don't expect me to be convinced by any of your ancient, unprovable documents.

Traditionally all Australians get a fair go. I like this definition of what it means to be Australian. I don't care what any of you believe, or how it affects your life, as long as it does not infringe upon the liberties of others. Unfortunately, even in Australia, this is often not the case.

We have had Christian extremists trying to interfere in everyone else's life for generations and politicians who are prepared to aid and abet them, to the detriment of Australia. My concern now is that we also have Muslim extremists trying to do the same. I accept that Christian extremists are in a minority and I hope the same is true of Muslims. But religious extremists often seem to have influence far beyond their numbers. I call it the moral gerrymander. Basically it comes back to the honesty of our elected representatives, but how long have honesty and integrity been essential qualities for so-called representatives?

BOAZ_David,

“Immigrants must swear an oath of allegiance…when they apply for entry to our country.”

Two problems:

1. In view that the god of islam Allah allows his followers to lie (and commit other atrocities for the cause of propagation and world domination); most or all will lie to gain entry.
2. What about the ones that are already here? What would constitute an acceptable reason for kicking them out?
Well said about Qur’anic “revelations” for expediency – it is so clear to the rest of us how duped Mohammad’s followers are.

Exposing the dark side of islam is as beneficial to muslims as it is for rest.

dawood,

I think BD’s point was more on the convenient progressive of the so called revelation to Mohammad and not the grammatical construct.

If you want to be pedantic – why are most male Arabic songs addressed to ‘females’ are written in the masculine?

You said:

“The hadith is talking about the fact that marriage is a highly recommended act, and the "best" thing a man can do, …”

What is the opinion of a woman in that “best thing a man can do”?

I spare you the answer: TOTAL SUBMISSION! And I didn’t even google it.

You can fool Scout any time but why continue to fool yourself? – You sound like an intelligent and rational person. Which begs the question: How could you have falen for islam?

Any such thing as a woman Cleric/ Imam leading mixed gender congregations in prayer?

What about women being allowed up to 4 husbands? Or does this constitute adultery?

Can women say “no” to sex without being bitten and divorced?

Who determines if the man is “fair” with all 4 wives?

All convenience rulings on the run, by the ever so worshiped Mohammed.

All religions are scandalous coach.

To reduce to the rediculous, it does not matter if you are a Hells Angel or a Finks, you are still a bikie.

Id like to see a few of you get on your motorcycles and ride off in the distance.

Aussies religion is sport,sport,sport all to replace what man has implanted in him is to worship something or someone.

The Greeks invented sport gods, and worshipped them, but had one vacant spot amongst their many gods ,Paul of Tarsus said to the Men of Athens;" I perceive thatin all things you are very religious;for I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship,I even found an altar which was dedicated to THE UNKNOWN GOD. Of course it was Jesus Christ the one that they inadvertantly missed was dedicated To The Unknown God ,knowing they had not found THE ONE TRUE GOD. Acts chapter 17 vs 22-24 New Testament Bible ,.

What I am getting at is that Australian's have copied the Greeks beliefs in worship of idols (gods) of sport, and have missed The One True God ,Jesus The Christ (The Anointed One).

So we know why "Oz", is in a hell of a moral and spiritual mess and getting worse daily,obviouslly they have the same mentality of the above comment.

The Fool has said in his heart ,"there is no God".
There is a void in Australia ,especially with the past 3 generations who only knew about religion and not real Christianity, they are two different systems of belief .
Religion says,"Do,Do,Do", and Christianity says,"Done ,Done,Done".

Religion tells you that you MUST do this or that to please God while Jesus did away with it all when he said on the Cross ,"ItIs FINISHED".

Jesus has appeared to thousands of Muslims all over the world is visions ,appearances and dreams even in Mosques but Muslims are too fearful to openly tell their immams and others in case of death or torture etc.
It proves that He is real and that he Loves Muslims and wants than saved ,. To check this out go to websites that tell of this including two girls buried alive by their Muslim father and cmae back for the grave 3 days after said a man called Jesus let them out.

Coach: This comes down to your perception of what revelation actually is, compared to what Muslims believe it is: something that was revealed over the course of time (almost 23yrs). You are free to disagree and froth at the mouth with your colleagues about it all you want, but that does not change the fact that we do not believe in our religious tradition as you assume we do, and that the vast majority of everyday Muslims have no idea what "taqiyya" even means, let alone practises it.peopl

Rex & Realist: I agree totally, I actually hate talking about religion. Actions speak louder than words. The only reason I am posting here is to share a different perception of my faith, as someone who believes in it, compared to those who have a clear agenda against it. To try and show some balance.

Rex: I also don't believe you would be automatically sent to hell for not believing in my God. So don't sweat it - I like the "fair go" idea. Except people here seem to think that those who have my belief always want to infringe on others.

Dawood.. if eternal separation from God is not the consequence of 'not' following your faith, then what is the point or the need of following it ?

It can only mean one thing..'power'. If there are no eternal consequences for not following Mohammed, why is there a death penalty for apostacy ? (whether practiced or not in some places)

What you said in that little mouthful, is in direct and repeated contradiction to your own scriptures in MANY places.

Lets be abundantly and unabmiguously clear here. Apart from Christ there is no salvation. I don't mind copping flack for this, but I absolutely know I'm being true to the scriptures in saying it.

Unlike yourself, who is willing to sugar coat the spiritual pill, for the sake of tricking a few people into thinking Islam is 'ok', I won't do that.

The whole point of the coming of the Messiah, was so man can be reconciled to God. To reject that reconciliation is to reject God.

John 12:44etc
"He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.

Yes..these are 'hard sayings'... many will react negatively. I will not sugar coat this.

If I did dip the issue of salvation in chocolate, clothed it in 'pleasure marraige'.. immersed it in 'fulfilling male lust', if I
cloaked it in 'pleasing and acceptable terms of many virgins in paradise' then I would be the worst of all people.

If I am to be criticized, crucified, incarcerated or carried out in a box,...let it be for the truth, rather than a lie.

Boaz,

"The whole point of the coming of the Messiah, was so man can be reconciled to God. To reject that reconciliation is to reject God"

May I ask you first to look up the Torah's definition of the meaning of Messiah to understand what it means first? It will also help you understand why they rejected Jesus (pbuh).

Second, your above statement implies that all those who don't share your faith are 'infidels'. I thought you are promoting harmony and co-existence? are you?

Peace,

Boaz: First of all, there is a difference between 'simple' apostacy, and that which is linked with treason against the state. The death was for treason, this is basic Islamic law 101 for anyone seriously interested in the subject. Even puritanical scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya clearly believed this, and is known for explaining this idea in various works. He is one of the most well known 'extremist' demagogues that is used by extremists today. They choose not to follow this part of his work though. This is not even mentioning contemporary or even classical sources on this issue of law.

Another thing Ibn Taymiyya was known for was his idea that hell would eventually become empty; that it is not eternal. Such was his zeal for "Oneness" that extremists seek to emulate, that nothing else could be Eternal apart from God. They also choose not to accept this.

When adding other theological scholars with clout in to the mix, it is clear that the issue is not so black and white regarding the afterlife. It may be for you, but not so for us. Ghazali divided non-Muslims in to 3 main categories (with nuance between): 1) Those who never heard of Islam; 2) Those who received a distorted view of Islam; 3) Those who received and understood 'true' Islam, and still denied it. He is representative of the dominant theological school today.

He explains that the 1st and 2nd were covered by God's all-encompassing Mercy, and that it was only the 3rd who would be punished. Technically only the 3rd are called 'kafir' too, as it means someone who buries/covers over something. A summary is basically "Who are we mere humans to seek to limit the Mercy of God when He has stated 'My mercy preceeds my Wrath'?"

He sounds slightly more egalitarian than you did in the post above. F_H has also criticized his views elsewhere on here. So why am I "sugar coating" anything? Various views exist within Islam, and I am merely representing one, as well as what I know of others from study and experience.

The problem dawood, fellow human, etal is you are obviously well informed about Islam and can argue fine points of law etcetera quoting many different scholars of Islam while you're deating with extremist Christians who are not only disinterested in that approach when discussing Islam they wouldn't have a clue on that level about their own religion and wouldn't be interested in that either.

I've been told over and over again by the extremist christians on this list that they don't believe in the Bible--if so how irrelevant are scholars of the Bible to them? So why would they be interested in scholars of Islam?

These are people who follow their religion with all the intelligence of people barracking for a football team where the fundamental point for them is everyone who doesn't believe in their football team is going to hell and they cannot understand why that does not scare you and others to follow their religion.

This is extremist hysteria. Every religion (and political party) has a section of people like this but especially religions that believe in heaven and hell, judgement day and the one and only religion with the one and only God.

You can join such a religion and be very intellectual about it and focus on the positive if you wish but in the end they will always attract the lower edge of people who just want someone to tell them what to do and they'll be 'saved' and everyone else will burn in hellfire just for being in another religion. Both Islam and Christianity deliberately try to attract these types because they make up a large proportion of humanity. Unfortunately.

This isn't Islam against Christianity.This is about intellectual people who are educated about their religion who choose to ignore the worst parts against non-intellectual people who often haven't a clue about their religion apart from some of the more gross beliefs who choose to ignore the worst parts of their religion and focus on the worst parts of others. You get both types in Islam and Christianity--just not on this list.

FH - it is true that the main hebrew idea of a messiah was that of a secular king to fight battles, and this is what the disciples seem to have thought Jesus was, thus His accusing them of being satan. You seem to be missing the large alternative tradition in the Hebrew bible and culture of the suffering servant, in Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Jeremiah etc. This alternative messiah is exactly what Jesus was, a spiritual leader and savior. The first idea of a king to fight battles was found mainly in the illiterate lower classes, where they were seriously oppressed by other nations. Where this oppression was lessened, the literary elite came up with a significantly different understanding of the messiah, that of the Prophets and the apocalyptic literature.

The fact you are aware of the one but not the other, suggests to me that your education was indeed a brainwashing. You are aware of all the issues, eg Gospel of Barnabas, but have not been introduced to the whole of the arguments. Decidedly dangerous.

But what could you expect from education systems run in third world, willfully ignorant, islamic countries.

I get the feeling that I am metaphorically listening to a bunch of used car salesmen saying "Trust me" on the basis that if I buy their car I will have a heavenly ride, but if I'm foolish enough to buy a different model, then my experience will be hellish.

{I don't put all posters on this topic in that category BTW.]

As I have said repeatedly, I believe in the freedom of people to believe whatever they want, as long as others are not disadvantaged. But can anyone understand why I don't want Australia to be controlled by those who base their moral or legal agendas on unprovable religious beliefs?

Sorry inmy earlier comment I said the 2 girls were buried for 3 days ,but actually after checking it on the internet it was 15 days .
I copied it for all to read below.


from Deborah Khalil.

I can not wait to let you know about this great
testimony and the confirmation that our Lord JESUS
is alive. It begins as a tragedy but ends as an
incredible miracle.


Victor received this by email a few days ago
(20/05/04), and talked with family in Egypt to
confirm the details that were given there on the
news.

A Muslim man in Egypt killed his wife and buried her
with their infant baby and 8-year old daughter. The
girls were buried alive! He reported to the police
that an uncle killed the kids.

15 days later, another family member died. When they
went to bury him, they found the 2 girls under the
sand - alive! The girl was asked how she had
survived?

"A man wearing shiny white clothes, with bleeding
wounds in his hands, came every day to feed us. He
woke up my mom so she could nurse my sister."

She was interviewed on Egyptian national TV, by a
veiled Muslim woman news anchor. She said on public
TV, "This was none other but Jesus, because nobody
else does things like this!"

Muslims believe Isa would do this; but the wounds
mean He really was crucified, and it's clear also
that He is alive! The country is outraged over the
incident, and the man will be executed. But it's
also clear that the child could not make up a story
like this, and there is no way these children could
have survived without a true miracle.

Muslim leaders are going to have a hard time to
figure out what to do with this, and the popularity
of the Passion movie doesn't help matters either!
With Egypt at the center of the media and education
in the Middle East, you can be sure that this story
will spread. Christ is still turning the world
upside down!

.

Can we PLEASE get away from the preaching in this thread? It is getting utterly boring and annoying. I fail to see how Dobbadan's story above in ANY WAY contributes to the discussion of the article, which was about the sterotyping of people who follow Islam in Australia.

Is radical/fundamentalist Islam out of step with Australian soceity? Most certainly.

But so is radical/fundamentalist Christianity, and radical/fundamentalist Judaisim.

Mainstream muslims are no more a threat Australia than mainstream ANYTHING. All the article was asking was that mainstreamers, who are the majority by a long long long shot, are not judged as being the same as the radicals.

here here.

you all do your cause no good.

I would be disspointed if i were each of your gods, for presenting my religion in the light you have.

Fide Mae,

Thanks for your posting but you seem to resort to quick judgement and assumptions.

I grew up in a French Catholic school.In fact many Muslim countries have foreign and Catholic schools. It seems 'Muslim schools in your mind consists of madrassas and people sitting on the floor reciting blindly! Second none of my comments explains or compare religions or non-religions. I am explaining only my faith and only when being attacked or misrepresented. Unlike physics, religions (including Atheism) are only a 'personal absolute truth'. Each individual will follow what makes sense to them or whatever sits well with their brain.

Dawood,

It put a smile on my face to see an Anglo Muslim talking about Ibn Taymiyah:-) . Keep it up and agree with your comments on the apostate that it have no substance in Islam but rather an inherent extremism. Also, I found some historians misrepresent the Abu Bakr war as 'war on apostates' while it was a Zakat (poors due) tax evasion and not to whether they are or aren't Muslims. Faith change does not trigger apostacy.

dobbadan, please don't insult our intelligence with religious urban myths.

The "story" you tell has been wandering around the internet for a couple of years, but without a single shred of supporting evidence.

What should alert you to sad hoaxes of this nature is the fact that every instance is word-for-word the same as all the others, and none of them has any references, just "the child could not make up a story like this".

You should also get a clue from the lack of convincing detail in the story itself. Did the guy in white dig them up each day and then bury them again? If not, how come they were still "under the sand" when they were discovered.

It doesn't concern me that you believe this stuff yourself - it is I guess about as believable as most other stories of this ilk - but please don't try and pass it off as true.

It's not even as though it is on-topic.

Unless of course you are presenting a stereotype of a follower of your own faith. That would be relevant.

Aziliz: That's why I generally avoid such issues and only post to show a different perspective of my faith, as someone who believes it.

The funny thing is that I agree with Laurie and the others - the constant barrage of 'religious' posts, generally either antagonistic to my own faith, or clearly promoting another, is quite boring and detracts from the topic(s) at hand. I am sure most readers generally scroll right past them.

Maybe OLO should have a "religion" section where it can be a free for all, or something. :-)

Well the topic is 'how Aussie' do we have to be.... from a noticably 'Islamicly' dressed woman, which raises the question about the faith itself. Can the faith which underlies the costume be accebtable here ? Is there any potential conflict in that faith which was make 'being aussie' a difficult thing ?

Hence the relevance of the discussion of "Islam" as a faith.

DAWOOD. My goodness mate.. you recent intellectual gyrations seem to be that which gave the meaning to 'ducking and weaving' :) but ur on the ropes mate... avoiding the painful truths.

Apostacy is relevant to the topic, and we need to note 2 points here.

1/ It IS part of Sharia law. It may be argued in terms of nuance etc by Dawood and Aziliz etc, but we need to look not at the ducking and weaving crowd, but at the actual schools of Islamic law, of which there are at least 4 major ones. THAT.... is where we derive our reliable information, NOT from 'this scholar or that scholar' who conveniently fits our direction at the time.

