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.'