Relentlessly Hypocrite Irfan,

The issue I have is ISLAM as a Religious Political STATE trying by any means to force its culture on another.

If as you say Shariah is influenced by therefore similar to English law why have TWO laws - if not to nail just another corner of your tent on Australian soil?

Jesus was the TOTAL revelation of God for ALL humanity. His death on the cross was the fulfilment of hundreds of Biblical Prophesies.

NONE of those prophesies speak about Mohammad (a non Jew).

To come 700 years after Jesus with a NEW revelation and a NEW set of laws from a NEW god: Allah (that he arrogantly equates to God) is a travesty and aberration to humanity.

If you insist on living in this prison you call religion - so be it - but don't continue in your quest to impose it on the free world.
Pleeease!

What was it in the article you did not understand coach? Irfan Yusuf correctly points out the shared traditions of legal institutions across cultures.

You betray your biases in proclaiming that Jesus (pronounced Jeeesusss?) is somehow the one true god and that eliminates any other interpretations and "truths". This is exactly what has gone wrong with the fundamentalist Muslim minority. It shows, too, in the behaviour of a number of fundamentalist Christians; the behaviour of an American Baptist minister who turned up at the funeral of a young gay man who was beaten and left to die by a group of homophobic youths in Wyoming a numer of years ago. This so-called man-of-god was carrying a sign stating "God hates fags."

Religiosity, whether Christian, Muslim, Judaism, or whatever, is too often used to divide and foster hatred. It will be a better world when all religions, including atheism ;-), learn to take themselves less seriously.

Good article Irfan.

Although the comments as you quoted them reflects a poor understanding on the PM & the treasurer behalf of understanding the concepts of Shariah.

Coach,

One word for you : 'Deedat'.
A great thinker who silenced your mob on prophet Mohamed (pbuh) prophecies in the Torah and Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Deedat
Check the references and you will be impressed how much we do have in common.

The sharing of legal practice and ideas is not suprising as the cultures that Irfan refers to can all trace their legal origins back to the Code of Laws created by King Hammurabi of ancient Babylon.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi)

Little by little,inch by inch. This is how Islam would get it's teeth into our country. Sorry Irf, if you want,need,desire to live by Sharia,go where Sharia is law.
It is not law here and hopefully never will be.

I am obviously missing something here but if most of Shariah law is already covered under Australian law then what is the issue? If there are any points that would improve things for everyone then there is no reason why laws cannot change - as they do all the time. Just don't expect any changes that are detrimental to Australian values.

My experience (albeit limited) of Muslims here is that most have come to Australia BECAUSE they want to live in a western society with equal rights, democracy and the freedoms and protection that go side by side with our legal system. I am pretty sure there would be an uproar from Muslims as well as everyone else if Shariah law was enforceable here.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38

muslims commit too much crime

There was atleast 63 gang rapes in 2004 with pakis and lebs committing most of them.

http://baron.networkwhite.net/news.html

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050

In addition to "hoppas" references you can add this gem which appeared in todays Australian, Friday 10th Page 15 under Cut and Paste. The last three paras are in stark contrast to image the Irfan is trying to portray both here and elsewhere.

When the muslims can grow up and become part of the 21st century then what they may have to offer has a chance of being listened to. Until then they have no credibilty at all.

In the meantime they will continue to chip away at the margins of society,extracting concession after concession, and never once sitting down and asking themselves, " what can they do for humankind before they demand humankind respect them".

Irfan
I am terribly busy at present.

Your post strikes me as a reflective one. I have read the views of Professor Falaakh, as you supplied.

I haven't fully digested them...yet.

However I must say few Australians or non-muslims understand either Sufism or it's significance. It's a topic, that with an intelligent explanation, most would garner some benefit.

If you feel the same, and can oblige, make it simple... :-)

Genetically I have a lot of similarities with Chimpanzees and thus Sharia Law may have a few similarities with the Western System.Chimpanzees have 98% of our genes and the 2% makes an enormous difference.

I don't want to be a chimpanzee and I don't want Australia to go back to the cruelty and injustice of the Old Testament.

Arjay wrote, "Genetically I have a lot of similarities with Chimpanzees and thus Sharia Law may have a few similarities with the Western System.Chimpanzees have 98% of our genes and the 2% makes an enormous difference."

In fact, it doesn't.

What makes the difference, as reported this week, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0005FB4D-6102-140F-A10283414B7F0000 , is not just the different genes but how the majority that both species share are interpreted.

The same is true of religious texts of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). The three all accommodate a range of interpretations from fundamentalist to critical intellectual ones.

To judge religions purely from their texts is to judge the difference between chimps and humans purely from their DNA.

Contributors disparaging Islam in this discussion thread have clearly forgotten how brutal Christianity has been over its history and what violent armed disputes it has fostered (Northern Ireland, anyone? A role model for Palestinian, Chechin, Iraqi, Hindu, and Basque terrorists; even for Timothy McVeigh?)

Mike... I encourage you to take a course in some basics of Old and New testament introduction.

Then you might hold back from some of your less spectacular muffs :) like the comment linking 'Christianity' to the problem of Ireland.

The struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism in England was fundamentally political, not religious, but without expanding that further, I'd like to underline the important OF the foundation texts of various faiths.

You said 'They all accomodate' radicalism and fundamentalism etc.....
This is not correct in regard to Christianity if by 'radicalism' you mean the violent defense of the faith, such as is the case with Islam.

Just because incidents of brutality are 'mentioned' it does not suggest we have a licence to repeat such behavior which, with the exception of the judgement of some peoples in the early Old Testament, was universally condemned by God.

There is not a single verse in the New Testament (on which Christianity is based) which urges believers to 'fight' for that faith. What it DOES do, is urge them to be patient and longsuffering, to be strong and endure, and further to love those who persecute.

So, I have to take vigorous exception to the idea that the radicalism and extremism of which you speak can be attributed to the founding documents of our faith.

If on the other hand, you simply mean that Christians will actually 'believe' that aside from Christ there is no other way of Salvation, and that this constitutes 'radicalism' I won't argue with you.

The important thing is not the merits of historical Christianity, but the cross of Christ for ourselves, to offer our lives up in humble sacrifice for Him who 'became sin for us'.

He died, that we might live. The righteous for the unrighteous.

He rose that our joy may be complete. That our assurance of "a place He is preparing for us" is not just 'pie in the sky when u die' but a solemn reality that we can participate in even now, as we are renewed day after day in Him.

Mr Irfan

You had me sucked in until your last paragraph. I was thinking - what a great article.

So the Koran teaches about charity and giving things of value. That is great.

How dare you say that Australians are following Koranic teachings of charity, value and the like!

You are not an Aussie - even though you were born here. Your last paragraph is repulsive.

Narcissist said:
'The sharing of legal practice and ideas is not suprising as the cultures that Irfan refers to can all trace their legal origins back to the Code of Laws created by King Hammurabi of ancient Babylon.'

Thanks for your comment. This reminds me:

The believers of the Abrahamic religions (all based on the fear of being punished by God or His servants, either in this life or in Hell) - Judaism, Christianity and Islam, just seem to ignore the rest of the history of humans as if it never existed. History for them, begins when their 'Holy Men' pronounced their judgements, or when other people wrote 'scriptures' or scripts based around the lives of those men.

The Abrahamic relgions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are all based on the fear of punishment, the fear of being punished. This is closely related to a deeply held fear of death.

If you're going to bother being a religious follower at all, you are probably best off being a Buddhist. At least being loving and peaceful is at the core of Buddhism. Jesus was practically a 'Buddha'. (The term "Buddha" is derived from the verbal root "budh", meaning "to awaken" or "to be enlightened", and "to comprehend".

What a pity the Bible contains both the Old and New Testaments. The New testament is relatively peaceful, although the sword of punishment/being sent to Hell for not believing still hangs over it.

Lots of people note how brutal Christianity has been through the ages. Notice how many of the great Christian hymns are heavily laden with violent Old Testament references - These types of hymns and songs were heavily used in the past in Christian countries as motivation in times of war.

My advice for Christians - tear out the first half of your Bibles. Even better, become a Buddhist. Better still - learn how to think for yourselves.

My advice for Hebrews and Muslims - also learn how to think for yourselves.

If Irfan wants to write on Sharia law, that's his business. Some of us will be interested.

But, as for discussing it! Sharia law has nothing to do with Australian society. As with the old axiom: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts", it is: "Beware of Muslims giving information".

Muslims will share only that which they wish to share. Their real purpose is to spread the word of the Prophet and convert infidels to Allah, and they are not going to tell you about that. The little titbits they deign to broadcast about themselves simply take your mind of the ball.

Don't worry about Sharia. Worry about the overall threat of Islam.

Re: Sufism

Email from my university philosophy/european studies lecturer (whom I hadn't spoken to in ages) Jan. 16 2006.

"On the question of Islam- I was horror struck when I read the Koran
and tripply so when I read much of the hadith. on any Christian viewing
Mohammed is a demonic force- examples such as his inistence upon stoning
adulterers, taking as concubines the victims of execution, his failure to
understand mercy, his reintroduction of the rigidity of the law (in fact
judaism was not that rigid), his fusion of the political and the heavenly, his
paltry view of heaven. If you do not know a geo-political journalist (the only
journalist I know who is steeped in theology) who goes under the name spengler
and writes for Asiatimes online go read him. Medieval christians were not
opposed to islam bvecause they were ignorant but they new what they stood for,
I think Europe will be Islamic or a tthe very least will be engulfed by civil
wars due to islam within the next thirty years (demographics alone suggest
this). having been a great fan of sufism (and i still am) I had imagined the
Koran to be in its spirit it is not. Khomeini and bin Laden are good muslims. i
have no doubt of that. But I could go on."

Irfan

Thank you for acknowledging the errant 'attack' by some sections of the media & portions of your own Muslim community upon the Federal Treasurer.

The principles which are the underlying foundation to international laws appear to be similar - truth, integrity, morals. ethics & justice. But that is often where the similarities cease. Truth, for instance, has become 'subjective' or relative. Western society talks about "white lies". Muslims consider it permissible to lie:
(i) to "mend a friendship";
(ii) during jihad - violent warfare, or for the sake of Allah;
(iii) to deceive a wife.

Having said that, I do not pretend that Westerners & people of other religious &/or ethnic backgrounds don't lie. They do. But their religious texts don't condone it. The Qur'an & some Ahadith do - including the "sahih" writings of Bukhari, Muslim & Ali.

Many ethnic & religio-cultural groups mistreat women. But there are few - from all those I've studied - which condone from their writings, the subjugation of women. Islam is one of those exceptions. "Women are deficient in intelligence, in religion & in gratitude" - according to Islamic writings. Whatsmore, they "have 10 'awrah" - Vol 22 Hadith 858.

Which specific "British Common Law" doctrines are taken from Islamic Sharia jurisdictions? Australian law is predominantly based upon British traditions. Arabic culture is, for the most part, quite dissimilar to all that Australia has been for its 200-years of history since Captain Cook.
(10/3/06)

coach (post 9:56:50 AM 10/3/06)

I share much of your frustration(s).

What befuddles me though is that there are so many 'nominal' Muslims who appear to try so hard to conform to their surroundings - my hairdresser is one such humanbeing.

My wife & I moved from Cairns to Lakemba in 1976. That suburb has changed monumentally since then. It is not the safe enclave that it once was. It does seem, that once Muslims "open the book" - their book - & take on the 'wisdom' of their local imam, all their worldly values disappear. ...

...(t.b.c.)

Hi all

(cont) Coach

That indicates there are two possible sources for the 'change':
(i) the Qur'an & the other associated literature, &/or;
(ii) the quality & philosophies of their mosque elders/teachers.

Christ said: "You will know them by their fruits." Sadly, the current worldwide violence, & the historical facts surrounding Mohammad's warlike existence don't give optimism that Muslims who follow Islam's prophet will be any more peaceful, long-term.
(10/3/06)

jimoctec (post 12:20:58 PM 10/3/06)

".. the shared traditions of legal institutions across cultures ..". There's more dissimilarity than there is similarity - African tribal law could not be compared to Communist Chinese, to Eastern European etc. The UN is trying to establish a "universal law" - heaven forbid.

Biased we all are .. to some degree.

The American Baptist minister exemplifies an anti-Christian hatred. I hope that he lost his posting - he was unfit to serve office. That doesn't lessen the sinful nature of the deceased gay individual - Islam & Christianity agree on that issue. But God will judge him - not fallen mankind.