2/ Apostacy as 'treason' ? YES ! exactly.. Islam is by essential nature a 'State'...and Islamic one, and where it is not yet, it is the goal. Can any Muslim here deny this ? So, apostacy from the faith is ALSO 'apostacy/treason against the state'. Hence the validity of this discussion.

Dawood.. mumbling on about various "nuances" of Sharia is not helping your cause, it is just muddying the water and presenting Islam in a 'Make it up as you go' light. Lets stick to the Pillars and the schools if Islamic law ok ?

One of which is "Mohammed is the Messenger of God" there are repeated references in both the Quran and Hadith which make it ABUNDANTLY clear, that not believing in Mohammed is a rejection of Allah and deserving of hell. Refer Quran.

Rex and Laurie. Sorry for laboring these points. In a democracy, we all have to live with the consequences of other peoples 'vote' :)

Not avoiding painful truths, just accepting how the Islamic tradition works, especially its diversity, as I have been taught by traditional scholars.

You refuse to see hadith about apostacy that did not always mean death for the people, such as the well known one about a Bedouin who came and gave allegiance in Islam, then became sick with a fever. The next day he wanted to cancel his pledge (of Islam), and eventually left Medina cancelling his pledge. Muhammad didn't kill him, nor did anyone else. There are at least 6 narrations of this story in the major hadith collections, amongst others.

Apostacy is not treason, which is a state issue. There is a difference between "mujarrad al-ridda" - simple apostacy, and that which includes rising up against the state. Someone can be killed for the action of rising against the state, of which apostacy is merely incidental. People are still killed today for treason, so what's your point?

I also am not even attempting to defend the actions of the people in Afghanistan - I think they are wrong, plain and simple. I believe that their understanding on this issue is incorrect. A great many contemporary scholars agree with me, and this is the real issue. I am merely showing that different ideas exist within Islam on this particular subject.

But you can slag me and my religion all you want - as F_H said a few days ago, it's nothing personal. You dislike Islam and all Muslims equally. Words speak louder than actions in this case. :-)

Boaz, there are some ironies here that have clearly escaped you.

When normal people put forward their view on a topic, it is usually accompanied by a perspective. That perspective can be "I am a Muslim" or it can be "I am a politician" or it can be "I am David Flint" - each of these statements, either express or implied as they say, should be a starting point for both their position, and for any subsequent discussion.

By ignoring that perspective, you are likely to find yourself saying the same words over and over, rather than engaging the speaker in any form of meaningful dialogue. A bit like a politician interviewed on television, where they rework the question so that they can give their pre-prepared answer.

That's not a "discussion", and nor is this.

Salam's position is that Muslim-ness should not be measured by the actions of a fanatical fringe.

Your response totally ignores this, and says that Muslim-ness is, by definition and by scripture, personified in the actions of a fanatical fringe.

When challenged that Christianity has its own fanatical fringe, you glibly disown them - they're cannot really Christians, is your defence. By definition, Christians don't act like that.

Do you not even glimpse the possibility that this might be hypocritical? That you might be passing judgement from an extreme position on another extreme position, and ignoring the multitudes in between?

I'd really appreciate it if you refrained from restating that "ah, but this hadith says this, and that hadith says that" - after all, even you don't contend that the bible is to be construed in the twentyfirst century exactly the same way as it was construed in the second or third or fourth, or whenever it was written.

You may not believe me, but it really does make you sound like an ignorant bigot.

I have to agree with your points (as a Christian) Pericles. It should be pointed out that it is increasingly clear that western muslims do not believe their Quran is inimmitable (unchangeable and sent from God rather than written by a human). The flip side of this is that in Muslim countries this is not the case at all. Where Islam is in control, the Quran is veiwed as inimmitable and direct revelation from God. In this context your points do not have any bearing, as all muslim's (in the Islamic state) must follow each and every hadith, and are not allowed to question Islam's position on anything. They also have no role in determining Islam's position.

Since it is impossible to tell to which type of Muslim we are speaking, and given that Islam does not accept the moderate western muslim as a muslim, BD's points are acceptable when he is talking about muslims or Islam, but not when talking about western so called muslims.

What do you think Pericles?

It is interesting though that Salam in her article actually creates a wedge between Muslim and other Australians.

She uses the same old 'cultural cringe' stereotypes of Australia. Hanging out in the pub, bbq's and sport. Come on Salam, you can do better than that! Australian culture is a little bit richer than the old Paul Hogan tourist commercials and movies sold to the yanks.

All I got from this is "Muslims are different - treat us the same or we will be upset". If you want to be different that's your choice, but you must accept that by being different, people will treat you as if you are different. Ask you Immams to shave and see what I mean.

fide mae, your points are well made.

I was taking BD to task on the very fact that he had failed to observe the context of the points that were being made: by a Muslim living in a western society. As you yourself point out, they tend to have a broader outlook - not least because they have chosen to make their homes in such a society.

Boaz had decided to overlook this completely, and assumes that every Muslim is obliged to act in a particular way simply because they are Muslim. This totally ignores the position that is adopted by the writer of the article, who is writing in an Australian context.

BD chooses to ignore this simply in order to make his point - "all Muslims are destined to do evil things, it's part of their religion".

Narcissist makes an interesting point too.

>>Australian culture is a little bit richer than the old Paul Hogan tourist commercials and movies sold to the yanks.<<

So how would you stereotype us, Narcissist? Latte-sipping sophisticates? Taciturn bushies? Cosmopolitan cross-dressers?

Unfortunately (for your argument, that is) the reality is that we are still a nation of fifty-by-one-fifty suburban blocks, entertaining at the barbie (my neighbour has one going even as I type this) and drinking with the mates. Until a more convincing one comes along, I reckon Salam has a right to carry on using this to illustrate her Ozzieness.

Pericles,

Islam as a religion advocates supremacy of faith over all "other".

Scripturally the Qur'an condones "Jihad" of any form in advancing the propagation and establishment of the Global Islamic State.

So a true muslim by definition is a Mujahid and gets his/her instructions straight from Allah's word.

Allah and his prophet disregard human immorality, horror and carnage – they even go further and reward such barbaric acts.

Not being involved or interested in Jihad makes a nominal muslim as low ranked as a kafir or unbeliever - and open to similar persecution.

A true Christian is inspired from the bible – the word of God.

Love, justice and God's grace are the main ingredients of our teaching.

War is an inevitable part of life.

Atrocities carried out from the Christian’s side are not the norm.

These people are not true Christians; they have hijacked Christianity for personal gain and power.

Nowhere in the New Testament are we to use force in reaching out and telling people the good news of their salvation in Christ.

So there are fundamental differences between the two revelations – which of course is proof that only one can be the true faith (from the true God).

To add to what 'coach' said, Christians die for their faith moslems kill others for their faith. A world of difference as well Christians have made it to the twentieth century moslems have not left the barbaric, ignorant tenth century yet.
Christians have had a part in all western inventions, moslems have had no inventions to speak of. The reason for the ignorance in moslem countries is their barbaric, priest led religion only as the ordinary moslem is as clever and innovated as any one else.
Christian nations are ruled by law, in the main these nation's cities are clean with all the services. On the other hand moslem nations and their cities - will see for yourselves.
Christian nations have sport, art and literature, moslem nations have the despicable and evil koran.
How many examples are there for any one whether pagan or Christian to open their eyes and see. The only difference is religion. numbat

Numbat,
If you open your eyes and care to look you would find that Muslims have made great contributions to Western civilization - most of which you take for granted.
Religious bigotry - like war - "emboldens the blood and narrows the mind."
Even with all the intolerance and anti-Muslim rants, the hypocrisy of self-righteous, "holier-than-thou" extremist Christians never ceases to amaze and amuse me.
"Worship me or burn in hell for all eternity" - a peaceful and loving God?
It's only an accident of birth and a matter of geography that finds you huddled over a keyboard and not making a bomb somewhere on the West Bank.

allo allo... this thread has shifted to a discussion of BOAZ pov....

Pericles is biting my rear and Fida is raising questions about the applicability of what I'm saying re Muslims in 'Australia/Western' contexts, backed up by Pericles.

Well.. glad you have sought fit to give needed feedback and enable me to clarify a few things.

Firstly, I'm not ignoring the context, neither am I saying as it appears has been put in my mouth by quotes "Muslims are destined to do evil" etc... Hmm.. I'm sure I recall being harangued by one "P" about doing that to him on previous occasions.. :)

My point is this:

Practicioners of Islam in Western countries will of neccessity be 'tame' and moderate mostly, though they have their weird fringe.
Where Islam is the predominant religion, things change. Remember now, I've lived in Malaysia for 8 yrs and the rest of my life in Australia.
In Malaysia I saw both the radical and the moderate. It just depended on the demographics and the particular state. Without question it IS the goal of Australian Islam to convert the country, just as it is our Christian responsibility to present Christ to all and sundry.

I've stated this before, that the essential focus of Christ in life and word, is not aggressive or punative. Islam by history and doctrine is just that.

DAWOOD.. I don't mean to slag at "you", I haven't yet called you a moron or the such like, but I DO mean to critically scrutinize Islam. By highlighting the inherrant problems of Islam, its prophet and raising questions about your reasoning, I'm hopefully engaging in 'corrective action' :) rather than harmful. Total quality control mate.

You seem to be avoiding/ducking reference to the major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence on issues....why ? r u superior in understanding than they ? Are they no longer relevant ?

Paul ruthlessly criticized the 'circumcision party' "watch out for the dogs who mutilate the flesh" (Galatians) I won't do less.

wobbles: please list the moslem inventions, especially those over the last 1000 years. Then we will list the inventions of the Christian west - that is if we have the room. Don't worry you will have stacks of room.
As for a god who will torture infidels in an ever burning hell fire as well as pouring boiling water down their throats, that would be pagan islam god eh? My God, the Real God states, "As in Adam ALL will die (physically) in Christ ALL (the same word)will live. Only Christian oddies preach an ever-lasting constantly burning hell fire. These people usually cast all pagans, those who have never heard of God, and unbaptised babies and children in this hell fire. My God will save ALL! how? - I really cannot fathom yet but that's what He has said in His Bible, and let's face it He is all-powerful. numbat

Ok Numbat, Some of the everyday inventions attributed to Muslims are -
The three-course meal, soap, coffee, the cheque, chess, the crankshaft, the toothbrush, street lighting, public parks, drainage, the first clocks, windmills, waterwheels and irrigation methods, public libraries and a system of reading for the blind, rudimentary optics, including the telescope and the pinhole camera.

Medicine - Hospitals, the identification of allergies and discovery of asthma as a condition.
Various surgical techniques, including the development of instruments such as scalpels, forceps etc, plus the use of anaesthetics and the concept of pathogens (inoculation - Children in Turkey were being vaccinated against smallpox 50 years before the West).
They were extracting cataracts from eyes via hollow needles hundreds of years before the west and led the world in opthamology until the 18th century.

Architecture - the pointed arch and buttresses as used in later Gothic Cathedrals, the earliest forms of glass
Chemistry - methods of distillation, filtration, oxidation etc and the classification of elements.
Physics - They concluded that the earth was round 600 years before Galileo, calculated it's tilt and thus scientifically understood equinoxes and the seasons. They calculated the circumference of the Earth long before it could be confirmed by other methods.
Biology - particularly horticulture and developments in agriculture such as fertilisation, crop rotation and grafting methods.
Astronomy - the invention of the astrolabe. Many of the Moon's craters are named after Arab astronomers.

Perhaps the most significant breakthrought was the numeral cipher system. As well as the 1,2,3..figures we still all use(ie Arabic numerals), the concept of "0" and it's use made a massive advancement in mathematics and the algebra (from the arabic word "AlJabar") beyond the basics explored by the Greeks.
I suppose you would prefer using Roman Numerals for all your calculations.
The Muslims invented Trigonometry and made advances in Geometry.
Most of the accumulated knowledge was lost when the libraries of Baghdad were burned by the Mongols and again when the Christians took over Spain and burned over a million books in the Public Square in Granada. (Ran out of space)

Wobbles - you provided Numbat with more assistance than he deserves. Clearly he just wants to be spoon fed - which explains a lot about his limited understanding of the foundation of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Just the fact that he refers to Islam as 'pagan' indicates his inability to learn from history.

Well Numbat if spoon feeding is the only way you will gain even limited knowledge I suggest you learn from the following link and desist from your absurdities regarding inventions as being only a Christian talent - I know a few billion Asians who would beg to differ.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/

"Bringing life to Muslim Heritage

Discover 1000 years of missing history and explore the fascinating Muslim contribution to present day Science, Technology, Arts and Civilisation.

In recent time, Muslims, have come under severe strain. Aggression or violence by the use of the sword and Islam are nearly always depicted as co-existent. History though, reveals the complete opposite. Explore the little known but fascinating tolerance and humanity of Muslim Civilisation."

Numbat - you have the opportunity to prove that you are not a fool, the question is can you rise to the occasion? So to speak....

wobbles/scout: Scout even your pathetic attempts at sarcasm fails, remember it's the blue pills..
First I never said or intimated that moslems were incapable of inventing or were not innovative.
I did ask for the inventions of the last 1000 years. Now the conquerors of Spain came out of the desert and lo and behold they suddenly became geniuses over night. Have you not understood it's the victors that write history - of course this is what they, the arabs, did to one degree or another.
I think that to suddenly rise to the standard you say they would have used the conquered peoples including the Jews. I seem to have read/heard that is just what they did do.
Also in that time islam had more freedoms so the clever ones could delve into arts and sciences etc.
Today, as I have heard/read if a topic is not mentioned in the silly koran it is not worth knowing about. If any topic is mentioned then to question it would be seen as blasphemy and we all know what is done to those people. By the way have either of you checked out what is said about science, art, bodily functions including the fertilising of an ovum in the koran? - it's a hoot, unless I read from an older model koran big mo was so bloody clever eh?
So we have tribal arabs coming from no-where and becoming absolute brains. Then being tossed out of Spain to become what they are today.
There is no moslem university of note, no teaching hospital of note, no humanitarian bodies that will help those of any race or religion. Because of their pagan [that's pagan which is a worshipper of any false god or gods]brutal religion moslems have/are being held back. Not because they are not clever or intelligent but because of their pathetic death loving, brutal, misogynistic religion of "peace & love". By the way islam has NOTHING! absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. Different prophet,entirely different god totally differing beliefs and a vastly different paradise. numbat

with no intention of insulting moslems Wobbles but:

soap-first mention of soap recipe inscribed on clay cylinders from Babylon 2800BC. first mention of actually using soap for washing Egypt 1500BC

Coffee-originally grew natively in Ethiopia where they ate the beans rolled in fat. The word 'coffee' comes from the town Caffa in Ethiopia. The Turks were the first to make a drink from it.

It was the Persians of the Sassanid Empire who in the first century AD who first used cheques.

The crankshaft was developed in the 12th Century by a turkish moslem inventor Al-Jazari, who also invented some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights (although water clocks were first developed in Egypt around 1400BC and were also popular with the Greeks who developed more sophisticated versions) and the combination lock.

"Chew sticks"-a thin twig with a frayed end were used as toothbrushes from 3000BC but the chinese developed a toothbrush made of hogs bristles in a bone or bamboo handle 1498.

Street lights depends on what sort of lighting your talking about but the first electric street lighting was Russian and the first gas was Chinese and if you want to go back further than that you are getting so ancient it would be before Mohammed.

