"Claiming there are no conflict between Shariah and secular is not reasonable. What if a caliphate was formed covering most or all of the muslim world and the caliph called for Jihad (which would be a legal jihad under shariah, not like the current one). would you accept the call to fight against australia in this situation? if not how can you claim to follow shariah, if so how can you claim to be australian?"

--- Following "Shariah" does not mean we follow the blind whims of just anyone. It is a well known position in mainstream Islam that if someone was born here, or becomes a citizen here (or anywhere), they accept the contractual obligation to follow the laws of the land in response to being given specific rights under the constitution.

One of these may be to disagree with government policies, or even to be a contientous objector when it comes down to it.

What makes this any different from anyone else who may be anti-government or anti-war at any given time? Just the fact that this operates from an initial religious basis instead of secular humanism?

Common sense and Islamic law both state that specific people are not responsible for what they have no hand in. Someone calling for 'jihad', with which you mean war (with all its connotations) does not mean we have to blindly obey the call; especially if we think it is an unjust one, or for the wrong reasons. Just the same as the anti-war movement spoke out against Iraq, they did not blindly obey their leaders, and thought it was for the wrong reasons. Whats the difference? Are we Muslims really so braindead that we follow every whim of government or religious leaders, no matter what nonsense they speak?

What does our expert Anglo-Irish convert say to the notion of 'reversion.'

What if she changes her mind and say, wants to embrace a Hindu perspective? What does Sharia law say about this type of religious freedom? A fundamental human right, like freedom of religion, what says Sharia on this point?

Here endeth the so called 'experts' credibility... when in Rome, perhaps?

How can you stop them without pulling the religious card?

I have no problems pulling the religious card, after all we are a secular society, sorry islam you looses on that one, just ask any Aussie .

Fellow_Human,

I'd go for anger management part two if you would go check your IQ level.

I don't need to substantiate my statements to you. People already know enough to form a judgement whether my statements are true/false.

R0bert,

U wrote: "...why limit it to just muslims? Could also check on those asians...".
U wrote: "...disregard... our laws and the system...to help the needy."

ALL rorts should be investigated, not limited to just Muslims. But:-

1.. What issues are we talking here? Not about asians or fishing laws, I hope?

2.. Rorting from Muslims origins from a religious faith. It's not a straight-forward law and order issue. If not nibbed in the bud, it may be uncontrollable. An Asian keeping multiple 'wives' is rare. Would you waste time and resources to check whether I have two wives?

3.. It's not about 'helping the needy'. Muslims are taking advantage of the system to breed like rabbits. (eg. Keysar Trad had 9 children in 2002. Anyone knows how many he now has?). It is DANGEROUS that our social welfare system encourages high breeding rates of the very same people who will in future threaten our freedom and democracy. Our time is running out... the Islamic plague is growing in magnitude with the number of rabbits. Hence the URGENCY to address such rorts NOW.

You may think your anglo ex is rorting the system but I'd rather think there is priority elsewhere.

dawood,

U wrote: "What is the real issue?"
Did you consider my post?

U wrote: "Common sense...does not mean we have to blindly obey..."
Islam is law-based, it claims the 'complete' literal word of Allah. Hence there is no room for your 'common sense' interpretation, which may actually makes you an 'idol-worshipper'. What kind of Islam you believe in? Is there a 'common-sense' Islam?

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.

Fellow_Human,

We examine the revealed word of God - both holistically and thematically - by ‘inspiration’ and ‘interpretation' under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches the full equality of men and women from Creation, to Eternal Redemption.

They were both created in God’s image, and “together” they blew this perfect relationship and became imperfect (sinful).

The decadent state of the world is the direct result of this “fall out” with God. What we call ORIGINAL SIN – [which was abolished in the Qur’an replacing it with some truncated stories...]

Paul’s letter to the Galatians in Chapter 3:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Key word of course: “In Christ”

__________

"There is no compulsion in religion" ?

Wasn’t that verse abrogated (overridden) by many subsequent verses such as 9:73 "O Prophet! Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them"?

If so why do you still use it here?
__________

RObert,

Strange questions coming from an ex-Christian – but here goes:

Q1:- please explain your mandate to intefer in other peoples lives given that your god has allowed people to have free will until judgement day.

God has clearly revealed His plan for humanity: His Son Jesus.

Your free will decision to accept or reject Jesus is the definite factor deciding your eternal destiny. They will be NO second chance.

Q2:- Do I get a chance to accept Jesus after I've seen him or is time up the moment I die? (yes/no answer will be fine)

No – it will be too late, since you’ve had ample chance to know him but refused to believe.

Q3:- Do Gods laws override human laws when and if a perceived conflict occurs? (yes/no answer will be fine)

It depends on what you call God's laws and the “perceived conflict” I guess.