Taking any religion seriously is the only way that we can identify different moral & ethical codes. Under a "one world government" someone has to sacrifice their integrity. I hope that future 'governments' never compromises the pure essence of Christianity.
(10/3/06)

Fellow_Human (post 1:00:15 PM 10/3/06)

The PM has a better understanding of Islam than you might think. He does have Muslim advisors, & there are those from within the Defence & Intelligence organisations who consult with him. Senior Federal Ministers have received deputations by Muslim representatives at regular intervals - especially since 1998 (I have document copies).

Christians & Muslims have a lot less in common than you intimate. DEEDAT's claims are blasphemous & heretical. The comment that Yeshua wasn't crucified aren't substantiated by historical records. To the contrary - hundreds of people who knew Him witnessed the event. Both friends & opponents verified it in writings hundreds of years before Mohammed made up his fictional story.
(10/3/06)

Cheers all

jimoctec,

Jesus is God incarnate. Believe it or not

There is One True God, “Truth” is Singular – any other notion is "fiction” - a deviation from the Truth, a human invention in collaboration with Satan.

FH,

Deedat? Common now – is that the best you can throw at me now?

The guy is dead, and so are his fraudulent arguments.

He could not stand a chance in debates today – but his material are still used to manipulate the spiritual weak – but then again these could fall for anything anyway.

The debate in Bankstown I told you about was by one of his followers… he did not have a chance.

sajo,

Good point – a lot of muslims escape their oppressive regimes – they don’t necessarily choose Australia, they just want to get “out” of hell. But hell is following them here.

Keith,

You are right we need more description re: muslim sects and cultural differences. This will certainly help Muslims self-expression if we knew where they draw their references.

Ev,

“The Abrahamic relgions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are all based on the fear of punishment, the fear of being punished. This is closely related to a deeply held fear of death.”

These are wrong assumptions because:

1. Islam claims to be a Judaic religion – both Judaism and Christianity refute that.
2. Christ has conquered death on the cross and has taken away the fear of the judgement for our sins.

For me to live in fear of death or eternal punishment is a lack of consideration for what Jesus has done.

________________

Muslims live in a bubble of their own. Their (islamic) state takes care of all their needs from the 'cradle to the grave'. Their religious beliefs are considered more precious than the blood of a martyr or the life of a Kaffir (non-muslim).

They will do everything to protect it from foreign influences: therefore they MUST keep their laws for that bubble to remain whole.

Beware!

ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS.

If we look at the 10 commandments. The first one contains 3 elements.

1/ Who am I ..."I am" a statement of 'who' is addressing Israel.
2/ What did I do...The reason and background to why this God is addressing Israel.
3/ How should you respond....Their reasonable response.

I am the LORD thy God,
who
brought you (Israel) out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Bearing in mind, that the reference to being saved from bondage, is something one could rightly expect gratitude for, I don't think the final "You shall have no other gods before me" is too much to ask.

Only 2 of the 10 commandments were 'positive'

1/ Keep the Sabbath, have a break !
2/ Honor your parents.

All the rest are in the form of 'Do not'....such and such.

The reason is that our natural tendency is to 'DO' those things, but doing them will alienate us from our Creator.

I don't get the impression that it was about 'fear' as much as it was about 'walking with God in His ways'.

If you had saved the life of a traveller, from certain death would it be fair to say that your relationship with the saved traveller was based on 'fear' ? Suppose he thought nothing of it, and ridiculed you, as if nothing had been done, you could rightly feel annoyed ?

In regard to Sharia, I have to go back one step to the prophet of Sharia, Mohammed. The difficulty I have, apart from simply rejecting totally that he was in any way 'from God', is that in his life, 2 concepts are linked and interwoven.

1/ Belief in him, (Mohammed) and
2/ Violence. (Military, Political and Domestic)

They are linked in very specific ways, which have been posted here many times. With this link, the whole culture and society becomes built around this founding point, will reflect ultimately that linking of ideas in its values and behavior...and we see this daily

BOAZ_David wrote: "The struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism in England was fundamentally political, not religious..."

Anyone who thinks the two are mutually exclusive must be a real dimwit.

The Spanish Inquisition was political, aimed at driving out residual Muslim influence from Spain. The right-to-life groups in the US who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate their workers are also political.

This is nothing to do with religion?

BOAZ_David also wrote: "There is not a single verse in the New Testament (on which Christianity is based) which urges believers to 'fight' for that faith. What it DOES do, is urge them to be patient and longsuffering, to be strong and endure, and further to love those who persecute."

That is a good example of my earlier point that text is one thing but interpretation quite another.

There is no Christian nation (and the United States is more Christian than most) that rests its foreign policy on being "patient and longsuffering", on loving "those who persecute". In the 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas considered the doctrine of Just War, "Whether some kind of war is lawful" and concluded that there are certainly circumstances where it is, http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/aquinas/justwar.html

The first Christian Crusade against Muslim Infidels occurred during the 11th century. Pope Gregory VII at the time "struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had resolved the question in favour of justified violence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Seven centuries ago, Aquinas was codifying well established principles. It is pointless to protest that the New Testament contains no encouragement for Christian nations to fight. They have been doing that for over a thousand years.

Irfan has written an article that covers the following points:
1. Mr. Costello describes 6 values that define Australia. Irfan claims that Muslim scholars can identify 5 values of Sharia that are very similar if not the same as Costello's 6.
2. Because of this, some Imams claim that Australia is more Islamic than most Muslim majority States.
3. This is also because Sharia and Australia laws have the same basic origins, and have borrowed extensively from each other.
4. But a tiny minority doesn't have the precondition necessary for proper Sharia, namely Sufism. This is the source of the terrorist mentality.
5. Finally, if Aussie Mossies cant get this point over, how can they possibly criticise the rest of use if we don,t understand these points

To respond to these, all one has to do is mention one word, Malaysia. Similar origins to Australia, with British law and institutions. Originally a secular state until declared Islamic by the Maharthir.

Malaysia is a country where dhimmitude is practiced through the tax system and the over whelming preferential treatment granted to Malays. This is in despite of a disproportionate percentage of the economy being generated by the substantial Indian and Chinese communities.

Ethnic Chinese and Indians are grossly under represented in all forms of public service and government, and actively discriminated against.

This is also country where:
95% of all government contracts are given to Malays.
There must be 30% staff in Chinese companies, but 0% of non-Malays staff are legally required in Malay companies.
144 Indian and 50 Chinese schools have been closed down.

I had course to speak with an Imam in Malaysia. During this meeting he brought out a map that showed all the Islamic countries across from Iran/Iraq cross to Indonesia. A finger was jabbed at the outline of Australia with the proclamation that "we are working towards seeing that Australia become part of the the Ummah".

In my view the real issue is that Islam runs by the rule of "we will dominate, and not be dominated". Sharia and Sufism are side issues.

Dear Mike

yes, I know what you mean. The issue of 'interpretation' is very important.

Adolph Hitler intepreted the incident of Jesus cleansing the temple as follows:

1/ The merchants Jesus drove out were JEWS.
2/ Jesus drove out the JEWS.
3/ We must be like Jesus and drive out the JEWS from our communities.

Forgetting of course, that Jesus himself was a Jew, and that the scripture clearly indicates what that event was about. Nothing like Hitler understood.

So, a wrong interpretation tells you more about the 'people' concerned than the document itself. You will agree I'm sure that we have sent people to the moon based on the correct interpretation of words on paper. There are sound principles which must be applied.
We cannot grab verses like a lucky dip from anywhere and put them together to form our own brand of the faith.

In most cases, the political use of religion, has its roots in the maintaining of power, which in turn gives authority over people and resources.
Despots and Tyrants seem to either 'use' religion for political ends, or use political methods to destroy it altogether.

It would not matter how ridiculous the 'faith' was, as long as it had the effect of uniting the people, despots will use it.

So, in the end, we are left with documents, principles of sound interpretation and our consciences. I trust in God that you will use these for your own eternal benefit.

It would appear that some Germans have decided that the Koran is incompatible with their Constitution, and have referred the matter to the Courts. This should make things interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594464/posts

In terms of the basic law of Germany it would appear that it certainly has a case to answer.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

It would also appear that this strategy is not new, and almost won the day in India a decade ago in a landmark case that still reverberates.See

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/

As one commentator noted:

10. “The Islamic principles of denigrating the non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against them - principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine - have boomeranged. However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam today are by and large Muslims themselves. The Prophet must have known that violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another after his death. He also had a premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that once the Rasul opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina would one day return to Medina in poverty. ‘Just as a snake crawls back and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina.’ The increasing power of the non-Muslim West and the disenchantment of Muslim dissidents point towards that possibility, howsoever remote.”

It appears that Muhammad had a premonition that Islam would one day be rooted out and reconfined to Mecca and Medina?

Most would say the sooner the better before the bugger up more countries with their manipulative, backward looking, medieval nonsense.

Hi all

Narcissist (post 2:50:19 PM 10/3/06)

I could make many comments about the Code of Law reputedly dating from the era of the Babylonian King HAMMURABI - about 1700BC. But one principle within that law was drastically dissimilar to the British Common Law which is the platform for Australian law. Hammurabi rarely used incarceration - preferring execution or mutilations as punishment. From memory, & strangely, that epoch also saw monogamy as a virtue. That certainly isn't a preferred option for Islamic tradition.
(10/3/06)

mickijo (post 3:15:50 PM 10/3/06)

Surely you realise that a Secular Humanistic sentiment, which usurped all prior religious euphoria, meant, that from about 1975 onwards, Australia began to lose focus on its history & its destiny.

Political correctness stifles our ability to be objective. A democracy is a "sitting target" for those who seek to change the political climate without a civil war.
(10/3/06)

sajo (post 3:41:05 PM 10/3/06)

Hi, you may need to go through a fast learning-curve.

".. most of Shariah law is already covered under Australian law ..". That is not true - examine the countries where Sharia law applies. A loyal Muslim could not possibly, & ultimately, accept laws which differ from those bound into Islamic text & tradition.

Islamic countries (Dar Al-Islam) impose a taxation burden (Dhimma) upon non-Muslim residents.

".. most have come .. to live in a western society with equal rights ..". That may or may not be a true statement. What can be certain is that those who migrated came to escape elements of a life unpleasant to them. That could easily be Muslim brother fighting Muslim brother - they do that all the time.

Law, rules, regulations & decisions can be made without the approval of the majority within a democracy. When did you ever approve a pay-increase for a politician? The majority may not wish to do a certain thing, but the law over-rides their wishes often.
(10/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

hoppa (post 4:13:21 PM 10/3/06)

Criticise a philosophy or religio-cultural beliefs if you like. Let's not insult ethnic/racial groups.

I have several multi-racial friends. They're not as you insinuate.

Irfan can't change his ethnicity, & he isn't a law-breaker. He can change religions - & I hope he does.

On behalf of those insulted: I find your post racially offensive. I hope that you apologise - "Pakis", "Lebs". Disgraceful!
(10/3/06)

bigmal (post 4:40:03 PM 10/3/06)

I hope that you aren't racially prejudiced - as I suspect "hoppa" is.

Wherever mosques flourish there will be challenges to Western thinking. Australia is currently a land of Dar Al-Harb.
(10/3/06)

keith (post 5:06:35 PM 10/3/06)

We'll all wait for you
(11/3/06)

Arjay (post 6:02:37 PM 10/3/06)

The 2% makes a big difference. But Islam & Judeo-Christianity 'enjoy' a 50-mile wide schism.

Yep, there are some 'nasties' in the OT. But the Qur'an is briefer than the NT, & it is crammed with many more 'nasties'.
(11/3/06)

MikeM (post 6:34:09 PM 10/3/06)

I have not forgotten how brutal human beings, 'masquerading' as religious zealots, instigated warfare.

But the Judeo-Christian OT talks more about God's (Yahweh's) wrath, whilst the NT predominantly imparts non-violence.

The Qur'an 'instructs' Muslims to kill, mutilate & subjugate non-believers.

As to Timothy McVEIGH: I don't know his religious beliefs prior to, during or post the event. But a logical-thinking, Bible-believing Christian could never condone violence - especially unprovoked violence.
(11/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 8:01:19 PM 10/3/06)

Good to see your post!
(11/3/06)

kalweb (post 8:45:34 PM 10/3/06)

Islam does teach that charity & mercy (should be extended) ... to disadvasntaged Muslims.

Dhimmitude extended to monotheistic non-Muslims living in a Muslim country isn't mercy. That person is a 2nd-class citizen - relegated below the status of a Muslim woman.

That last paragraph is certainly all-revealing, isn't it? Australia gives Muslims socio-economic & religious freedom. In return, many reject our generosity, steadfastly retaining their religio-cultural constraints suffered previously.