Public Parks-the ancient Greeks and Hindus had them before there were any Moslems.

The first Windmill was built in Persia in the 7th Century AD for the caliph Umar Ibn Al-Kttab the second caliph of Islam.

Drainage was first developed by the Indus Valley Civilisation of Pakistan and North India around 3100BC.

The earliest waterwheels in the mountains Of Armenia in about the year 200BC.

Irrigation methods! Which ones? The Sumerians used irrigation.

Phoenicians (Canaanites) discovered glass around 3500BC. Egyptians made glass beads 2500BC. Mosaic glass was developed during the Ptolemaic dynasty in Alexandria. Glassblowing was developed during the 1st Century BC --before Mohammed. Clear glass was developed by the Venetians in the 15th Century.

The Oldest known lens was found int he ruins of Ancient Ninevah made of polished rock crystal but it is not known what it was used for. The romans in the 1st century AD used lenses called magnifiers or burning glasses to erase mistakes on wax tablets and to cauterise wounds. I can't find anything about Moslems.

Pinhole cameras-The chinese philosopher Mo Ti was the first known person to write on it. Aristotle also wrote about it (fourth century BC).

I am not going to bother with the rest. The research is so flawed. If you got this off one website then I suggest you look at others. It seems to me that a lot of inventions that were made in the Middle East are just labelled 'muslim' when they were obviously earlier pagan religions and a good deal of chinese inventions.

Numbat, although I am a Christian I don't agree that the Bible states that all will be saved somehow ,it says that," you must be born again" you cannot inherit the Kingdom of God without this.

Jesus spoke more about hell than He did Heaven,check a concordance.
God does not send anyone to Hell,you send yourself,because you make the choice to either follow Jesus The Son of God or you don't.
His desire is that ALL would be saved (obey Him) but they just won't .

Babies and mentally ill, etc ,will go to Heaven,because they can't make a decision and don't sin wilfully.

Anyway, as for islam,buddhism,hinduism,all the isms and man made religions like these and then JW's and mormonism ,etc, all are man made religions started by one man ,because they did not want to obey The One True God ,so manufactured their own, assisted by satan .

You will find all of these began after God gave Moses the 5 first books the original Bible and laws.
Islam is the worst of all the religions as far as making trouble,change s,hatred and demands inall nations driven by crueltya nd evil power . It cannot be compared in any way with Christianity.

dobbadan: Called out Christians called/judged now. An ever burning hell where young and old are tortured forever and ever? this doesn't gell with the Mighty God's Character as depicted by Christ.
The Bible does state: "For as in Adam ALL die [physical]EVEN SO in Christ [spiritual] shall ALL [same word] be made alive.
Those who never heard about God/Christ, not their fault, lost forever again not from the God I know. Christ spoke in parables so the people would not understand so could not be called, not their fault.
Christianity - so called - or churchianity is man made. Powerful priest between people and their God, funny hats and frocks(?) worn by the p/hood, as well as carrying "burning purses" or incense. Nothing about these in the N/Testament nor are church buildings commanded. Every man-made church group have differing beliefs derived from the one Bible - strange?
Islam no worse than the early churchianity though they slaughtered each other mainly along with alleged witches and the such.I found a lot of new information on <L Ray Smith> website. cheers, numbat

Aziliz, I concede that much of what I said was rushed and poorly researched.

While many of the items described were not invented in the Middle East, several were significant improvements or refinements.

In my defence, I was perhaps too keen to dispute unfair allegations that the Islamic culture produced only ignorance and nothing of value to mankind and was trying to restore some balance to an argument that was getting off-topic and out of hand.

In retrospect it was a feeble argument at best - like saying Christianity produced the iPod.

All the items I mentioned can be referenced to what appear to be reliable sources, but apparently can also as easily be refuted - so what can you really believe out there in cyberspace?

If there is a lesson in this (for me) it's that people will believe what they want to believe (including me) and there are always agendas at work behind what we are told.

For some, this thread is just an argument over whose imaginary friend is best.

Thanks for keeping me on track.

wobbles, thank you for the honesty and courage shown in that last post. Many who would have us believe that their lives have been transformed by a relationship with their imaginary friend could learn much from that single post.

From what I have seen of christian history and muslim history invention and progress have mostly occured when the power of religious leadership was at it's weakest. Western history is full of examples of church leadership stamping on discovery and invention because of a perceived threat to notions of how things should be. We owe much to those determined individuals who risked death, torture, confinement and public villification to expand the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding.

The battle continues as we see parts of the church desperately trying to have the latest version of creationism (ID) taugh in school as science and seeking for any way possible to discredit the work of those who strive to understand how this universe came into being. Some still struggle with the idea that their imaginary friend did not build it all in six days some thousands of years ago (complete with a fossil record) and don't like what that idea says about the rest of their sacred writings.

Cheers
R0bert

Wobbles:

Do you actually know anything about mathematics?

You mention significant advances that are made in mathematics by Muslims. I think you make the mistake of conflating Muslims and Arabs. To put things in perspective, long division was a PHD problem at the time of the Greeks. To extend this to make the claim that zero was a major advancement while technically correct is also to overlook that fact that it was a case of picking the low hanging fruit.

Just as an aside, does the concept of zero really strike you as being that far out?

Formalising the notions of calculus was a major advancement (Newton, Leibniz) and it is taught to high school students the world over. Consider that by the end of a degree course in pure mathematics one is not even taught to use that which is currently passes as modern mathematics. You begin to gain an idea of how far back in terms of development you are going to make these sparkling claims of Islamic scientific wizardry.

Perhaps you might like to try and actually provide an example of one of those significant advances in geometry.

As for the claims of the Arabic numerals. It makes no difference what textual representation you use for a number. Think algebra, they are replaced by letters. Computers only count up to two and they are generally considered to be superior to humans at performing arithmetic. And to be clear, there is a meaningful difference between arithmetic and mathematics.

Muslims invented trigonometry. Pythagorus, good Muslim he. A small matter of a few centuries discrepancy in your time lines.

The libraries spiel, this one is a classic. Since when does the possession of a book allow one to claim to have come up with the knowledge within.

You have been suckered by some obvious propaganda.

I agree with Robert, you've been most gracious, Wobbles, in admitting fault and there are a lot of christians on this forum who could learn something from that.

I also agree with Robert about the historical fact that it is during times of great tolerance of a variety of viewpoints, be they political, social, scientific or religious that the world gets the greatest flowering in innovation and its during the times of greatest intolerance that innovation is stymied and suffocated. Unfortunately, society seems to stagger between periods of tolerance and periods of fundamentalist intolerant bigotry.

The fact is innovation and invention is something all humans races are capable of and all cultures that foster and encourage it (and often even if they don't there are those who will struggle against ignorance and persecution to bring enlightenment to others).

I hope readers of my previous post note the list of inventions shows the diversity across different cultures, countries and time spans and also how an invention by one people is often improved and extended by others. And yes some of them are moslems and peoples of arabic extraction but many are from a range of other religions (not just christian!) and cultural backgrounds.

It is unfortunate that both Christianity and Islam have inbuilt into them a great deal of intolerance of others that is thankfully often ignored by the adherents but unfortunately often not.

Wobbles,

The real lesson here is that you should not always believe opinions even when they are disguised as facts.

As for imaginary friends - it is your opinion - it can remain as fact in your mind until you - and only you - do your own research and discover the one true God that created what you see around you including 'you'.

There are no prizes for ignorance.

As long as you rely on the wisdom and knowledge of 'man' you are missing out on the bigger picture and the wider (infinite) knowledge of the supreme God.

Put your brain in gear and your prescious mind at work - do your own research - eternal blessings are there waiting for you.

RObert,

Hello old friend - the only one being discredited here is you.

Your bitterness against God is clearly making you sound like a fool.

Sad that this thread has disintegrated into a "my dad can whip your dad" exchange. Only to be expected, though, when there are so many talking and so few listening.

coach, your arguments are within a whisper of becoming ridiculous.

>>Atrocities carried out from the Christian’s side are not the norm. These people are not true Christians<<

By "atrocities", I assume you means sins - after all, there are some absolute rules at play here, aren't there? So you are saying that sinners cannot be Christians, by definition.

Now please correct me if I am wrong (if you don't, Boaz surely will), but isn't the concept of sinners fundamental to your faith? Or are you in a very special Christian space where no evil is ever perpetrated?

This wouldn't be particularly important, except that you go on to say:

>>So there are fundamental differences between the two revelations – which of course is proof that only one can be the true faith<<

Leaving aside the fact that this statement can be many things, but "proof" is not one of them, do you not see the ridiculousness of painting yourself in a corner that contains only "non-sinning" Christians?

It has always puzzled me how army regiments have taken clerics along, to bless the troops before battle. In your world (and of course in Boaz's world of absolutes) shoudn't he say:

"Best of luck with the battle tomorrow, chaps. Just remember, thou shalt not kill is probably the most important of the ten commandments. So off you go, and I don't want to see any of you employing postmodern rationalisation, and killing someone simply because in relative terms, he's the enemy."

And dobbadan, I know you never read anything anybody else writes, but do you actually read your own stuff?

>>Babies and mentally ill, etc ,will go to Heaven,because they can't make a decision and don't sin wilfully<<

Oh, please. That is cruel.

Pericles: You are a sad b's So Christians make mistakes, so Christians are not perfect, Put today's Christians against the death loving, suicide bombing, misogynist, brutal, lying [it's all in their pathetic koran]PAGAN moslems eh? What nations TOP the list of decent{well part way] democratic {democracy is anti-islam according to most "inteligent?" imams] nations. Who contribute money to humantitarian causes helping those of whatever religion - moslems or Christian nations? What nations have 'Care, CBMI, help -the -children, etc' Christian nations or bloody [as in gory] pagan islamic nations? Who do not PRAISE and encourage cowardly utterly stupid suicide bombers, especially among CHILDREN? Who when they sign a treaty keep to it unlike pagan moslems with their despicable 'al-taqiyya' Please Pericles look around this sad globe - it's not hard to pick the blood thirsty animals - and in the main they are not Christians. numbat

Pericles,

I will attempt to answer your misconceptions of “sin”

Firstly by atrocities I meant political, sociological and economical injustices and wars imposed on others by pseudo-Christian governments.

Atrocities are but the result of sin. Sin is man’s wilful separation from God.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” simply means all humans are sinners and in dire need for redemption.

All Christians are sinners. Only one person that ever walked on this earth was sinless – Jesus. That is why He is the only one to qualify as the way, the truth and the life to reconcile us back to God The Father.

When a Christian is “born-again” he/she choses/decides to accept Jesus as the only redeemer.

God’s pardon (grace) is undeserved but is extended FREELY to all humans (sinners). It's one choice every individual must make.

As to: >>So there are fundamental differences between the two revelations – which of course is proof that only one can be the true faith<<

I was talking about God’s revelations versus Allah’s revelations and how they bluntly contradict themselves. So only one of the two “revelations” can be true.

Examples:
God says Jesus is my son. Allah says “God cannot have a son”.
God says Jesus is my last revelation. Mohammad says not so.
God saves humanity from sin. Allah says “save yourself”good luck.
God says we are all sinners. Allah will decide who is or is not at his discretion...
God says salvation is "on earth" now. Allah says "later" after you die (insha'allah)

As Christians we are commended to love our enemies – not kill them. Proving my point of view that atrocities in the name of Christ cannot be classified as Christian behaviour.

Jesus never advocates violence (unlike other false prophets).

Wars are part of life on earth. Jesus said:”My kingdom is in heaven” meaning that He had no interest in establishing a worldly empire. Yet another proof that Mohammad is not from God because islam is establishing itself as a global state: ‘Ummah’.

Mr.P.Pig,
Despite my later retraction, yes I do know a bit about mathematics.

The interesting concept of zero is that a symbol that has no value of itself, can have multiple uses.
The decimal system we use was not "invented" by Arabs but was introduced to Europe via Spain by Muslims.

The advances in geometry I mentioned came as a result of the application of algebra.
"Perhaps one of the most significant advances made by Arabic mathematics began at this time with the work of al-Khwarizmi, namely the beginnings of algebra. (The word algorithm derives from his name.)" and "Al-Khwarizmi's successors undertook a systematic application of arithmetic to algebra....... and geometry to algebra. This was how the creation of polynomial algebra, combinatorial analysis, numerical analysis, the numerical solution of equations, the new elementary theory of numbers, and the geometric construction of equations arose. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Hist_Topics_alph.html

The claim about trigonometry was patently wrong and badly phrased. What I should have detailed was that based on the Greek and Indian traditions, they did "complete the sine and the five other functions and had discovered and proved several basic theorems of trigonometry for both plane and spherical triangles. They also produced the modern values of the trigonometric functions. All of these discoveries were applied both for astronomical purposes and as an aid in astronomical time-keeping and in finding the direction of Mecca for the five daily prayers required by Muslim law. Their tables of the sine and tangent, constructed for steps of 1/60 of a degree, were accurate for better than one part in 700 million. Finally, the great astronomer Nasir ad-Din at- Tusi wrote the Book of the Transversal Figure, which was the first treatment of plane and spherical trigonometry as independent mathematical Science. "

I also never claimed that the acquisition of this knowledge was based on any belief system - I meant exactly the opposite. For the record, I'm not a Muslim, I was born an Orthodox Christian but I'm not a churchgoer and I abhor all forms of intolerance, violence and prejudice.

Wobbles:

The decimal system we used no doubt derived from the fact that people have ten fingers. Barring notational differences Roman and Arabic script both count base ten. Thus “but was introduced to Europe via Spain by Muslims” falls flat.

The thing about zero is that it is the additive identity element and pops up all over the place in axioms and proofs. In terms of arithmetic the concept of zero is decidedly less interesting. It account for the gap in the number line seems as though it should be obvious. Hindsight no doubt.

“The advances in geometry I mentioned came as a result of the application of algebra.”

Neat trick that one. The screed you chose to cut and paste points out that these thing lead to the ... Freeloading on the later achievements by association.

These things are a fair bit more advanced than the computation of cosine to several decimal places. They occurred much later and to try and insinuate that they are an Islamic mathematical achievement (number theory, come on) is highly optimistic on your behalf. Just as plausible is the claim that they are a Greek invention that lead to the Arab/Islamic refinement and so on and so on. A matter of personal bias as to where you may choose to start paying attention to the timeline. Consider Ptolemy.

But the point I made that you seem to have studiously overlooked in your reply was that in terms of what is happening now, these things are well removed from what passes as modern mathematics. If you think it is an appropriate perspective to claim intellectual ownership over the science behind the space-shuttle for the individual that invented the paper glider then feel free. Qualitatively this is the sort of error you are making. I believe it is incorrect and implausible.

Your last paragraph is odd, I can only think that you interpreted the statements about libraries as me conferring some god botherer status on you. This is incorrect. I was referring to the libraries of books that were burned. Apologies if you interpreted it otherwise.

Sophistry, coach, pure sophistry.

Like any talented politician, you neatly sidestep the core issue by pretending that you have solved the dichotomy, when in fact all you have done is to restate it...

>>I will attempt to answer your misconceptions of “sin”<<

Well, as an opening gambit, not too bad. You posit that I am somehow mistaken about the nature of sin. However, nothing you then put forward supports this position - in fact, everything you say emphasises the fact that I have the concept of sin nailed:

>>Atrocities are but the result of sin.<<

Yep, happy with that.

>>All Christians are sinners<<

Er... that was exactly my point.