I seek understanding of Islam. But to comprehend what to avoid where/when it is destructive & detrimental to our Australian way-of-life.
(11/306)

Cheers all

Multiculturalism isnt about us embracing religions or laws belonging to people who come here to make a new home.
Its about tolerating their choice of religion & who they are - emplasis on TOLERATING!
BUT
if new arrivers break the laws of the land they will be treated the same as us & sentenced by a court of law.

Any other interpretation seems bizarre to me.

European / Anglo / Asian Australians are unlikely to convert to Muslim or any other new arrivers religion.

It seems bizarre that middle eastern people come here as refugees to escape persecution but then want to impose their religion & laws on the residents.

Maybe this attitude is so for some middle eastern arrivers to our shores but its is surely a strange paradox & will not be well received by 90% of Aussies.

The negativity against Muslim people is unfortunate and mostly ill-informed. Migration brings many religious groups and cultures .Instead of Muslim Middle Eastern people and Africans, Asians should we just bring in the Christian people as migrants? Would they be more like Aussie's ? Native African Christians or Christians from PNG , Asians etc . They may be spiritually aligned with practicing Christians but will they be more likely to be like Aussies? I can assure you there is little difference in the cultures whatever religion people are. Christian and Muslim Arabs are still Arabs and have similiar cultures regardless of religion. Average people from developing countries are generally conservative, women are marginalised because of difficult economic conditions and the societies are generally partriachal - Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Extremist religious people(minorities)won’t want to be in anything except a complete religious existence in any country.

Someone 'please explain' to me exactly what sort of Australian culture is it that Muslim's can't fit into, getting drunk possibly? Many Lebanese go to footy and fishing and families have picnics and parties etc.

Regarding Christianity a friends daughter attended Hillsong Church in Sydney's northwest and was told she should only be friends with other Christians who accept Jesus etc and nobody else. I have also been to a Church of Christ meeting where the faithful where indoctrinated with the advice that women should follow and obey their husbands! So does that mean that Christians are rejecting mainstream Australian values! What are Australian values? I say egalitariansim is the key. A fair go ! I have seen much of the class distinctions of other cultures Middle Eastern, Indian, sub-continent regardless of religion. China is mostly Buddhist but has one of te worst human rights records in the world. Executions, forced abortions etc. But you can’t blame religion for that, that's culture, it's against the religion. Treat other fairly and equally no matter what their background rich, poor, black white etc... That's the values I fight for.

Hey, Irfan.

If almost all of the Muslim's in Australia regard Muslims who wish to impose Sharia Law on the rest of the world as "fringe groups" who are besmirching their good name, how is it that thousands of Muslims can march in Sydney over a French decision to ban headscaves in French schools, yet "Australian" Muslims react with a deafening silence when the Taliban violates your "Sufism" and imposes Sharia Law on Afghanistan by force of arms?

Where was the outcry from "moderate" Muslims when the Taliban blew up the 2,000 year old Babiyan Buddhas? If "Australian" Muslims regard Muslim fundamentalists as loonies, why does there appear to me so much support for these loonies in the Muslim world?

Your views on the compatability of Australian law and Sharia Law are fatuous unles you denounce those aspects of Sharia Law that you know are completely at odds with Australian law. But this you will never do.

I KNEW IT ! Redneck.. whenever I enter the forum at this time and see something like "4 hours ago" for a comment, I can almost certainly predict it will be you ! :) what kind of work do you do mate ? Do you sleep ? your comments are often around 4.00am.. general curiosity....

Irfan's references to 'Sufism' is his attempt to put some 'heart' into Islam but there is one thing about it which is commendable: It seeks to emphasize the love of God, and our relationship with Him.

Sadly, calling people 'armchair nazi's' does not seem to relfect that love for which sufism claims its fame.

I suggest that the problem with sufism is that it bypasses Christ the Son of God, and in fact rejects Him by reducing God manifest, incarnate, to a mere prophet.

True 'sufism' will only ever be found/experienced in our relationship with God through Christ. Seeking to come to God without being reconciled to Him through Christ is like trying to goto Sydney from Melbourne via Adelaide. But that illustration suggests you might arrive, albeit the 'long way'. No, apart from Christ Irf...there is no salvation and thus no true sufism.

We are unlikely to see any great Sufism revival among Muslims simply because of its cult/fringe/heretical status.

So that leaves us with the dry, formal, legal barren desert wasteland of Sharia.

We reject it, and declare it totally irrelevant to Australia. Not even worth wasting time discussing apart from it bring non Muslims of various persuasions (Including Christian and non Christian) closer together and united in their unbending passion to be free of such an evil distortion of life.

The only value of this discussion as I see it, is in our on-going clarification of the nature of 'The Enemy' and the way he thinks.
This will help us to know what we are contending against.

My major concern is that those without faith, may not have the stomach for the coming conflict, because their life framework does not lend itself to being passionate for anything other than themselves.

yes, coach, it's all a big conspiracy by sharia activists, jewish bankers who eat kids and aboriginals in loin cloth spearing your great great grandmother.

“After all, Sharia is not a synonym for amputations and beheadings.”
Yes, it is. And worse.

“…Sharia and the common law sit side by side." and "This simple fact is taught to first year law students in universities across the world.”
No, they don't and no, it isn’t.

“…it might mean non-Indigenous Australians will have to pack their bags and return to their motherlands.”
Nonsense.

“Many of our fundamental common law doctrines are taken from the works of Sharia jurists, and Sharia has also borrowed from the common law.”
Rubbish.

“…tiny minority…” Anyone who does even basic research of Islam and Islamic movements around the world knows that this is a crock which is rapidly growing whiskers.

“Instead of criticising inevitable and understandable ignorance, Muslim leaders need to educate the community about their faith and values.”
The “inevitable and understandable ignorance” lies with the Muslim leaders and even more so with their flock. Australians are well-known to be laid back and easy-going. That does not make us the fools some seem to think we are. There is a limit and we’ve just about reached it, I reckon.

"Muslims too must share what they treasure - their religious and ethical values. If Aussie Muslims do not share their faith with their countrymen, how can they blame the rest of Australia for not understanding them?"
No. Australia’s ethical values are just fine, thanks. So too are our social values to the extent that Australians have no difficulty in accepting into our population multiple races, religions and creeds. There is one proviso: that neither by overt nor covert means do those so accepted attempt to impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on us.

The obligation does not lie with the Australian people to "understand" those we have welcomed into our home. The obligation to fit in to Australian culture, observe Australian laws, uphold Australian values, and to keep religious matters strictly private lies with anyone who chooses to live here.

We are happy to share our home, but that does not give you the right to re-arrange the furniture.

Irfan

I believe, unlike leftists, who by ignoring the realities of Muslim xenophobia are either tacit assimilationists (who believe that "they'll mix in over a few generations", and who care little for those who live among these violent diasporas), or just ignorant, that Muslims are my equals.

I can understand why leftists do stick their heads in the sand on Islamic issues, I mean, Australia has never brought a culture here that is so xenophobic.

It is seen in how non-Muslims were turned away from the rock pools at Cronulla beach by Muslim males so burqa-clad women could swim uncontaminated.

Or how some young Lebanese Muslim males form gangs based solely on religious & ethnic identity, racially targeting outsiders for intimidation, sexual harassment,& bashings.

Xenophobia was shown when Muslim leaders claimed they needed protection from a “redneck backlash” after the Cronulla riots, in the midst of numerous churches, not mosques, being burnt and shot at by Muslim youth.

How children of Lebanese migrants are under pressure to marry within their own ethnicity, and that the already high level of in-marriage for the children of Lebanese migrants rose in the 1990s, with 61 per cent of grooms marrying a woman from Lebanon and 74 per cent of women marrying Lebanese men, shown in a study by Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research director Bob Birrell.

How comments by Aziza Abdel-Halim, of the Federal Governments Muslim Community Reference Group, who at a SBS Insight forum aired on 30-08-05 said that “A lot of women sometimes that I meet tell me “My daughter is a friend of an Australian girl. I can't let her be like that".

However, I believe the best example of xenophobia is that Muslim leaders don't even acknowledge that they do have this problem!

Irfan?

Any thoughts on Muslim xenophobia? Let's have a real debate. Refute my claims, but do it with evidence, not insults.

Dear Strewth
your all over the place mate.. look at u...

come to think of it, for you to
a) Have the passion you do for so called “Indigenous” Palestinians and
b) Actually speak as you do from the ‘Israeli’ position of living in Australia on stolen land

...without being the absolute POPE of Hypocrites yourself, you would HAVE to be an Indigenous Australian who has converted to Islam.

If you are not, you are indeed that ‘pope’ of all hypocrites :)

Imaginary exile ? sheesh.. ur on drugs arn’t u -read Josephus etc

I refer to the Roman exile and you accuse me of living in the first century and that I need a life, yet you then point to the Canaanites (who, by the way ‘are’ under the judgment of God) duh. Thats quite a way back from the year 70.

Unpalatable ? yep.. I know, much of real life is, like Masada, Holocaust, massacres of Indigenous Australians, killing Whales etc.

Secondly, it sounds like you have been boning up on Palestinian propaganda yourself, and see life through PLO distorted eyes. Can you tell the difference between an Arab Palestinian and a ‘canaanite’ Palestinian ? Are you telling me that u can ? that they can ? if so, how ?

I don’t consider Israel any more ‘righteous’ than any other, but I do maintain they have as much right to forge territory as any other did. Do you dispute this ? Are you going to unravel each and every conflict in that region and separate them into sheep and goats ? have fun.

The ONLY “right” that any of them have, is that of might, and guess what.. Israel has it.
Your reference to the UN and various resolutions and most laughable ‘Human Rights’ is pandering to a defunct body, which in any case is controlled by..guess who ? WINNERS in power struggles. Ever heard of the Security council ? They are the allied winners of WW2 +China.
Rights are actually ‘privileges’ granted by those with the power.

Ben,

Basically you are presuming that every single person in Australia who has Islam as part of their identity is part of a single conspiratorial monolith.

Hence your claim of a single Islamic culture that is more xenophobic than the cultural strains that:

1. slaughtered so many indigenous peoples

2. ripped indigenous kids apart their families and

3. waited some 200 years before deciding these people might deserve compensation for property rights usurped from them.

I could go on and on about these matters, but then what is the point? Most conservative spokespeople have their heads in the sand about their xenophobic attitudes toward indigenous people.

How can i expect a people who engage in historical revisionism of indigenous Australia's treatment by european settlers to face the honest facts about the faith and values of another people?

Then again, there is hope. Francis Fukuyama and others are beginning to admit that the neo-Con experiment was just a big con. I wonder how long it will take nazified pseudo-conservatives to accept this.

Irfan

You're not really refuting anything that Ben said there, come on take one of his points and do something substantial with it.

You (ab)use the word nazi so much it's lost all it's impact.

You always do this when someone makes valid points.

You're a joke

Western countries have committed many wrongs in the past, but that is no reason to ignore the dangers that widespread militant Islam presents. Issues like treatment of indigenous pples are recognised and are going a ways to being redressed in most Western countries.

Islam and its supporters need to likewise and admit the faults of its own culture and attempt to rectify them. But its proponents don't have the stomach for that, so they point their fingers at others. Point is, we can't let guilt from past wrongs overcome the need to address these serious issues. Ignore Irfan and his straw man.

Carniflex

Ifran just showed Ben some islamic xenaphobia loud and clear.

irfan

You were born in Australia. Thus, your claims about Anglos were in the lifetime of you and your parents.

Did you parents or the early Lebanese people who came to this country fight the World Wars for this country -including Vietnam?

kalweb says did your parents or grandparents fight in WW's etc and that Lebanese migrants would not have. Most would be too young to have done so and migrants were generally running away from these conflicts so in a sense fighting wars was part of the process of bringing migrants to Australia as Aussie diggers and Australia were helping to fight the oppression of fascists and communists like Stalin and Hitler,Poll Pot etc. These fascists murderers had nationalist racist policies which white supremicists emulate. I am sure the diggers were not fighting for those those horrendous policies and acts of violence, they were fighting against them so i don't understand why the white supremos identify with Wars and diggers etc, it is only because they relate to violence. My uncles who are now in the sixties or dead took part in some of the wars and I am not a xenophobic racist. Fighting for Australia in wars does not qualify racism unless you are Hitler, Stalin or Milosovich and we all know how they ended up.

but really what has islam done for us?

Meredith,

'what has islam done for us'

A Life of Brian moment here.

Well, nothing for the roads, education, controlling crime, wine, sanitation.

I think islam will one day show us just how, despite it's faults that Western civilisation is the best of the bunch. One day we will stop hating ourselves and make a stand, islam worked for me in this way.

Thanks islam!

'Ifran just showed Ben some islamic xenaphobia'

That was typical Irfan. He never answers directly, just prattles on about atrocities against the Kooris. He uses it as a tactic to stifle debate. In the process he actually trivialises their suffering in the same way he trivialises all the suffering of the victims of the nazis by describing all those who disagree with him so.

By the way Irf....

'How can i expect a people who engage in historical revisionism of indigenous Australia's treatment by european settlers to face the honest facts about the faith and values of another people?'

How can I expect people who believe in the rantings of a long dead murdering paedophile to face the honest facts about the failings of their own religion?

Like your ideology Irf, you never cease to amaze me

Let me test our right to think freely here on this page, after all we know the idea behind this forum is freedom of speach.
Within boundrys of course.
I growingly question why I should share my country with many of the Muslim faith.
I have concerns that minoritys within that group will never execpt my freedoms to be me.
I beleave only a very few Muslims speak out for my rights, and while I have deep contempt for Howard and Costello its my view they speak for Australia on this issue.
Dare I SAY IT? every one is welcome in Australia IF YOU RESPECT IT!

Hi all

Ev (post 12:02:08 AM 11/3/06)

Seems as though you haven't studied Buddhism, & whilst probably being a Secular Humanist, you haven't studied that either.

Although the majority of Buddhisms originated beyond the shores of Japan, have you ever understood Japanese history? Does WW II signify anything?

Humanists are such wonderful people also?! I think not! Read their manifestos & study modern history.
(11/3/06)

Leigh (post 10:14:17 AM 11/3/06)

Well said!
(11/3/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 10:48:41 AM 11/3/06)

You are a sane, rational, learned human being. Keep listening to your University lecturer.

The Sufis Movement gives a very false impression of what the remainder of Islam is all about. But I'm certain that you know that already.

This mystical form of Islam, named after the early ascetics who wore course wool garments, might be akin to the Jewish Kabbalists, & the unrelated religion, Parsism.

A study of early-20th Century Muslim, Sayyid Abu l-Ala MAWDUDI, is an interesting read. From memory he was a Chishti (order) Sufi - a 12th Century strain.
(11/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 3:40:34 PM 11/3/06)

As usual: well analysed & stated.
(12/3/06)

MikeM (post 4:04:41 PM 11/3/06)

I don't think that B_D is trying to say that they are mutually exclusive. He is probably trying to state their 'origins' - origins which get subverted within a very short period of time.

The Cronulla Riot was originally a religio-cultural dispute - non-Muslims who objected to Muslim taunts & insults. It wasn't long before the Media & the perpetrators turned it into a racial/ethnic dispute.

Consider: the Muslims could just as easily have been Anglo-Saxon converts (some were). But a few lunny-bins nominated the Muslims as all & only "Lebanese". Equally, the Muslims saw their 'enemy' as only being Anglo-Saxons. Now we create "a race riot", which ignores that differing religous & cultural beliefs exist within separate ethnic groupings.

Covetousness is arguably the most disobeyed of the last 6 Commandments - closely followed by # 5 & 9. The Apostle Paul struggled with it. It is probably closely-related to modern-day self-survival (at times).
(12/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

bigmal (post 9:57:45 PM 11/3/06)

You've got it in one. Well said!

If/when Dar Al-Islam comes to Australia, we won't get a choice. Sharia will be the Islamic model.

Even Sufis are not tolerated by their more-violent 'brothers'.
(12/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 10:22:46 PM 11/3/06)

I wish your detractors actually read your posts instead of angrily opposing you.
(12/3/06)

bigmal (post 11:26:47 AM 12/3/06)

Apart from Muslim-dominated countries, I can't see where Islamic law could ever be compatible.

Momentarily I thought that you were pro-Islam. But then I read further.

Muhammed often contradicted himself. His war-like & violent behaviour was his bench-mark - a template for his followers.

I haven't read that particular Hadith - unless I'm forgetful. Much of the contents of the Qur'an & the Ahadith are An-Nasekh wa Al-Mansoukh ("abrogating and abrogated texts") - even the "sahih" ("correct") & the "mutawata" ("similarly said by many") are contradicting.

Would you kindly quote your reference?

Thanks for the hyperlinks
(12/3/06)

natasha (post 5:49:16 PM 12/3/06)

Multiculturalism was never properly defined. The populace trusted the government to 'lead' them into a 'new', supposedly anti-discriminatory realm.

Because it wasn't adequately defined it's impact was not understood. Most pre-, post- & "Baby-boomers" thought that it meant enjoying some new culinary delights, parades & pretty clothing. Wrong! Multiculturalism means much more. All ethnicities, didn't ask enough questions at the beginning.

The pre-1978 migrants appreciated immigration & willingly integrated. They proudly called themselves 'new' Australians.

I'm clearly pro multi-ethnicity. However, under multiculturalism, I shouldn't be forced to accept worse moral & ethical codes, changes to laws to accommodate 'new' arrivals, & threatening religious practices. But enough on multiculturalism.

Look up www.amf.org.au Be prepared to read a lot of biased garbage.

Surprisingly many non-Arabs do convert to Islam. Infact, Arabs only represent a small percentage of the world's Muslim population.

It's not bizarre that Muslim migrants want to convert others. It's a proselytic religion.

I'd suggest that you read the Qur'an, too. A 'free' copy? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Have a read of the posts by BOAZ_David, bigmal, Martin ibn Warriq, kalweb & others.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all

Ben,

Bob Birrell's research concerns Lebanese migrants. It doesn't concern Muslim migrants.

Lebanese migrants belong to a variety of denominations - Druze, Sunni, Shia, Maronite Catholic, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox.

The majority of Australia's Lebanese are not Muslim. They are Christian.

Further, you need to ask yourself what proportion of Australia's total Muslim population are of Lebanese background. Can you show me any studies which show that the majority of Australia's Muslims are Lebanese?

Your attempt to apply Birrell's research to all Muslim migrants makes no demographic sense. Please exercise caution and intellectual honesty when making use of other people's research.

And could meredith and all the other armchair nazis at least learn to spell my name correctly?

Muslims, in a purely defensive mode, sling off at Oz as a nation of near naked drunks who have treated the Aboriginals badly. This makes them feel so superior with their own 'modesty''sobriety'and everlasting'praying'.
We have them writing into forums how they contrast with Australians in their habits but mention the terrible acts that Muslims are committing world wide and they prefer to go deaf, dumb and unaware if it is unfortunate to be mentioned.
One does not even have to mention the mindless barbarities , one only has to see what a backward, medieval outlook they have to know that they will never advance one bit until they lose their very undeserved high and mighty opinion of their achievements because they really have nothing to be proud of at all.
We have an excellent country, created in such a short span by people who tried very hard and achieved very much. Our ancestors, of whom we are very proud whatever their origins, convict or settler. We owe them.

Ifran

How about some mutual repsect? I'll learn to spell your name... if you learn the concept of manners and boudries as understood in secular Modernity and curtail to Australias resounding NO to non secular islam and it's religious law.

Deal?

Meredith,

Having lived in Australia for over 36 years without a single criminal conviction to my name and without even once taking social security, I think I have the runs on the board when it comes to respecting Australian law and culture.

Religion is merely one aspect of my identity with which you may not agree. Perhaps you may not also be as fanatical a Wallabies supporter as I am. Try wearing a Wallabies jersey down the streets of Napier in NZ during an Aussie boycott of NZ apples.

The point I am making in this article is that until you understand what sharia means to Aussie Muslims, talking about it as a system of non-anaesthetic amputation is just nonsensical.

Those who want to establish sharia by non-sharia methods such as suicide bombings and flying planes into buildings are the biggest enemies of sharia.

If you want to ignore what the average Aussie Muslim thinks and impose your own understanding on them, be my guest. You will find yourself having little constructive role to play in this entire discussion.

By the way, in mainstream Australian English the word is spelt "boundaries" and not "boundries".

Irfan
There you go again.
Flying planes into buildings is jihad, NOT sharia.

Are you confused? Or, are YOU trying to confuse US?
Doesn't work, MATE. We're smarter than that.

Ifran

waht i was asking was will you learn the concept of manners and boudries as understood in secular Modernity and curtail to Australias resounding NO to non secular islam and it's religious law?

SandiM - "Irfan
There you go again.
Flying planes into buildings is jihad, NOT sharia" - exactly what Irfan just said - I think you are the one who is confused.

It seems to me that there are some people here who think this is some sort of game trying to fault Muslims and their beliefs regardless of what they say or do. I have no problem with discussion based on fact or experience or reasoned opinion but this is NOT a game. There is no scoreboard and no winner. There are lots of things I dislike about Islam and most other religions too and I have little tolerance for extremism of any kind. However there is one thing we all have in common - we are all human beings with basically the same needs and wants and for that we should show some respect.

Hear, Hear Sajo.

BTW Meredith - you are always rude to Irfan, and yet you expect him to be polite to you. You get what you put out my dear. I am surprised Irfan is as restrained as he is.

Irfan” The Koran teaches that when giving charity, give of things you value. Australians have followed this Koranic teaching by sharing with Muslim migrants so much they value”

Wrong!

This teaching is of a general humanist values and not something uniquely “Koranic”

Australians would exercise philanthropy and compassion with or without knowledge of the Koran, Islam or Mohammed.

Such generosity is within the very nature of men and women everywhere, regardless of the religious mantra to which they may hold allegiance.

I noted the title of the article is “Sharing the true values of Sharia “

Well as a committed secularist, I do not want a share of what Sharia might offer. I do not want to put at risk of suffering the bigotry which a religious influence operating within our social and legal systems will bring.

Anyone who might have read my posts on other threads will appreciate, I have no time for organised religion of any sort. Whilst I respect other people’s right to pursue the folly of their choice, I will not pretend fealty to any creed and will leave my communion with God as a private and direct matter, free from the intercession of some control freak seeking to build a co-dependency on me.

That applies to Islamist priest as much as it does to Catholic priests, Anglican priests, 7th Day Adventists or any other mob.

When Islam has something special and unique to “share”, I am sure I will hear of it but until that time, keep your preaching, piety and humbug for the faithful and leave us secularists to happily deal with our own realities

Hi all

MzzDermeanor (post 6:41:06 PM 12/3/06)

"The negativity against Muslim people is ... ill-informed.". Where does that absurd statement come from? Have you ever held long residency in a Muslim country? Do you dialogue with Muslims at "interfaith meetings"? Do you speak Arabic & listen whilst Muslims talk? Have you read the Qur'an & Ahadith?

Your questions seem rhetorical, but I'm not certain that you know the answers.

Non-Muslim Lebanese, Sudanese Christians, Coptic Egyptians etc have integrated. Non-Muslim Asians mix well. And, because Australia has predominantly been a Christian-based nation, obviously a Christian-focussed influx will likely avoid disharmony.

"Someone 'please explain' .. what sort .. Muslim's can't fit into ..". Simply put: a non-Islamic society.

Regards Hillsong: your quote is possibly distorted. I know Snr Ps Brian & Bobbie HOUSTON, & that's not what they preach.

Which branch of the Church of Christ you are refering to? 'Subjugation' of women isn't part of COC policy. You probably heard a sermon on Colossians 3:18-25 & misinterpretted what was said.

Nowhere throughout the Holy Bible does it suggest that women ought to be beaten. The Qur'an, meanwhile, clearly suggests that women are inferior, & can & should be beaten - Suwar (plural of "surah") 2:228, 2:282, 4:34 etc.

Ali, Muhammad's cousin & father-in-law, quotes Muhammad as having said: "Women have 10 'awrah (external female genitals). When she gets married the husband covers 1, & when she dies the grave covers all 10." Vol 22 Hadith 858.

Egalitarianism means all people will be given equal opportunities. That's idealistic, but a 'target'. However, that wrongly assumes that everyone wants equality. Not everyone can be Dr Andy THOMAS - the Australian astronaut.

China isn't mainly Buddhist! It's mainly Atheist/Agnostic. Confucianism, Taoism & Buddhism are the main religions. Buddhism may be dominant with an estimated 50- to 80-million practitioners.

Capital punishment is less-prevalent in a Christian &/or Western societies. It hasn't been eradicated. From memory about 22 American states still execute.

What Christians & Christian-supporters don't realise is that not everyone will treat them equally either.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Redneck (post 4:28:27 AM 13/3/06)

You're possibly correct that Irfan won't ".. denounce those aspects of Sharia Law .. at odds with Australian law.". But he is one of Australian society's best hopes. I would pray that he does, & I challenge him to do so.