>>As Christians we are commended to love our enemies – not kill them<<

Agreed. But they do, don't they?

>>atrocities in the name of Christ cannot be classified as Christian behaviour<<

Hang on a second. That was my point too, wasn't it? That was the reason I put that story in about the pre-battle speech from the padre.

Let us see if we can follow your thought processes.

Atrocities are the result of sinning. All Christians are sinners.

But Christians who kill are by definition, sinners (which all Christians are), but also, according to you, by definition not Christians.

There is a logical fallacy right there

You can apparently only be a Christian if you are a sinner, but if you sin, you cannot be a Christian.

I suggest that I am not the only one around here with “misconceptions”.

And while I am here... numbat, I have to warn you that Boaz is going to be very, very cross with you.

Your entire argument seems to rest on the proposition that “we may be bad, but we're not as bad as they are.”

Boaz will tell you – any minute now – that you have fallen into the post-modern trap of relativism, and you must therefore be “making it up as you go along”.

Shame on you.

This thread has really degenerated into nonsense.

with notable exceptions:

Wobbles - for your honesty
R0bert - for your common sense
Aziliz - for your most recent post - I wish I'd written that one!

Pericles - why are you trying to reason with the likes of Coach & Numbat? You know they are only interested in promoting Muslim stereotypes and flogging the rest of us with their warped version of christianity. Calling on Boaz to support you will prove to be rather like waiting for Godot.

Coach:"The real lesson here is you shouldn't always believe opinions even when they're disguised as facts"

Be careful coach--yes--there are many wild statements around claiming unsubstantiated facts--but also many people dedicated to finding the truth without 'fear or favour' who've brought to us highly accurate information. Archaeology and translations of numerous ancient texts shouldn't be dismissed flippantly.

Some Christians on this list reject knowledge, facts and opinion--even their own bible--claiming believing in God is enough--they invent their own God pushing their opinions disguised as the word of God to make them unassailable--the isolated and frail opinion of one human being who won't listen or learn from others.

Zero--I've heard many times zero was developed by muslims and have erroneously said so myself. But:

http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/biozero.htm

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html

Zero as a place holder in a numbering system was developed by Babylonians and later used by Greeks(only by a handful of astronomers, it didn't get established). Zero as an individual number was first used by the Hindus. The Moslems took the concept from the Hindus and brought it to the west where, at that time, there was no zero.

But if one culture adopts a cultural advance then transmits it to another for their enlightenment, that's still worthy of note--and appreciation.

Pig praises Greek advances but the Greek language, although Indo-European, has a high use of semitic words from a very ancient influence. The latest theory is the 'Greek' Ionians were the 'Luwian' culture, which lived in Turkey. Related to the Hittites and living adjacent to them--when the Hittite Empire collapsedthey took over. Its well-attested in ancient documents Ionians lived on the mainland of Asia Minor, the Pelopponese and Greece.

The Greeks were in a postion to learn from the Middle East, that great melting pot of cultures where the trade routes from three continents crossed--fertile ground for innovation.

SBS last night had a documentary where the DNA of bones of ancient Canaanites were compared with Jewish and Arabic--they're related. They should be proud of it instead of calling the Canaanites evil.

Oh! scout: You ask of pericles 'why are you trying to reason with numbat and coach' As if we were/are unreasonable. Maybe you are hearing the provable truth and maybe it is making you somewhat uncomfortable.
It's not 19 plus Baptists being held in custody in Melbourne on terrorist charges.
It's not the Christian Bible which has enshrined LYING to non-Christians.
It's not the Presbyterians who send their children of as cowardly, incredibly stupid suicide bombers.
It's not the Methodists who detonate car bombs amongst their own.
It's not United Church members who take hostages and while these hostages are held in restraint and outnumbered saw their heads off - so bloody brave! eh?.
It's not the Seventh Day Adventists who callously murder their female relatives and sickenly called this murdering "honour?" killing.
It wasn't Anglicans who attacked, making sure they outnumbered them first, volunteer life savers.
It's not COG members who go out to rape middle eatern women because these woman are middle eastern only.
It's not because of Christian, buddhist, hindu or even atheist beliefs and probable actions that this nation now has anti-terrorist laws. scout maybe you should cease taking your pills for a while. numbat

Pericles,

"Simplicity is the ultimate design” I think that was one of Mercedes campaign slogan a few years back…

I confused you more by trying to simplify. I was not evading the issue at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

"Sin” is such a core theological concept and a corner stone in Christendom. Explaining it in this monologue fashion here on olo is hard.

To compile to the problem is our separate terms of reference to "sin" as a believer and a non-believer (in God). This could really cloud communication - plus I am not a theologian.

But here goes.

"SIN - Take 2":

There is SIN (singular) and SINS (plural) - two different things:

The singular "SIN" as a theological term means alienation or separation from God, His will and His plans for our individual lives. It is a state of disobedience/ a rebellious phase, but not the "behaviour" (action of commiting sins).

Man is born in that state of “SIN” because of Adam & Eve' rebellion against God. Thus, as their descendants, we are all in SIN at birth - also called 'the original sin'.

Being born in that state of separation from God predisposes all of us to commit "SINS" plural – which is the familiar understanding of disobedience of the 10 commandments (stealing, adultery, etc…)

So everyone commits SINS. Christians are not any different. It is human, no exception. Being “good” is a false expectation often imposed on Christians.

The only way we can be reconcilled to God, and enjoy a full relationship with Him again, is if we were perfect and SIN-less (God's standards). A pure impossibility – left to our own devise.

But God by His Grace extends His Pardon through His Son Jesus - who is blameless - and the only way back to eternal life.

Without Jesus there is no life. He is our saviour.

This is why we are so glad to be born again in Jesus. He died a horrible death taking the full punishment for us all. Forgiving the “SINS” of humanity and abolishing “SIN” forever.

I'll accept for the moment that you have nailed the definition of sin and sins, coach. But let me see if I also understand it in the broader context of life - i.e. as an outsider looking in, rather than your position as an insider looking... er, in.

Let me take again this image of the regimental padre addressing the troops before a battle - let's imagine it to be one of the more futile efforts, say, Ypres or Mons, or the "big push" on the Somme.

Our padre has a difficult task. His job is spiritual nourishment - there would have been a preponderance of churchgoers back then - to reassure the troops that they were "on a mission from God", so to speak. On the other hand, he has Boaz's rule book, that says quite specifically, thou shalt not kill.

Who is the sinner in this little scenario, if any?

Let's assume the chaps now go over the top and kill a couple of the enemy before they themselves are blown to smithereens.

Who has sinned in this picture, and what might their punishment be?

Let us also take a peek over the trenches to the other side. What do we find... oh, look, a German padre, giving the same pep-talk to those fellows in the spiky helmets. They are about to perform a mirror image of the first scene.

Leaving aside the foot soldiers for the moment, what is the theological position of the padres here? Have they sinned? What will be their punishment if they have? Will their sins be expunged next time they go to church - a luxury not extended to many of those to whom they gave spiritual comfort before the battle?

It would be nice - but unlikely, I know - if you could abandon the speech-book for a moment, eschew the cut-and-paste job from the "how to baffle a non-believer with jargon" web site, and simply answer, as a member of the human race, some straightforward questions.

I know they are difficult questions, but that doesn't excuse you from answering them.

Pericles,

Thanks for giving me the tick on the SIN-SINS definitions. And BTW I do not copy and paste – I use my own understanding of a topic and try to put into words. As Christians we are called to always be ready to give an explanation for our faith – and to do that “in love” (that’s the hard part…).

Which brings me to your “hypothetical scenario”.

The Christian view of killing at war and especially the blessing of the troops for the purpose of ‘killing’.

One of Jesus famous lines: render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. And from another passage: slaves obey your masters. Lead me to understand that there is a dichotomy of allegiance in the Christian value teaching.

We (Christians) live in this world but are not called to become part of this world. Our true “home” is God’s kingdom which we belong by becoming born-anew….

A Christian soldier is trained to kill as a duty to his/her country (Caesar). Which puts them in the same basket of all non-Christians soldiers.

Any soldier can object and desert violence on moral grounds.

The Padre has a greater dilemma I agree with you. I struggled with that problem. I came to the conclusion that unlike a coach in a sport context he/she is not there to promote aggression but to alleviate the suffering and keeping the spiritual line open at all times.

Being “on a mission from God” is where I draw the line. (I could make some justified concessions for legitimate self-defence). Nowhere in the New Testament do we see God asking for aggression.

So the point is intentionality. Killing as part of duty – serving one’s country and fellow citizen – this cannot be “sinning”.

Killing like in “murder” or “homicide” is a different matter; definitely “Sinning”.

I hear you say but war is premeditated murder too. Absolutely. Unfortunately it is part of the “fallen” world we live in. No peace in sight until Jesus’ return.

Forgiveness of sins is an act of true contrition. God forgives and FORGETS our sins IF we are in-Christ

you say a handful of extremists, tell that to the residents of maroubra and the surounding suburbs after youre lebanese muslim malitia turned up in a 100 or so car loads of scum stabbing innocent people and causing thousands of dollars of damage upon innocent peoples property all because a couple of their leb maltia mates copped a hiding that day for a change.The worst part is that the scum that caused the damage have probably never worked an honest day in their life but they are happy to screw people over that pay their pensions and unemployment benefits,because they are to lazy or retarded to go out and get an honest job for themselves.The fact is that muslims beleifs and morals differ so greatly from all other cultures and their beliefs and morals, that intergration with the exception of a small minority into any country on the planet, will always be impossible, muslims themselves have proven this many times,in many cases. Go back to where you race originated,stop using detention centres to sleaze you're way into the country, very few people want you here, and many more people don't,plus youre all just a huge burden on the australian economy alot of you can barely speak english and many more cannot you're the only religion that needs to have swimming hours set aside for you, look at the trouble you bring to any country you enter GO BACK TO WHERE YOU BELONG, roaming a desert riding cammels

Sorry, coach. Not good enough.

First of all, there are a few million dead people from more dozens of countries who would have more than a quibble with you calling the situation that I described "hypothetical".

Hypothetical is “what if”. There was nothing hypothetical about WW1 trench warfare

Furthermore, your position on "belonging" is a cop-out.

>>We (Christians) live in this world but are not called to become part of this world.<<

That is a strange claim. Presumably this allows you to avoid any and all responsibility on earth.

>>A Christian soldier is trained to kill as a duty to his/her country ... Any soldier can object and desert violence on moral grounds<<

Objection I can understand. There were some who chose this path, which is a tough call in the face of peer pressure, many of them not Christians but simply following their conscience.

Desertion I cannot understand. That is betrayal of your fellow man - but I guess if you are "not called to become part of this world", then this would mean nothing to you.

So back to the padre, I guess.

I'll concede that "mission from God" might be a little strong - it was supposed to be a satirical Blues Brothers reference, but obviously missed the mark.

Would you accept that he might instead have advised the boys that "God is on your side"? In the spirit of being their coach, naturally.

This would be the supreme hypocrisy, would it not? Especially since there was another padre in the opposing trenches giving exactly the same “coaching”.

However much you would like to wriggle out of it, there is a major disconnect between what your religion tells you is appropriate behaviour (thou shalt not kill) and what it practices. To disguise the padre's exhortations to murder fellow human beings as “coaching” is nothing but expediency.

As, of course, is claiming some form of differentiation between killing (on the battlefield) and murder. I doubt very much if the person killed particularly noticed the difference.

pericles:
So Christians fight so do moslems, the Christian Bible prophecises even bigger and better wars to come, as does the terrorist h/book.
Perhaps, just perhaps neither so-called Christians and definitely not pagans follow God as they should. Perhaps God has given us over to war to learn lessons which we will reap from in the future.
Please do not get holier than thou in this matter of war.
pericles none of us humans are any better than others, so-called Christians should be - real Christians though, by the grace of God are.
If there were no gutless, bloodthirsty, lying p/moslems you, even you would have to admit that this world would be a better place. Even the western nations with a far less than a perfect Christian Religion are so far ahead of any p/moslem or p/whatever other nation. smile, numbat

numbat, it's the blue pills on Wednesdays, mate.

Just to be clear, if there is any holier-than-thou going on here, it is the holy-rollers, not me. My mission, which I choose to accept, is to root out cant and hypocrisy in every corner of the blogosphere, and never to rest until the entire world makes a start at being honest with each other.

But among your stream of semi-consciousness there is one sentence (?) that could do with a jolly good parsing.

>>none of us humans are any better than others, so-called Christians should be - real Christians though, by the grace of God are.<<

Let me see if I have this right:

"none of us humans are any better than others"

Ignoring the appalling grammar, this presumably means that we are all at the same level of goodness.

"...so-called Christians should be [better than others]"

I suppose the rationale is that with the value-set they claim, "so-called" (soi-disant, perhaps?) Christians should rise above the pack, but they don't, for some reason unexplained in the text.

"...real Christians though, by the grace of God are [better than others]"

Numbat, you have already stated that this cannot be true, earlier in the same sentence - "none of us humans are any better than others" (ugh)

Or perhaps you would like us to believe that real Christians aren't human?

Like, the Raeleans were right all along, and Christians were created in laboratories by people from another planet who had mastered genetics and cell biology. Hmmm, that would explain much.

Word to the wise: don't talk drivel, numbat.

Oh! Great? and knowledgeable? pericles: What I wrote was perhaps a little beyond you as it verged onto the spiritual where as you are - well where you are. Or maybe you are above us all maybe you are the one we have been waiting for Mr/Mrs? perfection. Never mind petals I do know how you feel, by the way personal abuse is only used when one is a little thick and cannot come up with an answer - as yourself. Yes I know what is said about sarcasm, petals.
Please mighty one forgive this poor scribe should I have inadvertidly mis-spelled a word or used bad grammar. most humble and chastened numbat

you guys seem to be speaking in a language that normal everyday people would not even understand,it is like a cross between political correctness and speaking in tongues and what you end up with is a lot of half finished making no sense sentences,of nothingness,get to the point speak in normal everyday english or lamans terms and try and keep to the topic plz

i work for muslims ,have done for quiet a few years,, in these few years i have seen nothing but intolorance for our western ways,hatred for our women,and no respect for any other religious beleifs.i litterally have met hundreds of them (extended families,members of their community,relatives from overseas,etc etc)
i have witnessed bruises on their wives,hand and fingerprints around their wives throats,ive seen their children be married off to their older most unattractive cousins against their will,ive heard them call us"sharmutas" because we are not muslim i have been told that women are for the pleasure of their husband and if she will not "put out" will be beaten till she learns her place,, a lot of these people i know are all on single mothers pensions,their husbands on the dole,their friends getting disability pensions(their special musso doctors write them willy nilly),they all have$500,000 homes,2-3 vehicles each,have businesses,holiday property and afford to have long luxurious holidays overseas,seems to me they are commiting quiet a number of offences in the process,,, why arnt they being stopped? cause everyone is bloody scared of then.thats why.

can't fathom why,

you have but touched one aspect (social) of this evil phenomenum called islam. i think you should go public with your stories (unless you are scared too). Average aussies need to know the truth especially those who stupidly convert to islam by marriage, I'm speaking of ignorant nominal christians girls who believe their demonic lies when it comes to give a favorable impression of their evil religion.

Don't be quiet about your findings it is our tax money they are abusing. Do it for our kids' sake.

Thank you.

Evil is a good word for paranoid schizophrenics.