As Christ said: "You will know them by their fruits." Matt 7:20.
(13/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 8:36:57 AM 13/3/06)

I thought similarly about Redneck's sleeping patterns. He's either a shiftworker or just doesn't sleep. But also note: the OLO 'clock' is on EST.

Sufism was integral with Afghanistan until the anti-Shi'as - the Salaists & Wahhabists - began to assault the indigenous Afghan tolerance of 'spirituality'. That mechanism was the Taliban. Few Muslims have criticised them. That's a concern!

Have you read Khawajah Qutb al-Din MAWDUD's story? A 12th Century Indian Chishti Sufi?

Assassinated Egyptian President Anwar SADAT is believed to have been a Sufi. Militant Muslim ideologists killed him.

"sahih" Muslim said of 'salvation' for women: "Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women should form the minority." English translation, Kitab Al-Riqaq, chapter MCLX, Hadith 6600.

"Had it not been for women, Allah would have truly, truly been worshipped." Kanz-el-Ummal Vol 21 Hadith 825.

If "women are deficient in intelligence, religion & gratitude" - refer 1 Hadith # 301 & 3 Hadith # 826 - & as a consequence their 'husband' instructs, guides & leads them, then what does it says about the wisdom & righteousness of the male?
(13/3/06)

Irfan (post 11:06:11 AM 13/3/06)

I don't always understand "Coach". Maybe he is as you say? Does it matter? But he has a clear knowledge of historical facts since 625AD.
(13/3/06)

SandiM (post 2:14:14 PM 13/3/06)

A good post.

We now need to show our political leaders that the Australian Multicultral Foundation is a fraud. It should be disbanded.
(14/3/06)

Benjamin (post 3:23:49 PM 13/3/06)

Sadly, what you say is true.

The Cronulla-issue has been brewing for more than 20-years. My former-wife & our family stopped attending local parks. Intimidations were observed.

Nor is it isolated to the Sutherland Shire.
(14/3/06)

Cheers all

"This teaching is of a general humanist values and not something uniquely “Koranic”

Australians would exercise philanthropy and compassion with or without knowledge of the Koran, Islam or Mohammed.

Such generosity is within the very nature of men and women everywhere, regardless of the religious mantra to which they may hold allegiance."

---- I agree with you, and I am sure Irfan and many others would too! I think the original article was written in an attempt to show that "Sharia" has at least some values in common with the generic idea of humanist values that we all share here. Perhaps something we can all focus on more in order to bring about this "integration" everyone keeps talking about.

If the values are the same, does it matter where people perceive they come/came from?

Hello Buddy,

Ive mixed with Muslims for 15 years speak a bit of Arabic know Quran and Hadith -Yusuf Ali's the best. Im an Anglo politician in a Muslim area have travelled lived in a Muslim countries and speak some Arabic. Christian and Muslims are not that different Lebanese, Palestinian Syrian etc.

Christians Arabs'integrated'? My Lebanese Christian neighbours etc English wasn't good they didnt invite Aussies over for their get togethers Nor did their children marry out they even marry cousins like Muslims

I heard wives should obey husbands at a Church of Christ meeting women's event at NSW Uni 8 years ago also mixed with an American preacher and his wife occasionally from my childs school they preached this value. They tried to convert me of course! My friends kids go to Hillsong they are VERY exclusive about WHO followers mix with not unlike Muslims.

Muslims husbands and wives are a 'cloak for each other to protect and comfort'The wife is a 'pleasure for her husbands eyes' He is her provider and he should take advice from her'(Koran).

Somewhere in Genesis states adultress women should be killed they didn't even get four witnesses to prove it. The paradoxical rule in Islam needs 4 witnesses its a grave symbolic warning. A husband and wife can swear on Koran against each other that they didn't commit aldultery,punishment will be in the afterlife if it can't be proven. It is up to people to 'dob' themselves in 'real' Islam if not their punished in the hereafter.

'Awrah' means parts of a women/man only a husband and wife can see (not even those of same sex) NOT JUST GENITALS! for women fom breasts to knees.Men navel to knees.

China is generally ancestorworship mixed up with various religions. The largest Muslim pop. in the world is in China and it does has the worst human rights record. Catholic Brazil also shoots street children. America regularly executes minors and marginalised black and poor people, often innocent, particularly in Texas.

Your arguments are ill informed and flawed and emotionally based little unagreeable buddy.

Quick note on laws of Islam-Quran is the main doctrine of Islam it should be followed formost Hadith are additional rulings to be refrred to after the Quran they are recommended to be followed can be optional and some have a 'strong link' others are 'weak' and not reliable. Qutes by Buddy about women are 'weak' hadith. Some Muslims are fervent or have an axe to grind may heed these 'sayings' of Mohammed Some were recorded decades after his death and all knowledgable Muslims know not all are reliable.

Mohammed avoided bloodshed vehemently, He was in battle 2 1/2 TOTAL Avoiding battle where possible Ie. leaving Mecca and going to Medina He had the numbers to fight but chose not to In one campaign his followers dug a ditch around their camp to deter the large enemy whose horses could not pass through - they gave up and went home. He would not execute people that tried to assasinate him saying 'a jew regularly oured garbage over his head when he prayed one day he didn't do it Mohammed was concerned and asked after his welfare - he was sick Mohammed sent his regards sending regards for his recoverysoon'The rubbish dumping stopped

The Arabs have a long history of clan/ blood fued warfare and traditionally revelled in battle and the legends that followed. Islam attempted to stamped this out. Some of the cultural practice persevered and eventually divided Islam into Sunni /Shia it is CULTURE NOT RELIGION. The Quran says to give and be kind to neighbours including Christians Jews and 'idol worshippers'. The qoutes about hating non-believers are out of context. The only allowance for fighting ot hurting a non-Muslim is if they turn you out of your home (palestine for eg.) or turn you away from the religion eg. War All must be treated with kindness even animals anything with eyes has a soul in Islam Christianity only decided women had souls few hundred years ago !
Not all Muslims practice their real religion and as with all religions it is often abused for power and gain.

Tabari IX:115 “The military expeditions (Ghazawat) in which the Messenger personally participated were twenty-six. Some say there were twenty-seven.”

Bukhari:V5B59N512“The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”

Bukhari:V4B52N270“Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”

Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”

Tabari VIII:178/Ishaq:550 “Muhammad ordered that certain men should be assassinated even if they were found behind the curtains of the Ka’aba. Among them was Abdallah bin Sa’d [the Qur’an’s first scribe]. The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered that he should be slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized [rejected Islam].”

Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”

Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”

Ishaq:602 “The Apostle ordered Muslims to prepare for a military expedition so that he could raid the Byzantines.”

Ishaq:475 “Allah commanded that horses should be kept for His enemy in the fight so they might vex them. We obeyed our Prophet’s orders when he called us to war. When he called for violent efforts we made them. The Prophet’s command is obeyed for he is truly believed…

Irfan, if Sharia is so positive, why did the Sharia Council of Britain issue a ruling that a playright should be murdered for portraying Jesus as homosexual? Not just a bad review, or a call to boycott the play, but a death sentence in great detail? Are they such marginal group too?
All religions seek political influence, but Islam seeks political control. This stems from its inception as a persecuted religion that suddenly found itself in power, and so in a position to wipe out its opposition, which it promptly did. Because it was still collecting its holy texts at that time, it had to deal with its abuses of power. It did this by justifying them, and indeed inventing a whole institution - Jihad; religiously regulated warfare.
Note that Judaism also had to cope with its eventual coming to power, and likewise justified its abuses (the ethnic cleansing of the palestine area as described in Judges) Note also that christianity did not have to justify its abuses of power, because it closed its holy books before gaining power. That is not to say it did not commit abuses of power. Notice a pattern? Power corrupts.
As you might guess, I'm not religious, but think on this. All the greatest mass murderers of the last century - Hitler, Stalin, Mao - were all athiests, so we have nothing to crow about either...

MzDemen....

I'm so glad Sandi M did my work... showing you the OTHER but no less real side of Mohammed.. I've heard that story about the Jewish lady throwing garbage on him till I'm sick of it.. because each time I hear it, my mind goes IMMEDIATELY to the callous murder of Kaab bin Al Ashraf !

Do you have any comment on THAT one ? You gave us the 'sugar' coated Mohammed.. how do you react to the 'bitter' and real side of him?

How many murders can a man commit before he is considered legally 'a Murderer' ? I think if memory serves me correctly ONE !

You speak about 'weak' hadiths etc.. but the hadith of Bhukari and Moslem are all pretty strong I feel. Amazing how coincidently the unpalatable ones about women are suddenly 'weak' :)

Mz.. do you also depend for your political advancement on the Muslims vote ? Is that possibly why you are here contending for them ?

Anyway.. different subject now .. I'm not feeling very combative 2night.

Announcement "Ron Barassi may have walked on water 2night at the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games" but he is NOT the Messiah :)..(I have to confess though that in one sense he IS my idol)

What a lovely spectacle.. representing ONE THIRD of the worlds population ! all under the banner of the commonwealth...glued together by a British monarch.

The overwhelming sense of unity I felt, was very strong. My feeling as an Anglo Aussie, is that the Anglo flavor of this country should never be questioned, nor should it be 'clung' to... it just 'is'.
I don't think people will start 'clinging' to it unless someone challenges it. That is probably where many of our emotive posts are coming from. I cannot imagine me going to Vanuatu or somewhere and trying to turn it into a little Australia ! New Zealand IS a result of this, sadly. But most kiwi's in my circle of friends are maori.

[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended.]

'I would like to thank all the armchair nazis and fruitcakes'

Oh dear.

'Your frequent posts mean that my articles'

That's because your articles have to be read to be believed. I've talked to uneducated mossie shop girls who portray a clearer picture of their religion than you. Others just show how backward it is by their general behaviour, you included.

'Further, your infantile rants ensure that your arguments will be dismissed'

Time will test them, perhaps 10 or 20 years from now people will look back at our 'infantile' rants as the beginning of a strong stand against your barbaric ideaology. It happens in western culture, an 'isms' arises, multicultralism, feminism, communism, it's put to the test and either passes or fails. Your ism, an imported one, is undergoing it's test now and failing miserably. Like it does in most of it's home countries, your birthplace included.

'So I urge you to keep misquoting verses from the Quran and pages of history books out of all context.'

Irf, you have no grasp on recent history. You criticise the Danes for being racist but conveniently don't mention that only 63 years ago they evacuated their Jews while under nazi occupation. Do you think such a people would import a minority only to oppress them?

'In a world where far too many people are suffering and dying thanks to racial and religious hatred'

Of which islamic countries are over represented. Your birthplace included

'your posts represent a war-cry to continue the violence.
Cronulla shopkeepers and small business people continue to suffer thanks to your views.'

Always someone elses fault.

'But despite all the damage you cause, I know you will keep going.'

Somebody must, before the place ends up like france.

Irf, you're just an 'educated' version of what I used to deal with in the park every weekend. Look I know you're scared, I've read your website and it's not hard to read between the lines, you know that your mob's in trouble largely of because of it's own behaviour.

Dear Irf.... you know how it goes.. the first step to overcoming a problem is to admit you have one....

ok..Step one..

"My name is Irfan..and I'm a man with a problem".

-I see attacks on ideas as attacks on people....
-I misconstrue disagreement as 'hate'.
-I have this name calling fixation and an unhealthy interest in Mr Hitler.

Well don't worry Irf. We don't 'hate' you, we disagree with the ideas you represent when it comes to Islam, and we see them as a threat to our social fabric and value system. Its that serious.

Of course you don't see this because you 'are' one of 'them' :) But at least you don't seem to advocate some of the real 'IslamoNazi' sharia stuff that some would advocate.

No matter which way you cut the cake, Sharia STILL leaves us with :

-Death penalty for apostacy.
-Interpretations of 'apostacy' which make the idea of 'thought police' a very real possibility.
-Laws produced on the foundation of a man who was clearly a murderer and many other distasteful things. (Yet you follow him ?)

If you spent more time explaining now the murder of Kaab bin Al Ashraf was anything OTHER than outright murder and conspiracy to murder, you might get further with us, or that a 50+ yr old man having sex with a 9 yr old child, or that multitudes of wives, and one of them (the young one) being his favorite in direct conflict with his own 'revelations' or his genocide of banu Qurayza, the 50% tax on another group etc.. .. you remind me of CHEF from Southpark, he was fine ridiculing Christianity and other faiths, but as soon as Scientology was exposed on the show, rather than admit the problems, he claimed the show was 'bigoted and intolerant' and had 'crossed the line'....

Yet scientology clearly has as much wrong with it, (though less violent) as Islam and Mormonism...extracting moneyyyyy from people for 'self improvement' classes...

But ur right, ur posts stimulate discussion :)

some good news for a change:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18482798%255E601,00.html

little agreeablebuddy writes,"The populace trusted the government to 'lead' them into a 'new' supposedly anti discriminative realm."
On the contrary, the populace was given no choice whether it wanted multi culture or not.
And it was the populace who were discriminated on by the politically correct 'thought police'who bludgeoned us with the tags,"racist", "bigot" if we dared complain.
The minorities were fawned upon while the Australians were literally beaten back , it reminded me of the times when I saw the Aussie youth being beaten with police batons during the Cronulla riots.
Now the tide is turning and hopefully [pigs will fly] someone will be made to pay for the offence given to Australians over this wretched multi culture. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Hi all

MikeM (post 4:04:41 PM 11/3/06)

One might concede that the practitioners of any religion don't necessarily interpret text correctly - nor do they comply with it.

HOWEVER, there's a big difference between the Holy Bible not calling its readers to violence against disbelievers, & the reality that the Qur'an does against infidels - more than 61-times (I can quote the Surah & Ayah).
(16/3/06)

bigmal (post 9:57:45 PM 11/3/06)

Additional to my other comments: Yes, indeed we have much to learn from Malaysia. A very worrying example!
(16/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 5:10:27 PM 13/3/06)

"Strewth"?

I didn't notice any post on the "Sharing the .." posting by such an individual. Am I missing something here?
(14/3/06)

Irfan (post 5:35:50 PM 13/3/06)

I don't know that Benjamin could substantiate a 100% xenophobia. I don't know that he's trying to. But the proportion may nonetheless be high.

I've even witnessed intimidation at supposed 'peaceful' interfaith meetings. An 'alleged' threat by Muslim Farouk ALFRAKHANI is but one example.

What was done to Australia's indigenous people pre-1970s was shameful. But much of that iniquity has been resolved - acknowledging there's more to be done. However, we are discussing Islam & Sharia law, & their effect upon Australia - NOT indigenous affairs.

As the fastest-growing religion, Islam can be viewed on many frontiers. In nearly all of them it's proving to be hostile to its host. That's the reality. That's what we must resolve.

Sadly for Islam, historically, there's almost no other foundational spiritual leader who has used violence to install a religion. Muhammed alone is infamous for his killings & subjugations. His followers have often emulated him. ...

...(t.b.c.)

Cheers all

to Irfan (cont)

If you're going to continue to gain respect from more than the likes of George NEGAS, Rev Dr James HAIRE & Rev Bill CREWS, then you'll need to continue acknowledging & hi-liting the injustices done by your faith, & to speak in opposition against those passages of your Islamic text which promote violence. Such verses are abundant.

George NEGAS thinks, as an 'expert' in Islamic affairs, that there are only "57-virgins in paradise" - quoted Mornings with KAK 10/5/04. Many know the 'promise' is for 72-virgins.

James HAIRE needs to re-study historical events - especially the Muslim conquests, including Omar's defeat of Heraclius on the Yarmuk (636AD).

Bill CREWS? I won't make much comment. Great in charity work! Theologically? Doesn't know his Scriptures.

You, Keysar TRAD, & a handful of more 'moderate' Muslims, are the only potential for harmony between Islam & non-Muslims. Your voices will need to permanently resonate real truth - not just Islamic truth.

As a conservative, I object to any link towards Nazism. I'm opposed to racial discrimination. Your saving grace is that you actually said "pseudo-conservatives".
(14/3/06)

CARNIFEX (post 6:13:15 PM 13/3/06)

Muslim apologists do the same thing.

Rev Dr James HAIRE said on 10/5/04 that, & I quote: ".. Christians & Muslims for the first 600-years - in many parts of the world - lived in absolute peace." He further quoted as an example, Malaysia, which, he ought to know, has only been Islamic over recent centuries. He also ignored the reality that Muslims started more than 120 wars within Islam's first 118-years. Peace? Peaceful?
(14/3/06)

Sebby259 (post 6:47:18 PM 13/3/06)

I don't think that we should ignore Irfan. He might deny certain comments from the Qur'an & Hadith - condoning lying & seeking to kill the "kafir". However, he is at least making some concessions.

Our alternatives to dialogue & understanding might be, to:
(i) continue to fight & war;
(ii) deport all Muslims.

There's little point in discussion with Sheikh Faiz Mohamed. Greater hope may rested with the younger generation - like ANMA member, Diaa Mohamed.
(14/3/06)

Cheers all

Keep going, all you racist pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Australian fruitcakes out there! Only 30 posts left before I reach another century!!

Irfan "Keep going, all you racist pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Australian fruitcakes out there! Only 30 posts left before I reach another century!! "

Any one can be contentious and find 100 proponents and protagonists to post on an article.

I always believed it was the quality of the views expressed which made a thread worth reading, not simply the number of posts.

It is a rare sort of imbicile who thinks merit can be drawn from achieving a "century".

Just remember, it was all those "racist pseudo-Christian, pseudo-fruitcakes" who allowed you entry to Australia.

I am not sure from where you originate but, from your complexion and name, I guess it was not a predominantly Anglo-Saxon / Christian country.

So why would a person of such discretion, distinction, with so much to offer and with so many opportunities and options to choose from, as you obviously believe you have,

why would you choose to live among a bunch of "racist pseudo-Christian, pseudo-fruitcakes"?

I remain proud to have been accepted as a migrant into Australia. I would never ever suggest the country who adopted me was, as a generality, full of "racist pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Australian fruitcakes".

Although, from observing the practices of some migrant individuals from sunnier climbs than I, alot seem to have a problem understanding Australian culture and Australian ways.

An old European saying, "When in Rome. Do as the Romans Do"

Basically translated, when we go somewhere else to live, long or short term, respect the ways and practices of the place we are visiting or moving to.

Why? - because, as the untried, untested and unknown new-boy, you need the people already there more than they will ever need you.

In conclusion, I paraphrase what Peter Costello rightly said,

"If you feel you would be better suited to a system of Sharia law, then go live in Iran." -

because, to use your very own words,

we "racist pseudo-Christian, pseudo-fruitcakes" do not want Sharia and do not need Sharia here.

What a pity it is that we can’t have a sensible dialogue with Irfan?
He is so defensive that it is impossible to talk to him.
In fact, far from having another thirty posts to go to reach the century, there is a strong possibility that this thread is just about over, according to “Godwin’s Law”. (otherwise known as Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies)

There was an article in the SMH today about the Dutch putting together a 2 hour long film in DVD format for the benefit of potential Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands, letting them know exactly what sort of society they were coming to, so that they could then make the choice not to come.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/16/1142098602916.html

I feel this would be an excellent idea for Australia, and every potential immigrant should be obliged to watch it at their nearest Australian Embassy or Consulate while they are making their application for a Visa.

They should also sign a declaration at the completion of the viewing, that they are now perfectly well aware of what they will come up against in Australia, and that they are happy to go to Australia in spite of it. A further declaration should be signed, that if they become too offended and feel the urge to change Australia rather than themselves, they will leave of their own accord or be deported.

Of course, this will not help us for those Muslims that are already here, or born here, but maybe we could give those people an incentive bonus to leave and go back to the Middle East or wherever their ancestry lies, where they are likely to be much happier, being less confronted with all the “evils” of our society.

The happiness quotient would then be raised for all parties involved.

Problem being, would those countries accept them?

Of course, as has been proven for many years now, Australians would welcome those that decided to fit in, rather than try to make Australia fit them.

I read about the Dutch film with great guffaws. Anyone hoping to leave a dysfunctional country is never going to be put off by watching homosexual activities or anything else in the West. They simply will wait until they get here then try to impose the values that they supposedly were trying to get away from on us.
They also would have knowledge on how soft the law is here, that the bleeding heart brigade will defend anything they do and that Aussies are easily walked over.
No mere film will change their minds. This is the lucky country for some.

Hi all

meredith (post 8:48:17 PM 13/3/06)

You're right. But let's be cautiously patient.
(14/3/06)

kalweb (post 10:49:02 PM 13/3/06)

Most of the early Lebanese immigrants were Maronite Christians. Some did serve in Vietnam, but there weren't many - many were just starting to arrive in Australia, having escaped what Yassar ARAFAT & his henchmen were unleashing. [That's Nobel Peace Prize-winning YA. Incredible!]

As you know, until the mid-70s, our influx of Muslims wasn't great. The earliest Muslim settlers, during the 19th Century, were camel-herders. They integrated. So did the Maronites, etc.
(14/3/06)

MzzDermeanor (post 11:07:50 PM 13/3/06)

You affirm some of my comments to "kalweb".

Be proud of the sacrifices that your relatives made. War isn't always just. But oppression & ethnic cleansing can never be tolerated.
(14/3/06)

meredith (post 11:20:26 PM 13/3/06)

".. what has islam done for us?"
It should have given us the ability to overcome indifference, apathy & procrastination. It hasn't - with some exceptions.

It should have made us question our values & those of others. It should have made us analytical. But ...
(14/3/06)

CARNIFEX (post 4:49:48 AM 14/3/06)

Under any other regime Muhammed would have been excommunicated, committed on criminal charges, or subjected to public ridicule. But he was the law (itself), & his henchmen & sword made it so.

What Muhammed did to Sauda Bint Zam'ah, his 9th 'wife' - who replaced Khadijah - was atrocious. But his lust for Aisha at age 6-years & consummation at age 9-years affirms your appraisal.

His passions were women, scents & food - & fighting. The only justice that the world got, because of his weaknesses, was when he was poisoned by a beautiful Jewish girl who cooked him a shoulder of lamb. She did it in retribution for his enslavement of her tribal group.
(14/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Belly (post 5:42:40 AM 14/3/06)

If you value your "freedom of speech" - a Common Law right - you'll oppose any attempt to introduce a "Racial & Religious Tolerance Bill".

Some seem to want such laws to help stifle comment & discussion.
Unlike a stolen item, one can't easily defend against non-tangible vilification - the legislation is 'weighted' with a "presumption of guilt".
(14/3/06)

Irfan (post 2:18:40 PM 14/3/06)

Before beginning, some comments regards your 'blog':
1) the Finn brothers are New Zealanders, not Australians. I was a musician for some 27-years. I worked with many New Zealanders - Robert TAYLOR (Dragon) & Geith PICKFORD etc. I Neil's drummer, Paul HESTER.
2) Kate Ceberano's dad, Tino, was/is a Martial Artist. He was 5th Degree, Goju-Kai Karate (Okinawan), when I last saw him - mid/late-80s.

I also agree that our Tourism Industry advertising is inappropriate for a sophisticated, international audience. Whilst the slogan can be "Where the bloody hell arya?", should it? What does it portray to others? - especially our target Asian & multi-ethnic European markets.

I agree: "Lebanese migrants belong to a variety of denominations (as nominated)". That's a reason to avoid ethnic bias - & I've stated that belief previously.

I've heard quotes of only about 15% of the world's Muslim population being Arabic. Lebanese are likely to be a small proportion of Australia's Muslim population. There'd be accurate statistics somewhere.
(14/3/06)

mickijo (post 3:39:49 PM 14/3/06)

You're right "Mickijo" & we need to courageously speak the truth & reveal Islam's failings - our ancestors deserve it; our children deserve it. Patronising, non-recognition will teach the future generations to distort truth.

We'll also need to encourage Muslims & non-Muslims to continue to "trumpet" those 'shortcomings' through their public stance against "radical Islam". Irfan YUSUF should be one who leads such a public outcry.

The following gives the world an opportunity to see that independent, non-religious Arabic women are making a stance.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#
(14/3/06)

Cheers all

froggie...

that is exactly what I have been ranting about for Australia.. a comprehensive statement about our culture..

Perhaps (in view of Rednecks comments) a detailed explanation of our divorce laws would discourage Muslims somewhat.. the thought that their WIVES can divorce THEM..(and gain a heap of property/money) appears to be a source of incessant irritation to them here.

In fact.. such a video/document should focus mostly on those cultural aspects which are most different from Islamic/Sharia and people should be tested on their understanding, and sign on the dotted line that they will NOT seek to change our culture or laws by any means once they arrive. In fact..their citizenship or permanent residence would DEPEND on loyalty in this matter.

WE NEED IT ALSO here.. Take note Immigration dept.

Buddy
I looked up the issue of Sauda.. and all I can say is that it underlines the incredible harshness and coldness of this man who is supposed to be a prophet of Allah..