I had a Jehovah's Witness couple come to my door about a week ago talking about the 'evil' Canaanites sacrificing their children to their god. When I mentioned that Jehovah then instructed the Israelites to kill all their children (both potential and non-potential sacrificees) as well as all the people their answer was simply that was okay because the Canaanites were evil and Jehovah said to kill them and he knows all. Oh right. So it is okay to murder little children provided the right god tells you to--so in the end it is not the act that is evil, only the name. Well I guess you better be damn sure you get the right God instructing you to maim, kill and destroy, poor canaanites listened to the wrong one. Some christians are so creepy.

All the people who believe in evil should be put in a boxing ring to slog it out together, so the rest of us can just quietly get on with living without them running around killing people and destroying things.

People who believe in evil are dangerous because their first step is to dehumanise and to create a bogeyman and their next step is to abuse: kill, torture, beat and marginilise others on the basis of a name that they are quite happy to label a stranger they know nothing about.

SALAM:

"The only things I can think of that separate practising Australian Muslims from other Australians is that we don’t hang out in pubs on Friday night after work, don’t eat pork, generally don’t get involved in hanky panky before marriage and are obligated to pray five times a day."

AND

"We have to move past common stereotypes of Muslims if we are truly going to have a proper discourse. Stereotypes about jihad, the treatment of women and many others always come up in an attempt to make Islam appear as the “other”: as something alien. "

I am appauled at this hypocracy. On one hand you are steretoyping "aussies" to be sluts ("hanky pany before marriage") and alcholic bums ("hang out in pubs on Friday night after work"), then a few paragraphs later you are condemining aussies for stereotying muslims.

Firstly, let me just say that not all aussies go the pub and get drunk every friday night, if this is your simple minded opinion of Aussies then I can safely assume you know very few.

Second to this, many lebanese muslim youths engange in "hanky panky" before marriage, lets not pretend this isn't the case. How you can suggest for a second these are "aussie" traits that seperates muslims from non muslims is truely beyond me. It is just as misguided as non muslim aussies calling all muslims terrorists because of "american regulated" media hype.

I think you need to get this chip of your shoulder. No offence but we don't care enough to hate muslims. Nor do the MAJORITY of us stereotype muslims to cause "jihads", etc.

If you think us "aussies" are sitting here whinging about muslims causing jihads then I think you need to get out a little more and possibly make a few "aussie" friends. Stop painting it out as though it is white Australians who hate you and that life is so hard as you are so discriminated against.

And stop generalising / stereotyping non-muslim aussies if you expect the same courtesy in return.

Sorry but it has been a long time since a Baptist/Anglican/ Methodist et al has hacked the heads off two Hindu/Buddhist/Moslem schoolgirls here in Oz. The same for alleged or actual or even planned terrorist crimes in Oz. I cannot recall when we had to enact draconian anti-terrorist laws because of the actions of the Salvation Army, they have been known to be insistent when asking for money to help others though. I have never, that's not once. seen or heard of an anti-terrorist demonstration by 'moderate?' moslems. I have never heard or read a report that a Christian cleric has preached violence or an anti-democracy anti-Australian sermon.Yet there are numerous reports and even quotations from 'peace loving islamic preachers both here and o/seas. As well not all moslems are terrorists but 99.99% of terrorists are islamic. And none of them are following the injunctions written in the koran, they are all outside of this religion of peace. Oh yes and pigs fly. numbat

Numbat--that is because noone has invaded Oz. The Methodist/Baptist/Anglicans etc are doing all their atrocities against schoolgirls, babies and women etc. in Iraq.

If we were the country invaded you would see the atrocities on our streets and in our homes. But noone has done that. Invading and bombing the lands of countries that have not invaded them and that are geographically distant is more of an American/UK/Australian thing.

Azilis -

>>The Methodist/Baptist/Anglicans etc are doing all their atrocities against schoolgirls, babies and women etc. in Iraq.<<

Can you substanciate these allegations?

>>If we were the country invaded you would see the atrocities on our streets and in our homes.<<

Where were you in December last when lebs were rampaging the streets of Sydney?

>>Invading and bombing the lands of countries that have not invaded them and that are geographically distant is more of an American/UK/Australian thing.<<

Try telling this to a New Yorker, a Londoner, a Madridien, or a Balinese etc...?

Azilis + Coach

Enough of this childish blame game, "my religion is better than yours", "my religion breeds more terrorists than yours". Seriously grow up!

No religion promotes violence, only people that manipulate religion try to justify violence by twisting the words of religious texts. The simple reality is that no one in australia wants this war on Iraq. I don't agree with it at all and im Australian. So don't put me in the same boat as bush kissing neo-conservatives.

There were never any weapons of mass destruction, there was only ever oil, infrastructure reconstruction contracts, etc, etc. You don't see America "dirtying" there hands with india and pakistan who both have nuclear weapons aimed at each other, "oh jee i wonder why?". Let's not even begin with the history of America's mass destruction and that lovely 53rd state of the US called israel. Thats another forum in itself.

So NO its not a "american, australian, pommy" trait to invade countries, don't put the people in the same boat as the government. And don't argue well you can vote for labour, when quite frankly there is no option these days but to vote for liberal as labour is ten times more incompetant. By the way my last vote was invalid!

Likewise, not all muslims are terrorists that go blowing themselves up. Most are decent people that hate war and just want to go about living there life. The same can be said for most humans in general!! If you want to attack people attack governments and fundamentalists, don't attack religions and generalise an entire population becaues of the extreme action of a few.

kish,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your concern – but for argument sake I must point out a few mistakes in your text:

1. “No religion promotes violence” – Islam does – please familiarise yourself with their Qur’an.
2. “..that lovely 53rd state of the US called Israel” – I thought that Israel was the first state and Australia was the 53rd…but like you said : that's for another forum…
3. “not all muslims are terrorists” – yeah, but of late most terrorists were Muslims
4. “..don't attack religions and generalise an entire population becaues of the extreme action of a few.” – if you consider Islam a religion (I don’t) then you cannot differentiate between extreme and moderate Muslim. They both adhere to the same ideology but utilise different methods of Jihad.
5. As for the Iraqi liberation from the tyranny of a pseudo-muslim dictator – I agree that the perceived motives can vary depending on which side you stand. I am not a bush kisser either.
6. "India and Pakistan" have not indicated that their atomic weapons were directed at Israel like did Iran for example. So maybe that is why bush is not so anxious.

To those looking after this page I cannot read or 'reach' {don't know the correct terminology}the bottom of the page. I believe there's a post from 'aziliz' I can't read it. numbat

PART A (due to word limit)

Thanks for the warm welcome coach, in responce to your rebutal.

1. “Islam does – please familiarise yourself with their Qur’an" - I have familiarised myself with quran, in fact ive read alot of the quaran probably more than yourself. it is based on similar ideology to christianity and judaism (as we all know). It is not a violent religion, though some of the Hadiths (there supplementary text) are quite questionable.

I think alot of what the quran states is taken out of context and manipulated by war hungry fundamentalists. The same has been done for christianity back in the catholic crusade days.

I dont believe the majority of terrorists are islamic, i consider the american government to be the worlds biggest terrorists and there not islamic. Jews would probably second to the US and there not islamic either. Lets rememebr that this word terrorism is nothing more than pro bush propaganda. what is a terrorist? someone that terrorises innocent civilians? peopel that blow themselves up like the palestineians in palestine? so Jews blowing them up with tanks is not terrorism, yet them blowing themselves up is?

Its alrite for america to invade a country and terrorise the general population by blowing them, thats not terrorism? Yet september 11 was? if you want to compare the number of innocent lives america is repsncible for relative to terrorists, i think youll be pleasantly suprised. lets not get carried away with what CNN regulates on our news networks.

2. I thought that Israel was the first state and Australia was the 53rd…but like you said : that's for another forum…

I dont class australia as a state of america, most australians HATE america. The white house is run by Jews. they have the tenth strongest Army on the planet. the white house bends over backwards for Jews. We have one govt that has a shocking foregin policy which i believe is well and truely against what mainstream australia believes in. So lets not insult our lovely country due to our lack of good quality politicians.

PART B (due to word limit)

. if we had an alternative to Liberal that was not inclined to kiss bush's ass im sure it would have been voted in by now. Labour is not a alternative to anything, there hardly worth calling a party these days.

3. “yeah, but of late most terrorists were Muslims" - as per my comments above

4. “if you consider Islam a religion (I don’t) then you cannot differentiate between extreme and moderate Muslim. They both adhere to the same ideology but utilise different methods of Jihad."

I wonder how if you would have said this about catholism when the spaniards raped south america in the name of religion? Most muslims i think youll find condem the actions of fundamentalists, as most catholics would condem the actions of many empires throughout history that used religion as a politcal tool to kill of societies (e.g. spain vs south america)

5. As for the Iraqi liberation from the tyranny of a pseudo-muslim dictator – I agree that the perceived motives can vary depending on which side you stand. I am not a bush kisser either.

Its pretty obiovus why bush invaded iraq, i dont think we need to play dumb to justify this inhumane act. it sure in hell wasnt to liberate the country. as for weapons of mass destruction, well that odd, isnt it america who sells these weapons in the first place? why is america allowed to have weapons of mass destruction.

6. "India and Pakistan" ...

i think its more to do with the fact that there is no economic gain to be had if america invade pakistan or india, no oil to be drained, etc, etc, etc. Pakistan is also a key country in the middle east from a strategic milatry point of view. but yes, no money to be made means america no interested, by all means india and pakistan blow each other up!

I do agree though, if they had there bombs pointed at israel then im sure bush would be eating mutton curry for the next 2 years!

Kish--I'm not a moslem and you make an assumptions that isn't based on what I have said.

You sure wasted your vote. You know--the greens and the democrats were anti the war in Iraq, you could have voted for them. I guess stopping the war just wasn't that important to you.

The Uk, America and Australia have invaded a Moslem country hadn't you heard? Most Australians were against the war? Nonsense. The majority voted for Howard knowing he was pro the war continuing--that's how a democracy works you vote for the party you think is doing the right thing. They thought either the war was the right thing or that it was not important enough to register a protest against. Labour--they originally came out against the war and had a policy that if they got into power they would withdraw the troops from Iraq, but they withdrew the policy because the polls were showing it didn't have public support. The people spoke. In a dictatorship maybe the people can be blameless for the actions of the government but not in a democracy.

Numbat, I was talking countries and no Iraq did not attack the US--a small bunch of Saudis did. But the US government sure attacked Iraq. I think there is a difference when a whole country goes to war with another and when a small independent band practices terrorism-especially when there was no link between the attacked country (Iraq) and the terrorist band. Does your insistence all Moslems should be held responsible for the actions of some mean you take full responsibility for what any christian has done, now and in the past?

As 82% of Americans are christian you can safely say there is a probability that any Americans involved in torturing, raping and killing of Iraqi civilians are predominantly christians. As for the atrocities happening at all--you do listen to the news don't you?

kish,

I will focus on point “1” for now

Reading the Qur’an and scrutinising it are two different things. Unless you compare it with other scriptures, historical, and cultural accounts, you will fail to spot the deception it so “poetically” represents. If it were at all comprehensible, it wouldn’t have needed other books to interpret it.

Most Muslims don’t understand what they recite and are not encouraged to do so. Most are illiterate and or don’t understand the Arabic language. They must rely on the agreed teaching of their devoted leaders.

Yes, the Qur’an talks about Christian and Jewish stories – but most are distorted, historically inaccurate, non-chronological, unrelated and incomplete. So to say that it shares similar nature or ideology is much uninformed and downrightly dangerous. For starters Allah is not portrayed as the God of the bible.

The violent nature of some Qur’anic verses is intentional, most explicit and central to Islamic teaching. They are not taken out of context like you (and most Islamists) would like us to believe. Jews and Christians are targeted by name.

Your anti-Jew/ anti-American / pro-Palestinian sentiments are not shared by most Australians as you say. Israel has more rights to exist than the Arabs. That and other myths have been the source of conflict since Mohammad declared war on Jews, Christians, and in fact all non-Muslims. (Check reliable historical facts).

I respect your opinion on US terrorism – as I said before I don’t share your sentiments – but I agree that terror is an unacceptable human behaviour even if the motives are perceived as noble and just.

And finally I don’t follow CNN or any biased commercial news

coach

I have read a number of books comparing how islam came into existance as opposed to say christianity and i agree that muhammed there main profet was a war hungry idiot. I also acknowlege that number of the teachings and cultural practises of there supplementary hadith texts are morally wrong in todays society. I dont believe the quran is a source for voilent behaviour however, I believe it is used as a politcal tool like all religions have in the past to promote violent behaviour ("in the name of allah or god, etc").

Israel do not have a right to push palestine out of there own country. You cant say that because 1500 years ago Israelis were prominent in that region therefore they have a right to it today. If thats the case none of us have a right to australia, nor do half the populations have a right to there country of residence.

I don't have an issue with Jews living in that region seeing as they bought half the land of the palos with the help of the US post world war 2. What I do have an issue with is Jews pushing palestinians out of the remaining half of their own country with the tenth most powerful army on the planet. It's seems incredibly hypocritical to me that the Jews who just got slaughtered in world war 2 by hitler now treat poor palestinians in much the same manner as they were treated by the germans.

You can't tell me that what the Jews are doing is fair. naturally the Jew run US woudlnt dare show footage of Jews imnposing war crimes, only palestinians with hammas and other hot headed fundamentalists.

aziliz

you are correct, I did make that assumption on your nick (which sounds rather islamic).

I dont really know which country you have been voting in, but in australia voting for the greens and democrates where you do a one party prefered or a preferential vote will almost always go to labour. Especially in my area where the two big candidates are liberal and labour. The greens and democrates always have preference to labour over liberal, voting for them is the same as voting for labour. you should watch more elections analysis before commenting on "democracy"

I hardly see that as a protest vote, im voting for a party that has the same foreign policy as liberal yet they are much more incompetant in managing the ecomony and seem to have next to no policies in anything accept oposing liberals policies by default. Lets also put there initial oposition of the war on iraq in perspective. they only opposed this because liberal supported it as they do with every policy liberal porpose / support.

Australians do not vote in liberal because of there foreign policy, they have been voting in liberals for the past decade because the economy has never been better. Its a historical fact, that when the economy of a country is good, the party in power rarely gets voted out. People care much less about a war on the other side of the planet then they do about whats happening in there own backyard. To even suggest the majority of australians want this war because they are voting liberal is laughable. i do not know a single australian that likes to have our troops fighting an American war. Especially now that they realise the premise for this war was a fabrication of the bush regime.

I dont know which australians you socialise with but I cant think of a sigle person that i have rasied this issue with in Sydney that is pro bush and pro invasion of iraq. So please don't include my name in this invasion because "democracy" supposedly works.

kish,

>>I dont believe the quran is a source for voilent behaviour however, I believe it is used as a politcal tool like all religions have in the past to promote violent behaviour ("in the name of allah or god, etc").<<

The misconception that the fault lies with only a handful of misguided Muslims who are not adhering to Islamic principles and hence indulge in terrorism for political reason is very common.

Any deluded Non-Muslim who thinks that Islam is the religion of peace and that it is only reckless Muslims who commit terrorism and atrocities, must pick up an English translation of the Qur’an and READ it.

Muslims mass murderers like Zarqawi will attain Paradise, whereas any Non-Muslim (you and I), even if we happen to be a Saints are eternally damned to Hellfire by Allah's decree.

In Allah's own immortal words:
Those who reject faith (Islam) and belie our signs, They shall be Companions of the Fire and abide in it. Q 2:39

Just hear the statements of the unrepentant terrorist Abu Bakr in Indonesia after his release from prison… He is hailed as a hero by all true Muslims.