I quote as follows: http://debate.domini.org/newton/sauda.html

... on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who said: Sauda feared that the Prophet of Allah might divorce her, so she said to him: O Prophet of Allah, do not divorce me, and my day shall belong to ‘Aisha. So he did and that verse Q. 4:128 was revealed."

Here is the order of events in point form....

1/ Sauda is married by Mohammed
2/ Sauda believes he might divorce her because 'she is old'
3/ He does seek to divorce her.
4/ She negotiates a settlement, she wants to be resurrected among his wives, so gives her 'fulfillment/bed' day to Aisha the 'favorite' and YOUNGest wife.
5/ She is allowed to remain married to him.
6/ Mohammed now has 2 days for his FAVORITE illegal wife Aisha (illegal because she is treated as a favorite)

NOW... this is the mind blowing evidence of how cunning and opportunistic this evil man was..

He justifies his cruelty and lust and FAVORITEism for a YOUNG girl in direct contradiction of the supposed revelation of 4:3

If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have.

KEY WORDS "If you fear you will become UNFAIR"... have only one.

...by now making up a CONVENIENT revelation of "if they settle, its ok" 4:128/129

He would have us believe that the Quran (from God) teaches:

a) A man canNOT have more than 1 wife if he cannot treat them EQUALLY
b) a man canNOT treat them equally no matter how hard he tries....

duh ! so.. why say he can have up to 4 and why marry NINE including Aisha the child ? Sexually Insatiable ?

BEWARE...WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING !

You're right BOAZ_David, we do need a comprehensive statement of our culture. One thing that really annoys me is that many migrants believe somehow that we don't have a culture!

They think culture is a plate of food and a dress. They say we have bland food, but I always reply to that, when most cultures were content with covering off meat with some sort of exotic spice, we were too busy inventing the fridge.

However, such superficial nonsense is where most cultures end. Ours begins there....ours has depth. Western cultures have philosophers, thinkers, scientists, musicians.

But most importantly, we have a dynamic, fluidic culture that is always changing, tolerant of new ideas, people, etc. We won't kill people because they are from QLD & we are from NSW. It makes me sick how most cultures are tribalistic lunatics, racists who hate others who are different.

However, I do have one un negotiable condition. I believe that western culture, not people, not white skin, the culture, IS SUPERIOR to other cultures. It's not about money, Saudi Arabia has money but it's still a racist dump where you can die for being Christian. Japan has money but they are fiercely racist, even the South Koreans who have lived there for 100 years, speak no Korean and know only Japan still can't buy land, occupy high office, and so on.

I believe that the western developed principles of Human rights are better than the caste systems of India, Muslim Sharia, and all the other immoral codes. They do too! they are all coming here arent they!

Westerners tolerate anyone except intolerance. Most other cultures aim to subjugate the outsider, like Muslim Dhimmitude, etc.

People need to grow up, realise we are all human, and should obey rights everybody agrees upon, human rights. just because westerners came up with it doesnt mean it's their system and that if they accept it they are westerners and have lost their identity.

The modern west is the future, get used to it.

Hi all

meredith (post 10:11:46 PM) & Irfan (post 10:55:36 PM 14/3/06)

Let's concede that there's a lot of "bridge-building" to be undertaken.

I don't think that Meredith or the others would have mis-spelt your name deliberately - I couldn't even find the 'offences'. However, if it relates to the word "Irf", then, Irfan, that's what you call yourself in your 'blogs'.

Irfan, you certainly have the right to defend yourself. You may be more pro-Australian than many of the imprisoned misfits? [There are under 10,000 inmates in NSW.] But, as many of the posts infer, there is a tendency for Muslims to "shift the goal-posts" when discussing their religion & behaviour. As the 'originator' of this posting, & a person whom I believe is genuinely seeking 'common-ground', you may, as a Muslim, need to be more Aussie than a good Aussie. Denouncing draconian parts of Sharia law will be a good start.

Now, let's all discard personal slurs & character assassinations. Let's argue the issues - truthfully, & in accordance with the secular, Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation. That doesn't mean that we ignore other people's views. It means that we DO NOT embrace inferior or detrimental ideas.
(15/3/06)

SandiM (post 1:42:25 AM 15/3/06)

I didn't detect that Irfan insinuated what you suggest. He said, & I quote: "Those who want to establish sharia by non-sharia methods such as suicide bombings and flying planes into buildings are the biggest enemies of sharia."

The surely meaning people who use Jihad destroy debate, consideration & installation of Sharia.

But if a Muslim wants to argue that "Flying planes into buildings .." is Sharia, then let him/her. That's even more reason to denounce & reject it.
(15/3/06)

sajo (post 8:01:00 AM 15/3/06)

Well said!
(15/306)

Scout (post 8:58:29 AM 15/3/06)

Yes, we all must show respect. It is a calling for Christians & non-Christians. Disagree should = courteousy.
(15/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 9:02:14 AM 15/306)

Guess we won't see any more of your posts on this particular subject?
(15/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

To: Irfan & all

Most Australians aren't aware of the 1998 & 2003 submissions by Australian Muslims attempting to introduce Islamic Marital law.

Having undergone a very unjust & traumatic divorce myself, I am opposed to the current Australian laws. However, that doesn't mean that I could sanction the Sharia proposals. Thankfully 2 Federal Attorneys Generals & 'senior' ministers rejected those submissions - I have 'copies' of much of the paperwork.

For the uninitiated, however, here's what some contemporary Islamic scholars think about men, women & marriage. And, this is part of the Sharia 'thinking'!

"The marriage contract is designed by the legislator so that the husband may benefit from the sexual organs of the woman & the rest of her body for the purpose of pleasure. As such, the husband owns by the marriage contract this exclusive benefit." Abd ar -Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, 1990, vol 4, p 7.

"The accepted understanding in the different schools of jurisprudence, is that what has been contracted in marriage is for the benefit of the man from the woman, not the opposite. The followers of Imam Malik declared ...".

The followers of Imam Shafi'i said: "the most accepted view is that what has been contracted upon is the woman, ..".

The followers of Imam Abu Hanifa said: "The right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant ... force the woman to gratify him sexually. She, on the other hand, does not have the right .. except once [in a lifetime]. But he must, from a religious point of view, have sex with her to protect her from being morally corrupt."

If we consider all the preceeding text as "sahih" (correct) & "mutawata" (stated by many) then combine them with other repected Ahadith, such as Bukhari who said:
"The most worthy condition you (men) fulfil, is one with which you were given the right to enjoy the (woman's) private parts." Bukhari, English translation by M Muhsin Khan, Vol 7 Hadith #, &; ...

... (t.b.c.)

Cheers all

The more I hear.. the WORSE it gets.. and the MORE our attacks on the evil of Islam are confirmed.

LAB.. well done mate ! for exposing not just the incredibly 'male lust' centred and 'females are a sexual convenience' mindset of Islam, but the actual attempts to impose Sharia or at least to have it recognized in a discriminatory manner applying to Muslims in Australia.

The amazing thing though, is that this assessment is not based on some obscure allusion, it is based on ACTUAL DEFINITE STATEMENTS.
from Sharia law. There can be no other interpretation than the one they have gone to great pains to emphasise.. 'Woman is contracted to the man, for the enjoyment of her sex organs' ? uggggghhhhh.....

Again, it comes back to the inevitable EXAMPLE of Mohammed.
What he did.. they do... and teach. They do not condemn, rather they GLORY in this shameful immorallity, and seek to shut critics up by murder.

I truly hope that those who have been berating some of us, about 'Muslim bashing' (when in fact my posts are specifically "Islam" bashing) are able to SEE with clear vision just how pernicious and lowlife the ideas in Sharia Law are.

It defies the imagination that we would be importing this mindset unchallenged into Australia. I recommend a total re think on our acceptable sources of Immigrants based on religion.

I further urge that if we cannot manage to achieve a "positive discrimination" immigration policy which is based on social and cultural cohesian in this regard, that those wishing to come here from Islamic backgrounds are shown material on which they will be examined, and to which they must swear an oath of alliegance. If they cannot or will not do this, they must be barred from taking any application further

Last night, on cable, there was a program called the DOHA DEBATES sponsored by the UN.
The host was Tim Sebastian of 'HardTalk' and some of the panel included Bishop Desmond Tutu, and Sheik Hamza Yusuf described as

"arguably the west's most influential Islamic scholar"

During the discussion, Yusuf looked rather peaceful and angelic, gentle and kind. (all part of the 'sheeps clothing') But one comment he made struck me as absurd and with such force concerning the human origins of Islam that I felt I should share it here.

They discussed 'women' in Islam. He made the point that up till a certain point, the Quran was 'revealed' only in 'male' terms. All the language was very 'male centered'. Then some of the women close to the prophet complained about this.. so SUDDENLY the language of subsequent "revelations" became more 'female friendly'.

I gather that we are to assume from this that Allah suddenly realized his mistake, and 'got with the program' as dictated by the women......
and changed his previous 'unacceptable' style to overcome their complaint.

or....

Mohammed, realizing he was losing the support of those who's sexual organs he treasured (see last post and the explaination of the Sharia from Islamic scholars about this) changed the style of HIS revelations to maintain order.

To me it is as plain as the many other aspects of the "Revelations" of the Quran, which have repeatedly been shown to match 'convenience' of Mohammeds life at the time that the document is nothing more than a means of extending one mans control over others, using Allah as the 'big stick' to knock them into shape.

The amazing aspect of Yusuf's comment, is that he actually made it, without realizing how blatant and obvious it is to a thinking person, as to its implications.

Does this kind of thing not deserve to be exposed to the light of day ?

yes it does, regardless if it hursts musluns feelings or not.

Boaz: Apart from the simple fact, of course, that in the Arabic language the "masculine" plural includes both masculine and feminine structures, whereas the "feminine" plural denotes only feminine structures. So even if there were 100 feminine objects (or people), and only 1 or 2 masculine objects (or people), the plural would become the "masculine" version.

Now I am waiting for you to begin your attack on the construct of the Arabic language as "sexist". Or shall we move to Armaic and other languages which may have the same type of structure too? Let's not be "Arab-centric". :-)

LAB: Nice how you quote one sentence from a book that is most likely something like 600 pages or more, covering various types of opinion that has existed in the Muslim world. You forgot to include the part where al-Ghazali, for example, mentions that it is actually a recommended obligation on the husband to delay his orgasm until his wife is satisfied first, amongst other things. Yet the contract is "for the husband's benefit" right!

Why you people insist on using the Mushin Khan (Saudi-sponsored) translation is beyond me, apart from to serve your own goals. It is one of the worst and biased translations out there, with too much parenthesis ("explanation") and editing compared to the originals. The hadith is talking about the fact that marriage is a highly recommended act, and the "best" thing a man can do, is to do that which makes sexual relations licit, i.e. marriage. You guys really need to stop taking things literally if you don't understand how the classical Arabs use metaphor in descriptions!

Shaykh bin Googlin can't teach you that!

Dawood

They take the Christian bible just as literally.

For myself, as a woman, I don't believe there is a religion in the world that really treats women as autonomous equals - there is always some kind of catch.

While I have friends who wear the Hijab - I really don't understand. And I am glad that I don't feel compelled to cover up (I really believe that the onus is on men to act responsibly with regard to how they view women). I accept their reasons, the same as I accept my Jewish girl friend for keeping a kosher kitchen - I once house-sat for her and happily agreed to follow the rules regarding dairy and meat.

What is going on here however, is a foolish attempt by the extreme Christians to 'warn' women just how sexist Islam is. Like their religion is any different! A female pope? Probably not in my lifetime.

But good on you Dawood for not succumbing to their deliberate jibes - they goaded Irfan until he couldn't take it any longer. Of course if you continue to remain polite and reasonable they will just say "wolf in sheep's clothing" impossible isn't it? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

A pox on all fundamentalists.

Scout: a funny story. There is a well known hadith that extremists (both Muslim and non-Muslim) like to quote to show what Islam "is". It goes something like "There is no more fitnah (test/tribulation) for mankind than women." Many quote this to show why women should only show one eye, be locked up in the dark recesses of home or why Islam is so wicked etc.

When I was in the UK a Shaykh was giving a sermon and quoted this hadith then proceeded to explain "they are a test for us because mankind feels free to continue the status quo and does not stand up for their rights." He then proceeded to talk about how men should treat women in the best way, and not be either physically or intellectually lax in that regard. I could not understand all the Arabic he said (but got the English), but noticed the older men around me were 'switching off' as he basically laid in to their domestic practises.