It is time for the entire world to realise that Islam by its very nature and through its essential principles openly supports, and promotes Terrorism of the worst kind. [I agree that does not excuse Israel for retaliating… but what would you do if your neighbour was violent by decree from his/her god?]

Know one thing : the Islamic terrorist is in fact the most devout Muslim, because he is following EXACTLY what Islam teaches through the “Divine Qur’an” which is considered by Muslims to be the EXACT words of their god Allah dictated to Mohammed (??)

The Qur'an functions as the central terrorist manual that urges them to slaughter, rape, torture, pillage, mutilate and molest all Non-Muslims...(until we all submit to Islam).

Kish, I'm an Australian--my nick is Celtic not middle eastern.

I understand the australian political process better than you give me credit. The election of the Senate is based on proportional voting not preferential-therefore if you vote for Greens or Democrats it counts solely as a vote for them not Labour. When in the senate, their power to modify policy is very real and in some cases pivotal to the outcome of legislation. The amount of Democrats/Greens in the Senate was severely reduced in the last election and the increase in the power of the liberals means they can pass what legislation they wish without negotiation with other parties provided they keep their own party members happy.

In the House of Representatives, the preferential system is used and means on second count many Democrat and Green votes go to the major parties-most often Labour. But public opinion does influence political decisions even when a party doesn't get in--the liberal concessions to the One Nation party's policies is a case in point.

I made it clear the australian majority either agreed with the war **or** just didn't think it important enough to register a protest against. You come back with "People care much less about a war on the other side of the planet then they do about whats happening in there own backyard." You completely agree with me--Australians just don't care as long as they have money in their pocket--others can be bombed to smithereens.

The current economic position isn't simply because of the Liberal Governments good handling of the economy. It has to do with Global economics--increased demand for our minerals and the availability of cheap investment capital from overseas among other things. But our current account deficit is shocking and I wouldn't feel too comfortable about the long term consequences of that.

You don't read the comments you answer thoroughly and make presumptions about the other person based on sheer fantasy not what they say.

Aziliz,

I dont dispute that you suggested in your last post that australian's are eitehr pro-war or dont care enough. My point is more so to emphasis that latter to be the case based on what I have experienced from talking to other australians. This does not for a second suggest that i am correct, it is my opininon based on my experiences, which i believe is the whole point of this forum.

Azilliz maybe a celtic name, but it sounds muslim. I am of mixed origin, half australian, half indian malaysian, so I have heritage from a muslim country, and Azilliz sounds muslim, get over it.

For my senate vote I always try to choose an independant over democrates / greens, as democrates and greens will always oppose liberal legislation proposales as much labour do (out of default). I agree that right now the current political climate with liberals in both the upper and lower house reigning supreme is not ideal.

However, it wasn't too long ago where it was next to impossible for liberals to pass though any legislation as democrates and greens, would just go against it by default. I believe this is equally counter productive and I would rather the power be given to a less bias independant.

As you have just suggested the house of reps vote is rather pointless espcailyl in my area where any real anti liberal vote will end up in labour.

I also accept that the economic boom we are having right now is not purely as a result of the liberal party and I did not state that in my post. In fact keating had as much to do with this as costello. Naturally the economy plays a huge role, so what? My point is very simple, I do not believe that labour are near as competant as liberal in managing the economy. That is my opinion based on the many hours of question time I have seen. I do not feel comfortable with them running the economy.

Coach,

Before I start, let me just state for the records, that I am NOT religious. In fact I am not remotely religious (and im not suggesting that you said otherwise). One of the reason why I am not relgious is because of all the research I have done on numerous religions. Islam being one of them. And just so you should know i have read alot of the english translated quaran. So much so that I even managed to convert to an islamic friend of mine who was a staunch muslim prior to hearing my arguments against the religion.

Now before you jump with joy, my disbelief of religious texts have abolsutely nothign to do with the moralistic teachings of most relgions (or should i say most of the morales outlined in a religion) but more so the lack of scientific credibility that religions have when trying to explain things that sceince has proven beyond doubt. Evolution is the obvious, but there are many more verses that try to do the impossible in both christinaity and islam.

My mother was born and raised in a muslim country that are just as staunch as any other (malayisa). Half my extended family live in this country. As you can imagine I have been there numerous times and been exposed to the mulisms in this country as well as muslims here.

Malaysia is such a peaceful country with such peaceful people. They all go to mecca and follow islam "blindly". They are not bad people in fact there quite hospitable peopel who are only to happy to accomodate you. I have read the english translated version of the quaran alot more than you give me credit for. I don't respect muhammaed, nor do i respect alot of the hadith teachings. The quaran itself is not some axis of evil as you try to suggest, and the majority of muslims are peacveful loving people. Every religion has its flaws, believe you me. Christianity is one religion that has been altered throuhgout time and if you belive otherwise your an idiot. Islam has not.

Poor pericles: You know neither the Bible nor the power of God, but you do not let that stop you eh? I mean if you are ignorant about a subject - and it's not wrong to be ignorant about a certain subject, yet if you are it's best not to advertise the fact. You judge others caustically so one for you - please stop talking/writing such arrant nonsense. You have written passable posts is the past - back to the blue pills I think. numbat

No need to be so rude about my name, kish, I was just explaining where it came from.

And I did not suggest that the House of Reps vote was a waste of time. Reread my post--you are mixing up your opinions with mine.

Your statement that you vote independent without stating their policies is unenlightening. My point was if someone's greatest desire was to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands and the physical injury and economic ruin of hundreds of thousands in the Bush war then they would vote for someone who opposed the war no matter what the other policies of the parties were. Anyone anti-war who preferred to go with a party or individual that they thought had the soundest economic ability is stating quite categorically that their material benefit is worth more to them than the lives of other human beings

Aziliz,

I was not rude about your name, merely stating that it sounds muslim to me and that you need to move on. You seem to argue points purely for the sake of arguing. Who cares that I thought your name was muslim, I apologised now move on.

Now lets try this again. Voting for the greens or democrates in my area is the same as voting for labour. Do you understand? It is not about public opinion, because at the end of the day my vote goes to labour not the democrates or the greens. So producing an Invalid vote is my way of protesting by NOT allowing either liberal or labour to get my vote. I dont see how this is less effective than voting labour by placing a symbolic greens / democrates vote that will only ever be counted as LABOUR at the end of the day.

I vote for independants in the upper house because I do not want the balance of power to go to EITHER liberal or labour / democrates / greens. Why? because labour / democrates / greens childishly oppose every liberal policy by default, whether it is a good policy or a flawed policy. This is counter productive. On the other hand, allowing liberal to control the senate as well as the lower house is far from ideal as they can do pretty much as they please. I would rather the balance of power end up with a few independants that tend to be less bias towards one party or the other. Dont get me wrong, when you watch question time every week you tend to loose faith in labour and the democrates and even the greens.

To suggest that people care more about there back pockets than the suffering of others because they voted liberal is very left wing and quite contraversial. I am sure voting liberal out would make a huge difference to bush's invasion. Im sure labour would have our troops back in a heart beat. All those heartless Aussies that just don't care about iraqies suffering.

No Kish, its not controversial or leftwing, its common sense. Its really simple. If you vote for an antiwar party then you are actually protesting against the war. Simple.

An independent can be an angel or could be pushing the legalisation of cannibalising children. Thats why I asked you what the policies were of the independents you voted for and your silence on the matter doesn't look good.

Policies, kish, you should vote on policies, you had an opportunity to vote against the war and you decided not to. The liberal party is pro-war and the Greens and the Democrats are antiwar. You refuse to register an antiwar vote because you don't like the other policies of the Greens and democrats.

Arguing you shouldn't vote for antiwar parties because not enough people vote for them is an oxymoron. Arguing they oppose everything the liberals do (which isn't true) means you so badly don't want a party that opposes the liberals that you would prefer the war in Iraq. I think preventing the horrific suffering of others is a good enough reason to vote for anyone antiwar. Once the other parties get the reason why you are voting against them they'll change their policies and you'll have more choice.

If you thought by marching into Iraq the US was truly going to bring about world peace I would have more respect for you because at least you wanted peace, even though I would question the effectiveness of your means of acquiring it. But you are antiwar--just didn't think it important enough to vote on.

You will never find a party that agrees with everything you want--never. You just have to choose: What is the most important thing that needs achieving with this election? If that was stopping the war then it's obvious where you should have voted. Why were you pro Liberal? You answered it yourself. You think they're better with the economy. Money vs Peace and you go for Money. Good one Kish.

I wasn't arguing about my name, I was informing you. Sorry you cannot tell the difference.

Aziliz,

To me it seems your so hell bent on painting me to be pro-war, pro-bush and pro-liberal merely because your anti-war, anti-bush and anti-liberal and also so that you can argue for the sake of arguing. I have already explained my voting choice about 4 times and all on 4 occasions your either completly missing the point or you dont seem to understand how the electoral system works.

Voting greens and democrates is the same as voting for labour, end of story, now can we please get over this, stop trying to twist this around and wasting my time to re-itterate that in my area a symbolic vote for greens or democrates is a vote for labour.

Yes I am anti labour so what? Does that mean being anti-labour is pro-liberal? So you must be pro-labour according to that logic becaues your anti liberal? I didnt vote for liberal for the 4th time nor did I vote for labour. So how am I pro liberal or pro labour?

I didn't vote for liberal because I DON'T agree with there FOREIGN POLICY ON IRAQ. I didn't vote for labour because they dont seem to have any policies except opposing liberal which is childish at best, im not going to vote kid's in to run my country maybe you might.

We seem to be in theory on the same side here, i.e. ANTI bush yet you are tryign ever so hard to shift me on the opposing side so that you can argue for the sake of it.

I voted for independants in the senate so they have the balance of power and if you have been following politics for the past 10 years then you will notice that democrates and greens blindly oppose liberal when they had the balance in the upper house. I do not know nor care about every policy that independants have, all i know is what I observe in question time from the various independant candidates, something which you obviously do NOT watch time to time like myself...

You're ignoring what I say.

I've explained the system to you but you just ignore me and go on chanting what you think as though if you say it often enough you will be right--instead of explaining it, instead of refuting my statements and much less answering my queries. You simply go on chanting 'a vote for Greens and Democrats is a vote for Labour' like it is a religious doctrine that does not need to be rational or explain anything.

I asked you what the policies of the independents you voted for were (count it--now this is the third time). You're not being rational not answering kish. If you don't know the policies of the people you vote for then you're crazy.

You can use the web to find out what their policies are and how they voted on legislation, ie their record too.

The senate isn't proportional voting and so has nothing to do with voting Labour or Liberal--unless you mean Greeens and Democrats will vote with Labour on other issues, but then you totally agree with me--other issues are more important to you and the Iraqis can go to hell as far as you're concerned.

In the house of reps if you vote Green or Democrats then you can give your second preference to whomever you chose. But even so a vote for liberal is a vote for the war. If you don't put pro war parties and individuals (yes independants can be pro war) last then you vote for war.

You're upset because you know you care more about your pocket than the people of Iraq. And your constant chanting you don't want a party that votes the opposite to liberal proves that policies other than the war are more important to you--QED

Go on chanting if you want to but you haven't come up with any answers to what I have said. You are just agreeing with me.

Aziliz,

I have already stated in my last post quite clearly that I do not know nor care about all the policies of the independants that I voted for in the upper house. I would rather the balance of power going to a non-bias party. You obviosuly haven't been observing politics for long nor do you watch politicians in question time if you believe greens and democrates are not pro labour. I have read the greens and democrates polices on this matter and as they stand now they have no ambitions of bringing out troops home from Iraq.

I have already told you about 5 times that regardless of my preferences in the lower house, my vote will EVENTUALLY end up with labour if i put nationals and liberals at the bottom so to me this is POINTLESS.

As for singing the same tune, likewise, ive yet to see you respond with anything new or half intellegent, instead your repeating the same pro green, anti war rubbish....yawn

Now we can both arrogantly think we are right and the other is wrong, at the end of the day it makes little difference. I'm not changing my voting pattern regardless of how flawed you think my reasoning is. Now if your simple minded attitude towards people in this country is that if they DONT vote for greens or democrates then they CARE more about there back pockets than peopel suffering then I really pitty you.

If you really are the pinnacle of compasion as you so suggest, why dont you become a volunteer and go to Iraq and make a real difference. Why don't you sponsor a child in a 3rd world country as i currently do. You think a vote for labour (oh sorry greens) is going to make any real difference, you need to wake up and live in the real world. In an egalitarian society maybe what your suggesting may work along with other lefty socialist models etc, but we dont live in such a society. Ideally If I vote for greens (LOWERHOUSE) it should stay with them...IT DOESNT

You obviously haven't read the Greens policies nor read their press releases either. They are rampantly antiwar and only as recently as 13th May 2006 Bob Brown made a press release stating the troops should be brought home (yet again). They've been completely consistent and you're nuts the way you just make things up to suit you with no factual basis for what you say.

Not knowing **every** policy of the independents you vote for (your statement) is different to not knowing **any** policies they stand for-so I had a right to ask what their policies were. Some independents stand because they want to legalise heroin and others because they want to reintroduce christian values into schools. They could stand for anything. You have not even mentioned one of their policies. If you vote for them solely because they're independent as though someone who cannot fit in with a group of people is somehow a superior human being is crazy. Only their policies and how they effect their voting on legislation is all that counts.

Saying a vote in the lower house is a vote for labour doesn't explain your upper house choices. It also totally ignores the fact the liberal government is consistently pro war.

Just saying leftist, socialist as an insult doesn't detract from the fact you will not vote for people who are antiwar and that you will give your preferences to a rampantly pro war party.

A lot of Germans voted for Hitler because he (or his government) was able to stablise Germany's economy. Now people wonder why they voted for them. Watching the people in the US, Australia and England today it is easy to see why. They are unmoved by Abu Graib, by Guantanamo, by the preemptive strikes, the mass graves, the dead, the tortured, the mutilated, the bereft. They just say there is no way they will vote for some lefty softy just to stop a war. Just like you do.

Your last paragraph is just stupid, presumptive and typical. You are, by your voting preferences, pro war. That is a fact. Deal.

Aziliz,

Once again you have tried to twist and turn what I have said to fuel your argument. You come across very much as some undergrad arts / communications student who thinks they know everything because of debates in there class about social issues, etc. I had many friends in commuinications and my twin brother is a journalist. It's funny to watch how these students change their opinion's when they get out in the real world and gain some life experience (work experience in the case of journo's). The ever classic wayu to win an arguemnt for people like your self is to state "your not answering my question", "your argument is flawed", etc, etc as if to suggest that making such comments will discredit my point of view.

You people like talk alot, yet seem to have very little in the way of action, you also lack life experience. How many times have you seen the greens and decmocates debate there "points" in parliment? How many times have you seen the election analysis and how votes are counted as it seems you have only just accepeted that my lower house vote would go to labour after 5 posts of me stating this.

You keep trying to paint the picture that my vote WAS FOR LIBERAL. I keep telling you that IN BOTH HOUSES I DID NOT VOTE FOR LIBERAL OR NATIOANLS. Yet purely for the sake of arguing you keep trying to twist and turn what I say to give any "on-lookers" the impression that I am pro liberal and pro war. I have already for the 20th time explained my upper house vote. It has to do WITH NOT ALLOWING LABOUR OR LIBERAL POWER IN THE SENATE. If you had the experience to OBSERVE politics over the past 10 years or so you would know that greens and democrates have always been very PRO LABOUR / ANTI LIBERAL when they have had power in the senate. So much so that its become incredibly childish and anti productive as NO legislation gets through....

cont...

That to me is AS BAD AS VOTING LIBERAL IN THE UPPER HOUSE. So I chose NOT TO VOTE FOR EITHER, is this too hard for you to comprehend? I DID NOT GIVE LIBERAL POWER IN THE UPPER HOUSE NOR LABOUR. Your outlandish comments about independants possibly campainging to legalise heroin are intentionally contraversial (as you feel this would futher illustrate your point) and a ridiculous exageration of the truth. I think you need to deal with the fact that you don't know everything and that your opinion is just that, your opinon. You also need to stop regurgitating what youve learnt in class and get out there a little more and experience things. You feel as though a vote for greens is the only way to proove your anti war. That is an incredibly narrow minded point of view, but oh well it's your opinion and I respect that though I DONT agree.

I didn't vote for LIBERAL in either house. You need to accept this and realise that your really barking up the wrong tree, I am not pro war...yawn...move on?

My comments about sponsoring a child or making a real difference are far from stupid. Personally you sit here and say im in-compasionate about human lives at least I am trying to save the life of someone far less fortunate than myself. At least I am doing something. What are you doing? It's also quite funny how you seem to protest so much about this war as its a current issue that plauges the media, yet you make no mention of all the suffering that happens on a daily basis in third world countries. Its funny how you dont argue that one to much or make much of a mention of it when its far worse than the war.

And no its not the topic of debate on this forum, yet im willing to bet in general you preach that far less than you do NO WAR, would I be right in saying that? let me guess another "typical presumption...good one"

Welcome to the Aziliz and Kish show.......

Soon presenting the next chapter of the next enthralling chapter of mishmash of accusation and counter accusation of who is more warlike and pro whatever....

And here was dumb little me thinking that the skirmishes on "Big Slather" was so over the top and boorish ......

Where can I go now?

Kish, you should go learn how to debate. Making up this little fairy tale about how I am some young undergrad with no experience of the real world is your own little fantasy. There is a name for this. It is called strawmanning. It means that you set up a little fantasy to attack and then place your effort into tearing your imaginary 'strawman' to pieces. Your description of me has absolutely nothing to do with me.

You can say I say you don't answer my questions as though that is an insult, but the reality is you don't. You still have not stated the policies of the independents you voted for. Independents are precisely that. They are individuals that vote anyway they choose. You should never vote for an independent unless you know their policies. Anything less is the height of stupidity. You may be surprised if you checked the policies of all independents to find out what they really stand for.

You also know well that for your vote to count in either the upper or the lower house you must indicate a position for all candidates (even if you chose to allow these preferences to be chosen for you by your main party choice). In the lower house the first vote may simply be a statement of your political beliefs while if your first preference wasn't for one of the major parties then your alternate preferences decide the person who wins the seat. You cannot simply vote independent you must distribute your preferences. You have made it abundantly clear that your preference is for Liberal over Labour, Greens or Democrats. So your insistence that you 'voted' independent as though you could possibly vote for solely one postion is untrue. You could leave the other positions blank thereby voiding your vote but then you voted for noone. We both know that. So you are actually lying in order to make yourself look as though you are taking a position which is simply impossible.

You are the one who twists and turns, who refuses to answer straightforward questions, battles against imaginary arguments, pretends you have voted in a way that is simply impossible and descends to making the majority of your response just personally insulting someone for things that they actually haven't done and for being someone that they simply aren't.

Yes you are getting totally off the point over the charity argument. I don't see for half a minute why you supporting one third world child makes it okay to vote for a party that kills multiple (tens of thousands) children and adults. Helping only one is very puny in comparison.

I didn't answer you on this point the first time as I am not really interested in getting into a boasting competition about who has done the most for charity, but as you insist this is important to you, then yes-if that is the only thing you do for charity then I am doing a lot more than you are.

Once again you make assumptions and you deflect from the argument either because you know what I am saying is true but think if you shout enough that maybe you can convince yourself that I am not or because your brain has a tendency to wander around off the point and has difficulty grasping reality. If you cannot be logical or honest then there is no point talking to you.

Sorry Kekenidika you will have to go back to big brother after this. Kish, I am not going to talk to you anymore because your arguments illogical, irrational, unreasonable and circular and I am simply wasting time that could better be spent elsewhere.

Righto Aziliz & Kish: Say sorry to each other, pick up your toys have a cup of cocoa and go to beddy-bies. numbat

Aziliz,

hahahaha your a funny little one. I think you have quite clearly demonstrated with your last post that you have never ever voted before. "You also know well that for your vote to count in either the upper or the lower house you must indicate a position for all candidates". This alone suggests that you have never voted before or you clearly dont understand the electral ballot papers (both lower and upper). I refer you to the AEC website so that you can learn how to vote.

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/What/voting/voting-senate.htm#complete

In particular, this line:

"1. Above the Line:

Voters may vote for a political party or group by putting the number ‘1’ in one box only above the black line. The rest of the ballot paper is left blank." So yes I can just vote for a independant in the senate and nothing else, I just place a 1 in the box which refers to the independant I desire. Thats the upper house covered.

Now lets go to the lower house: http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/What/voting/voting-hor.htm#2

"Informal votes
An informal ballot paper is one that has been incorrectly completed or not filled in at all. Informal votes are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.

A House of Representatives ballot paper is informal if:

- it is unmarked
- etc, etc (dont want to waste words describing the other 6 methods)"

Now read this little one and try to understand for the 10th time:

I DID NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE IN THE LOWER HOUSE, I PLACED AN INVALID VOTE (INFORMAL) BY HANDING IN AN EMPTY BALLOT SHEET.

So effectivly accoring to the AEC website my vote in the lower house did NOT GO TO ANY PARTY...thats right it DID NOT go to liberal like you still keep tryign to suggest. Now let me quote my first post where i stated this so you dont suggest im just making this up to suit my argument "So producing an Invalid vote is my way of protesting" - June 21st

cont...

Now if you had actually voted before youd realise that you dont put your name on the ballot paper (like yo do in high school) and no one checks whether your vote is valid or not...youd also realise that an invalid vote does not equal a vote for liberal??

"So you are actually lying in order to make yourself look as though you are taking a position which is simply impossible"...So how was I lying again?

"your arguments illogical, irrational, unreasonable". So a logical argument would be - voting for an independant upper house and not voting for any party lower house means that you are pro war and pro liberal. "good one".

Your comments on hitler's rise to power being attributed to voters like me are incredibly innacurate. I think you need to study modern history at a tertiary level and realise that hitlers rise to power was caused by a number of factors such as:

- A flawed democratic system that allowed for "back room deals" to take place
- 28 different political parties competeing with no true majority
- a complex preferential system that had issues in itself
- corruption that was legal within there consitution but would not be legal in a any true democracy
- proganda that the germany would be the world empire for 1000 years (yes people knew what they were voting)
- anti jew sentiment
- world war 1 depression
- weakness of the Weimar Republic (constitution) - many germans wanted dictatorship again as a result
- bullying of opposing parties
- support from wealthy businessmen to drive his proproganda campaigns

need I go on...

On top of this point, I voted for an Independant in the upper house. Legislation has to be passed through both houses and the governer general before it can be come a parlimentary act. So my one independant couldnt introduce "child canabilism". Are you aware of every green policy (don't look it up to refute). How do you know that one of the green policies is not world domination? This is the stupidty of your argument.

I can't leave your glaring error uncommented on. Kish, you don't understand voting procedure. You forgot to read the second line from the website you quoted:

"By casting a vote this way, voters are following the Group Voting Ticket (GVT) that the party or group has lodged with the AEC. All the preferences will be distributed according to the GVT."

Also--"Group Voting Ticket
Within 24 hours after the close of nominations for the Senate, parties or groups may lodge a GVT which shows the order in which they want their preferences distributed. If a voter chooses to put the number '1' in one of the boxes above the line on the Senate ballot paper, all the preferences will be distributed according to that group's GVT. Electors may choose to vote according to their own preferences below the line."

Do you get it now? By ticking the box above the line you let your independent/s chose who is to be your other preferences--they may have allocated them to Liberal or Labour. All you did was abnegate you option to chose your preferences yourself. You don't understand our voting system. Above the line doesn't mean no preferences.

Forty senate postions are available at each senate election. There is a quota system whereby candidates who receive more than 1/40th of the first preferences are elected outright, if there are still positions vacant at the end of this process(there always is), then their excess votes are transferred to the second preference of their voters, then the third, etc. If there are still positions after all excess votes are counted then the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated and their preferences are redistributed, etcetera.

The difference with the House of Reps is only one candidate wins instead of 40, if your first choice doesn't achieve enough votes then your second preference will count as a full vote etcetera until there are only two candidates left.

While it's only possible your preferences will help a Labour or Liberal into the Senate, it's most probable in the House of Reps as minor parties rarely poll enough to win.

I said: "You also know well that for your vote to count in either the upper or the lower house you must indicate a position for all candidates (even if you chose to allow these preferences to be chosen for you by your main party choice)." Please note I took into account that you may have voted "above the line"--proof I already knew this option was available.

Your posts have insulted Labour, Greens and Democrats and praised the Liberals. You also insisted throughout you voted independent. It's only natural I thought you gave your preferences to Liberal and if you had said sooner how you did vote I could have sooner pointed out your error.

Your comment:"Legislation has to be passed through both houses and the governer general before it can become a parlimentary act. So my one independant couldnt introduce "child canabilism"--implies if your independent was stupid enough to vote for something extreme you hope Liberal and Labour will stop them. Wow, what an admission that you don't have a clue what the policies of the candidates you voted for were. They could have been bigger war mongers than the Liberals and you just don't know.

I have read all the Greens (and other parties) policies and update myself on them now and then--always before elections. There is no policy on their website about 'world domination'. I can promise you without having to look it up. Unlike you I like to be informed.

Your piece on Hitler does not prove what I said was wrong. It just wasted space.

You could have voted in a way to maximise your antiwar stance--instead you chose to vote for senators you seem to have no idea whether they were antiwar or prowar, then allowed them to distribute your preferences to whomever they chose. No way is that an antiwar stance. You had an opportunity and you just did not care enough to stop the war.

Aziliz,

"Do you get it now? By ticking the box above the line you let your independent/s chose who is to be your other preferences--..."

Once again your taking me completely out of context and twsting waht I say to discredit me. You said it was impossible for me to just vote for an idependant on the ballot paper. I said it was not. This has nothing to do with whether or not the independant distributes his seats or not, I merely made the point that when I voted I literllly voted ONLY for the independant on the ballot paper. You said this was impossible and that I lied by suggeasting that I voted in this manner, it is not impossible and it does not void your vote by doing so. Unlike the lower house the upper house is counted differently and the likelyhood of my independant not getting a seat is far less than the likely hood of the greens winning the lower house. So next before you accuse someone of lying, read there post and comprehend what they are saying before wasting your time writing a thesis of accusasions. And if your going to refute by suggesting I create fanatasies about you being a uni student, etc re-read my post and you'll discover that I said you sound like one, I didn't say that you were one.

"--implies if your independent was stupid enough to vote for something extreme you hope Liberal and Labour will stop them"..once again take something out of context and twist it to suit your cause. I didnt say that I hope liberal and labour would stop them i said that my one independant CANNOT pass legislation by themselves, Liberal can, this means that your contraversial argument about independants having fundamentalist polices is really irrelevant as they dont have the power to ever enforce such policies, and i can assure you wihtout reading their policies that none of them have world domination on there agenda (let me guess, youll refute with, but how do you know when you havnt looked up there polices...

And yes of course youve read every policy from every party, you know the greens back to front right...of course you had to refute with this otherwise you would loose obvious credibility. Who really is the liar here aziliz? At least I am honest enough to admit I don't know every policy of the independant that I voted for in the upper house, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with why I voted for the independant...

I voted for the independant to give some balance of power that was non bias in the upper house, which i have explained to you about 600 times. The problem is; like I said before, you werent around when the democrates last had the balance of power so you have no idea based on experience of how PRO labour / anti productive they were.

Theres no point in having a government in the lower house if EVERYTHING in the upper house gets rejected, explain to me the point of this? You just talk from what you have learnt in class, not from experience.

"It's only natural..." Doesn't this sum everything up. I CLEARLY STATED SO MANY TIMES I DIDNT VOTE FOR LIBERAL. I said in my first post that I produced an invalid vote in the lower house. you took one comment I made about Liberal being more competant than Labour and attempted to label me as pro liberal / pro war.

On the ballot sheet for the lower house I was very tempted to put N O W A R in every box. If you had just read what I said in the first place we wouldnt have wasted god knows how many posts debating this, do you now finally accept I AM NOT PRO LIBERAL / PRO WAR?

My comments on hitler are based on historical fact, yours are based on an assumption, it is a historical fact that hitler did not win based on niave voters, there were a number of factors that influenced his win, and the majority of his voters knew about his world domination plans.

okay, sorry I take it back. You are not a liar. You are just not very bright.

But here's another angle for you: what really happened to your vote in the 2004 election?

Firstly, no independant senator won a seat in the senate--not one. So did your vote count for nothing? No, not in Australia, never fear your vote always counts.

You chose to let your independants distribute your preferences so they took your vote and gave it to someone else. But whom?

Well that depends on two things.

Firstly, it depends on what state you are in.

Let's take NSW for starters. NSW had four groups of independants: A, D, K and W. So secondly it would have depended on what group of independants you voted for. A, D and K's preferences ultimately wound up with Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party--who are incidentally more pro war than the Liberal Party. While group W's preferences went to Labour. But in the final showdown between Labour and CDP for the last senate seat in NSW, Labour won. But it was close.

So you had more than a three in four chance of voting for CDP as you were more likely to just pick the first group A. So thanks to people like you who throw there vote away CDP nearly got in. For their policies on the war: http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/policy_federal.asp

In Victoria there were two groups of independants K and S. K passed their preferences directly to the Greens while S passed theirs to Family First. Family First won. There policy on Iraq: http://www.familyfirst.org.au/hot_topics/war_iraq.php

In Tasmania there were two independant groups whose preferences both went to Family First. Greens got in.

In Queeensland there were Group G, K, and O. G and O went to the Greens and K went to Liberal. Liberal won.

Continued . . .

In Western Australia Group A independants went to the Greens and they got in.

In South Australia there were group A, B, C, P,and M. All except P went to Family First. P went to the Labour Party. The Labour Party got in.

There were no need to distribute preferences in either the NT or the ACT.

So now you should know how you actually voted (if you can remember what group you chose). Oh, hang on sorry that's right you are happy to give away your vote to someone else and believe if they use it to vote for a party you disagree with it is nothing to do with you. Personally I find that rather horrifying that you could be that stupid.

Depending on your state and your group of Independants your vote could have counted from the most far right of the far right CDP to your Greenie left. In the senate there are independants who stand solely so they can redirect the vote to their party of choice--they are not very independant.

"okay, sorry I take it back. You are not a liar. You are just not very bright." Explain to me how you have proven this? You know absolutely nothing about me, you have no idea what I am capable of, what I do for a living, what I have achieved in life, etc, etc. All you now know (after taking 20 posts to explain to this to you) is that I voted for an independant in the upper house and no one in the lower house, I hardly see how that constitutes a lack of intelligence.

Now that youve taken god knows how long to google up where my vote was likely to have gone, your logic for voting in the upper house is that you vote for a candidate based on where there preferences would end up if they dont get a seat? According to that logic, and this is the rather laughable part of what you just said (purely to argue with next to no logic)...if I had voted for the greens then what?

Funny how there are no GREEN sentaors in NSW. So let me guess my vote would have gone to labour just like it did with the independant that I voted for. I didn't vote my independant expecting them to loose, just like you didnt vote for your green expecting them to loose and pass there vote onto labour, cause lets face it, labour is as PRO war as liberal.

Its very funny how you have completely ignored the lower house in this whole argument. You talk about the senate as though they are the policy makers and there influence is paramount to legislation such as foreign policy? What I find incredibly fascinating is that you voted for Greens in the lower house knowing full well that your vote would end up with PRO war labour. You also voted for greens in the upper house probably at the time not realising that this vote would end up with pro war labour.

Because lets face it unless you live in WA or TAS there are no greens that got a seat in upper house (and only 1 green in WA and TAS...good odds!). All you have done is vote labour in both houses and they are just as pro war as liberal with next to no policies. At least my lower house vote did not go to any pro war party. In fact according to your pathetic arguments my vote is alot less pro war than yours as only my upper house vote could have gone to a pro war party as opposed to both your votes..."good one".

You see its quite clear that your getting desperate to win this debate even though you cant win this debate because my vote is not PRO war. Your trying to dig up facts and bring "new angles" into this argument, angles which only make your vote far more pro war than mine. Resorting to childish insults such as saying im not very bright are only going to amuse feeble minded onlookers who you seem to think there is an abundance of in this thread as demonstrated by your determination to proove me wrong. Just face it, you got it wrong. You thought somehow my vote was pro liberal, or pro war, and you were clearly wrong. Even though I told you about 100 times that I did not vote for liberal you still chose to ignore me and preach your same anti war = pro green rubbish.

Your green vote has ended up with pro war labour, my invalid vote has not. In the upper house our votes are effecftivly the same(and the upper house deals with STATE legislation more so than foregin policy..all they can do is vote against foreign policy from the lower house). So your insistance on the importance of voting for one senator is merely a smoke screen to cover your mistake for voting greens in the lower house. Maybe now you may understand why in my first post I stated that our Democratic system is FAR from democratic.

poor Kish, he still doesn't understand.

Yes, you are responsible for your preferences and you should know where they go. It is not impossible to know where they go--you simply vote below the line and fill in every box. I know that means a tiny bit more effort but it is worth it.

You instead gave it away. To whom? You say you are in NSW. Four sets of Independants to chose from three of them went to the Christian Democratic Party the most pro war party in the running. They are more pro war than Liberal and you voted for them. You can say you didn't intend to, so insist you didn't really vote for them but that is just the pinnacle of stupidity.

Unless you voted Group W Independants your vote went to the biggest war mongering party to effectively be in the running. For their policy on the war: http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/policy_federal.asp

I am in Victoria. I can tell you exactly where my vote finished up. With the Greens. In the final count my vote went Green. They lost. I voted for the losing side. Just like you did--the CDP lost but only by a little.

The way the system works is if you vote for a minor party/independant your vote changes down your preferences until you hit a party who is one of the last two parties to slog out for the final seat. You don't automatically win but you do automatically get to be in the final battle for the final seat. You probably voted warmongering CDP while I definitely voted Green-not my first preference but they were where my vote wound up.

And it was completely in your power not to vote CDP. You chose to give your preference vote away.

cont...

In the lower house, yes my vote went to Labour through the preferences. I am happy with that. Although Labour wavers they at least want to be anti the war. They have been consistently critical of the inital invasion and have never wavered on condemning that. I am prepared to vote for someone who is MORE LIKELY to remove Australia from the war rather than leave it up to someone else to chose Liberal.

I would point out Labours current stance IS against the war: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0606/speloo220.php

Yes, Labour is antiwar. I voted antiwar in both cases. You probably voted the most really, pro war party out there in the senate and nothing in the House of Reps. I would say I was very effective at voting antiwar while you completely and miserably failed on that one.

As well, the major parties do take notice of the policies of minor parties that are polling significantly. An example, is Liberals immigration stance. They took the stronger tactics on immigrantion as a result of the success of One Nation. The major parties only stay in as long as they please the voting public, so they do their best to at least appear to be following public approval, especially close to elections. The only reason Labour dropped its policy of bringing the troops home was because of their polling on public opinion showed the PUBLIC at that time wanted to stay in. Your vote for CDP would have been noted as they nearly got in--they are a big threat to the sitting parties. It was a really strong statement for the far, far Christian right. Thanks to you politics once again shifted right. The Democrats lost seats, the Greens lost seats, while Family first gained a seat and the CDP got close. Right is generally prowar.

CDP and Family First are not going to compete for the same seatsin the next election so they won't split the conservative Christian vote -- http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/family-first-abandons-state-election-fight/2006/01/11/1136956242999.html. Family First passed all their preferences to CDP anyway.

let me try to understand this, now you support labour? hahahahaha, I could almost rest my case on that comment alone.

http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Lets go to there policy page, as you can see its "full" of policies. Labours been working hard these past ten years, oh and guess what there all blueprints. So what does this mean exactly, that they can be changed when the political tide decides turn becaues there not policies there blueprints of policies. So your supporting a party that does'nt even have policies, but blueprints? Lets go into there national security policy (one of labours 6 policies hahaha).

"An issue I will pursue relentlessly as Leader of the Opposition until we are in power to correct it. That issue is the security of our people from the threat of terrorism." So your telling me that your anti war (which is a pro-terrorism war) yet you buy into all this terrorist propaganda? You believe there is a war on terrorism? On one hand your a lefty anti war, on the other your right winged, we must fight terrorism with bush? Now lets look at Labours attitude towards bush and his war on terrorism.

"Compounding this, the Government’s failure to work with the United States to relentlessly hunt down terror cells in Afghanistan has been a critical error of judgement. An error made worse by bogging Australia down in the Iraqi quagmire. Together, the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan - which is “terror central” Now liberal did not work with bush enough to catch bin laden right?

And your telling that me this Pro bush party will be anti war when they get elected. That there supposed initial stance against the war was anything less than good old lierbal bashing / fence sitting (as they seem to be pro bush and anit war, appeals to all right?) And lets not forget that there policy on iraq has changed nothing short of 20 times in the past few years, that is one of there 6 policies, after all it is a blueprint right.

if not for 350 word limit i could write another 20 posts on labour alone, but lets move on for the time being as im sure this will be revisited.

Once again you have tried to promote the importance of the upper house as though it is responcible for creating foreign policies. This im sure you know is not the case and an intenational attempt to discredit the importance of the lower based on your vote for labour. Who was your first pref in the upper house if it wasnt greens? It couldnt have been democrates as theyre current policy is keep the troops in iraq.

"Whilst we believe this war should never have been started, the fact that Australia was a key part in the waging of the war means we have a special obligation to assist in repairing the damage."

Family first is anti war? I didnt vote for them nor would I ever but lets look at there policy:

"Family First believes that all diplomatic avenues in Iraq had not been exhausted in fact a process was still in train. As such Family First is positionally opposed to the War in Iraq. However, now that Australia has committed to the rebuilding process in Iraq, Australia must meet its obligation both to protect other Australians working in Iraq and the Iraq people." there as anti war as the democrates...yawn.

http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateStateGroupVotingTickets-12246-NSW.htm

Look familiar? thats right, this is your best attempt to manipulate the truth behind my senate vote. You probably thought my google couldnt find it? Lets look at this, group A..CDP preference 52/78...Democrates pref 41/78 (they're real supporters of CDP thats why there prefenece is 52/78! even after your beloved Democrates?).

You talk such utter nonesense. So before every election every australian should look at this and makes sure in there GVT that preference 60 for CDP is after preference 70 for Greens..."good one". In all independants GVT's democrates are well and truely before CDP? and CDP is at least 40/78 and beyond? So where are you going with this?

Group A independents may have put CDP at 52-56 in their preferences but they put Labour, Liberal and Greens even further behind. Not just Greens. You don't have to find out where anyone puts their preferences. You just have to vote below the line, then you can choose your own preferences. Simple, really isn't it? But I've already told you this--you just don't listen.

Here's a link showing the preference count: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendNSW.htm

a quote from this link:
"At End of Count 295--11,754 Votes originally from Group A Independents distributed by preference 52 to NILE Fred (Christian Democratic Party)"

I realise it's terribly upsetting to know you voted pro-war but going into denial isn't going to help you.

"The Senate's law-making powers are equal to those of the House of Representatives except that it cannot introduce or amend proposed laws that authorise expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the government or that impose taxation. The Senate can, however, request that the House of Representatives make amendments to financial legislation and it can refuse to pass any bill." "All proposed laws (bills) must be passed by both houses." --Quote from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/txtnov96.htm#The%20role,%20powers%20and%20composition%20of%20the%20Senate

Can't make laws, huh? Gee I guess you are just feeling so awful about voting CDP, you're hoping it won't matter.

Kish you have a real problem with "not reading the next line". The Democrat policy you quote then says:
"Economic and infrastructure assistance should be provided to the Iraqis to help them gain peaceful self-determination as soon as possible." You have a bad habit of zooming in on one sentence and then taking it out of context. Is it just laziness? I would suggest you go in to all the different parties and read their policies and their News sections too. You really need to get to know what is going on out there. You are so ill informed.

The Australian Democrats are pushing for legislation to prevent any Prime Minister from having the power to commit to war without the consent of parliament ever again. Not the Greens, not Labour and certainly not CDP if they got in. They are most positively antiwar of all the parties.

The Senate actually voted against Australia being involved in the 2003 Invasion. But John Howard had the power under the constitution to preempt the parliament and to override their decision. (Note it was the Senate).

I have no idea why you're talking about family firs--I didn't vote for them.

And Labour, now now. No government is going to reflect everything a person wants. Not possible. What's possible is to sit down, decide what you do want, then prioritise to put the most important issues first, chose the party that comes the closest then preference down the line until the party you want the least is at the end. The vote for the small party is important even if it doesn't get in--it will reflect your policy preference for all parties to see and take notice.
I didn't place my initial or my second preference with Labour, but they have consistently said they would never have invaded Iraq in the first place and have talked about withdrawing the troops from Iraq--making them better than Liberal.

Your point on Labour being pro-war in Afghanistan is obviously that Liberal being against the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan is therefore better than Labour?--pfft. You're a loon. Unable to compromise you wind up not voting for 3 alternatives that would have been everything from ones that would make very strong measures against war to anti at least the war in Iraq--instead you vote for CDP in the Senate and allow the Liberals to win in the House of Reps. What an idiot.

Labour pro Bush? more than Liberal? I remember Bush himself condemning Beasley and patting Howard on the back--just before the elections in 2004.

Afraid of any compromise you stick your head in the sand and don't even understand the consequences of your actions.

Your really running out of amunition here arent you. Group A put CDP at 52/78, they are NOT PRO CDP, in fact they put Democrates before that? Don't label me as having chosen to vote for CDP because Group A is PRO CDP, that is a complete lie. You obviosuly didn't look at these preferences prior to me pasting the link and your assuming CDP was high up on Group A's list based on the abc analysis. You were once again WRONG. They are FAR from choosing CDP? Don't argue merely for the sake of it when you have NO ARGUMENT. You just end up looking desperate or confused. It is sheer luck that CDP even got Group A's prefs.

Over 95% of australians voted above the line, let me guess they're all the "height of stupidity". My independant did a great job, all the big parties last, exaclty how I would of done it. You expect to me work out the order of 70+ candidates and know every policy of every party backwards? You dont seem to say much about group A choosing your beloved Democrates before CDP why is that?

Thanks for abc link. I know realise why you have refrained from producing this earlier. Because it clearly shows that:

"74,428 Votes originally from Australian Democrats distributed by preference 25 to NILE Fred (Christian Democratic Party)"

So your beloved democrates gave 72,000 votes to CDP..the main reason why they were even half a threat? your kidding me right? And your sitting here saying that my vote was PRO CDP. Imagine if I had chosen Democrates like you probably did.

and...

Australian Labor Party - 721,129 votes
Christian Democratic Party - 411,914 votes

Jee that was a close call we almost doubled there votes thanks to the Greens.

"as though it is responcible for creating foreign policies". When did I once state that the senate do not have equal law making powers. My point was simple, they are not RESPONCIBLE for making such legislation. Learn how politics works before you try you twist what I into something else.

The senate DEALS WITH THE STATE. They DO NOT CREATE FOREIGN POLICIES. The lower house IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION THAN THE UPPER HOUSE AS THAT IS THERE PUROPOSE. Stop trying to down play the importance of the lower house in regard to foreign policy, its weak and only demonstrates your ignorance in our political system .

How does that next line change the context of my quote about Democrats keeping troops in Iraq? "we have a special obligation to assist in repairing the damage". And the next line says something contrary to this? Very weak yet again Aziliz, is this what you call debating skills?

“You are so ill informed” childish insults yet again...yawn

“The Senate actually voted against“

Isn’t this my point, all they do is vote for or against and sometimes amend foreign policy, not create.

You need to watch politicians in action a little more you seem to be very ignorant into how labour / democrats / greens truly are. I keep referring you to question time, and you never seem to respond. You talk from ideals, not from what’s happening in the real world. Watch it and learn, before you chant rubbish based on websites / pr.

You condemned family first for being PRO War on more than one occasion, you were wrong yet again.

“And Labour, now now. No government is going to reflect everything a person wants”

This is the poorest cop out you’ve made yet Aziliz. Labour are and always have been PRO BUSH. You’re happy that your vote went to this PRO “WAR ON TERRORISM” party. All you’ve done is vote for a party that has just as flawed a foreign policy as liberal (bush kissing) but initially chose to fence sit when it came to the war on iraq. To make matters worse, they have 6 policies that are “blueprints” to run an entire country (including foreign policy). I didn’t hand my vote over to either of these pro “war on terror” (which you must know next to nothing about if you concede this as a compromise?) parties.

Your vote went to CDP.

It isn't important whether CDP was high up in the preferences or not. Anyone with half a brain knows some choices don't have a chance of getting in and others do. If you put all the ones that may get in at the bottom then that's where your vote counts.

"My independant did a great job, all the big parties last, exaclty how I would of done it." You're both proud of voting for CDP while loudly protesting you didn't do it on purpose--Weird.

The Senate's part of Federal--not State Parliament. The senate votes on all Federal legislation--Foreign Policy included. Educate yourself: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/txtnov96.htm

The real issue about legislation is the party who wins at the election has control of what legislation goes on the agenda. Their Cabinet and Ministry is made up of both members of the HouseofReps and Senators who decide on legislation--which can be introduced in either house.

Any member of parliament can introduce a private-member's-bill on any issue--but they are less likely to get the numbers required to pass.

Minor parties don't have the same power as major parties nor do oppositions have as much power as sitting goverments. But they do have some really appreciable power--a lot better than none. It's having the numbers and in the case of a split vote being able to tip the balance of power that counts.

I don't understand why you're so keen to minimise the importance of being able to block and ammend legislation--it so fundamentally changes outcomes.

Now Liberals have a clear majority in both Houses since 2004-the only modifying force has to come from within their own ranks. The breadth of radically rightwing legislation rammed through without modification because of this is mindboggling.

Who were your Group A/Independants? David and Ashley Etteridge. So why did you vote for One Nation? You have heard about Pauline Hanson and David Etteridge, cofounders of One Nation? David Etteridge went to prison with Pauline Hanson for electoral fraud (later released on appeal) because One Nation didn't have enough paid up members to call themselves a party.