I found it rather interesting. He concluded basically by stating that we should all be "feminists" as it is our Muslim duty!

Dawood, are you serious about Islam considering women as equal beings?

All the evidence on the ground suggests that Islam is backwards in this regard, much the same, well no, Christianity never sank to such depths, similar to how Christians used to be.

Clerics commenting that unveiled women deserve to be raped, teachings that women are worth half of men in a Sharia court, hadiths where Mohammed claimed that Allah showed him hell and that it's mostly filled with women as women have evil spirits within them, and so on.

Any culture, religion, that considers women in a lesser light is obviously going to give rise to "honour killings" and other disgusting practices such as how in Iran, Saudi, and some other nations, women can't leave the house without a male, can't drive a car, and so on.

I've actually heard of cases in Australia where women are basically under house arrest, and of cases of female genital mutilation.

You need to read widely about women in such nations who are fighting for their rights, for the right to be able to have a say in their own divorce!

I've heard such claims your making before, by detestable Islamic leaders like Keysar Trad & Kuranda Seyit (the one who wants us to get rid of Christmas he's so intolerant) and as always, they speak nonsense.

All that matters is how Muslims live, and treat women, and nobody can escape the disgusting misoginy that Muslim males have. Not all of course, there are a few, but not many. If there were, there would be protests to have Sharia provisions dropped from constitutions and so on.

You need to do this, as a Muslim, you need to protest for womens rights. Only then will the western world believe that you are serious.

Until then though, most of us laugh when we hear comments such as "In Islam women are actually treated better", as the immorral Trad once claimed. It was he who asked for Sharia provisions regarding divorce, although the biggest opposers were who? Muslim womens groups!

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, all Mohammed rulings worshiped like a god.

Hi all

(cont) To: Irfan & all

[read from prior post 6:27:08 PM 19/3/06 for continuity]

Ali reported the Prophet saying: "Women have 10 'awrat (external genitals). When she marries the husband covers the 1, & when she dies the grave covers the 10." Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol 22 Hadith 858.
then there can be little doubt as to the 'intentions' of Islamic thinking.

None of that gives great 'promise' for a just & non-discriminatory prospect for the "marriage section" of Sharia law.

IRFAN, as per my question to you, in paragraph 5, my post 12:04:06 PM 1/3/06 - respectfully, WOULD YOU KINDLY ANSWER THE QUESTION? ... & I quote: "Which specific "British Common Law" doctrines are taken from Islamic Sharia jurisdictions?"
(16/3/06)

MzzDemeanor (post 12:55:13 PM 15/3/06)

Your comment that Christian "wives should obey husbands" is probably, as I suggested, taken from Colossians 3:18-25. I quoted that in the hope that you would open a Bible & read it - in context.

However, it could've been stated in connection with Eph 5:22 and 25 & 28; 1 Pet 3:1 & 7, where husbands are also called to ".. love your wives, just as Christ loved .." & ".. love their wives as their own bodies.". That doesn't suggest any subjugation. Rather, a degree of equality.

There's no doubt or denying that a Christian wife should regard her husband as the "head of the household". But that is clearly in terms of leading all to Christ (spiritual leadership), & being the principle "breadwinner". There is no text suggesting that women should be beaten - the Qur'an approves of beatings, & the Ahadith support the Qur'an.

Your comment, that it was 8-years ago, makes acquiring a copy of the sermon almost impossible. If you know the speaker/presenter I would be glad to discuss your 'grievance' with them in order to clarify the matter - I have contacts at 'senior' levels into most churches.

I would likewise be interested to know the results of any conversation that you now might have with that American preacher from your children's' school. ....

... (t.b.c.)

Cheers all

LittleAgreeableBuddy,

"However, it could've been stated in connection with Eph 5:22 and 25 & 28; 1 Pet 3:1 & 7, where husbands are also called to ".. love your wives, just as Christ loved .." & ".. love their wives as their own bodies.". That doesn't suggest any subjugation. Rather, a degree of equality."

For some that implies that as Christ is vastly superior to humankind and that humankind should be subject Christ so husbands are superior to their "weaker vessel" wives and those wives should be subject to them (not many would admit to the gulf being as great). I suspect that only a limited portion of the christian church directly holds that view nowdays but traces of it remain and it was not so long ago that such an interpretation was more widely held.

There is a clear way of interpreting this stuff which has been used and which does suggest subjugation, really all a matter of interpretation and the world views that lie behind that interpretation. Same kind of mechanisms which impact on how other faiths (such as Islam) use their scriptures. Thanks for the great example.

R0bert

Hi all

(cont to MzzDemeanor)

" 'awrah" may be more than stated. However, I didn't know the word, so I looked it up.

You'd better contact the Encyclopaedia of Islam to tell them they're wrong. They say, & I quote:
" 'awrah as pudendum, that is 'the external genitals, especially of the female. [Latin: pudendum (literally) a thing to be ashamed of.]

I learnt Latin at school, so I understood the aforementioned word. ["puellas nudas videre amo" = "I like to look at nude women" - appropriate in the circumstances, but not my thinking.]

Convert you from what? Atheism? Secular Humanism? What?

Hillsong's probably one of the most 'welcoming' of churches within Christendom. They're interested in "souls", & because of their "healing" & "wealth creation" ministries they're most affable. However, Scripture says:
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 2 John 1:7.

'Sensing' something that 'mocked' Christ, may have made them suspicious.

You state that "Somewhere in Genesis (it) states adulteress women should be killed ..". It isn't in Genesis. It's Leviticus 20:10. HOWEVER, just like the other 200-odd Levitical Laws instituted by Yahweh for Jews, they were superseded, by the New Covenant of Christ for Christians. Adultery, under Christ is grounds for divorce - not Judaic stoning.

Meanwhile, under Sharia law, & with 4-witnesses the Qur'an (Surah 4:15) requires that the woman be incarcerated until she dies. Surah 33:30 suggests "double punishment".

Men's punishment isn't identical. They're probably exonerated under the prejudicial court system, or through "mutah" (temporary marriage), able to avoid the charge. Refer Surah 4:16 which says:
"If two men among you commit a lewd act, punish them both. If they repent & mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving & merciful." and,
Mohammad taught: "If a man & a woman agree (to temporarily marry), their marriage should last for three nights, & if they like can continue.". Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 7 Hadith 52. ....

...(t.b.c.)

Cheers all

Dear Dawood...
well it took off and flew right over your head like a migrating bird eh i.e. the point.

THE POINT.. was made not by 'me' but by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf !

It was HIS statement..not mine. I'm just the reporter mate.
He made the point that the flavor/tone/wording of the said 'pre-nagging' revelations, was distinctly MALE in flavor IN SUCH A WAY that it was noticed by females of the day, who complained about it.
The tone/flavor of the revelations after the 'nag' changed.

Now.. I have to admit, I don't have a clue about this apart from what this leading Islamic scholar mentioned. But then again...do I need to ? If he himself can admit it, why should I doubt it ? Further, why in the world would I accept your statements as anything other than ducking and weaving ? :)

Seriously ... I've read further since last night on a number of Islamic sites on the issue of 'PLEASURE MARRAIGE'.

Quran 4.24 (I won't quote it) was used in the days of Mohammed who apparently (according to Sunni Sources as well as Shia) PRACTICED this.. the difference between these traditions is "Did he later ban it" ? Sunni say yes, Shia say no.

So.. here is the classic example of how Islam first condemns something, then in the next breath justifies it, by 're-badging' it.

From that ayat:

1/ You can have pleasure "marraige" (which is purely for SEX)
2/ You must not do it for LUST' (HUH ?)
3/ You must PAY the girl from your property.(adjusted dower)

Now.. how in the world can you say "its not about lust" when its just for a few days or a night or whatever..? and you go your separate ways after it all ! Further, it suggests you 'PAY' her for the pleasure... "Whatever benefit you gained from her"....

This my, friend in any other language or culture is called PROSTITUTION. The only slight difference is that in this case the hooker actually is supposed to 'like' the man.

Hi all

(continuation of 20/3 to MzzDemeanor)

Your comment that China has the largest Muslim population. I'm told Indonesia - Keysar TRAD agrees (publicly on TV 10/5/2004). If it's China, then I wouldn't be publicising it - China is most intolerant of Muslims. [My eldest son lives in mainland China with his Chinese wife. Communists despise Muslims.]

Your quote: "Mohammed avoided bloodshed ... in battle 2 1/2 TOTAL".

He is recorded as leading the following battles:

1. early Mecca caravan raids;

2. Battle of Badr (624) - Qurayah defeated the Muslims;

3. Battle of Ulud (625) - Muslims defeated;

4. Siege of Bani Nazir (626) - Jews defeated;

5. Battle of the Trench/Ditch (627) - Median defeated the Meccans;

6. Massacre of the Bani Qurayza (627);

7. Conquest of Khaybar (629) - Jews slaughtered. Muhammad despatched letters & messengers;

8. Conquest of Mecca (630);

9. Battle of Hunain & Taif;

10. Battle of Tabuk.

Other texts suggest Muhammad participated in 26-battles. That's more than 2.

Muhammad ran out of time to lead more wars - he was murdered by a Jewish maid (8/6/632AD).

You claim my quotes are weak!? They are directly from the 'approved' Qur'an, authorised by Imam Taj Eldine EL-HILALY & the "sahih" (correct) & "muwatah" (narrated similarly by many) Ahadith of Moslem & Bukhari.

Are you saying that Sheikh EL-HILALY, Keysar TRAD, & others whom I know, & their referrals helping my 'study' of Islam, are mis-informed or deliberately misguiding me? Additionally, I study independently with other Islamic scholars - many are Middle Eastern so have a good command of Arabic. I also understand some of it.
(16/3/06)

SandiM (post 3:44:51 PM 15/3/06)

Thank you for the references & the support.

I am really pleased that Irfan has made a stance against "radical Islam", but it is important that people like MzzDemeanor aren't given false information.
(16/3/06)

carno (post 4:48:13 PM 15/3/06)

Keep posting! You are fair & unbiased.

Isn't it interesting though, that many of the Atheist "mass murderers" used religious text to justify their atrocities. They simply mis-quoted & quoted in isolation.
(16/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

BOAZ_David (post 10:04:24 PM 15/3/06)

You, too, noticed MzzDemeanor's comment that she's a politician. I almost pretended I didn't notice - I didn't intend asking.

She can't be a NSW or Federal politician - there are only 2 (to my knowledge). One is Victoria's Adem SOLMUREK. I suspect that MzzDemeanor might be a Local Government politician?.

Interestingly the ALP seems to attract the largest vote from Muslims in NSW. Irfan stood for Liberal Party pre-selection.

Ain't politics interesting?
(16/3/06)

Irfan (post 12:10:17 AM 16/3/06)

There are some who speak with venom - from all sides. I don't see that from many - some, yes.

I am disappointed that you see all Qur'anic quotes made by non-Muslims as "misquoting verses". The Qur'an creates that perspective. It says of itself:

"If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we will replace it by a better one or similar one. Did you not know that Allah has power over all these things?" Surah 2:106.

As you know, that is “An-Nasekh wa Al-Mansoukh” (the abrogating & abrogated text).

That's why I'm fearful for Muslim's salvation. If Allah is "all-knowing" yet constantly changes his mind, then how can Allah be all-knowing? Surely if he knew what was, is & would be (omniscient), then he would have gotten it correct ONCE - & once only.

How can we thereafter trust his Sharia laws? [And that's the purpose of this post! - understanding Sharia from a Sufi perspective.] If we examine Islam through Sufism, & Sufism still uses the Qur'an, Sunna & Hadith, then Qur'anic text is still relevant. I trust that Sufism does use them? If I'm wrong please advise.

Your comment: "But despite all the damage you (the dissenting postees) cause ... Your frequent posts mean that my articles perhaps generate the most comments of any contributor to this site. .. I want to reach a double century ..".

I hope that you aren't just seeking the notoriety of voluminous responses! ....

...(t.b.c.)

Cheers all

You don't know if it is a man or a woman under the cloak of a chudorra or hijab.

The head covering has nothing whatsoever about islam or being a muslim ,it was invented for a hot climate head covering nothing to do with religion but like buddhism which is a philosophy , not a spiritual belief system, has now been cunn ingly accepted as a religious neccesity.

What a lot of nonsense making issues over a head covering.

Alcohol too is a no, no for muslims except when no one is looking,people who work with them can vouch for their love of alcohol (not all)

Hi all

(continuation to Irfan from my 22/3/06 posting)

Irfan, I genuinely hope this post is successful, with both Muslims & non-Muslims contributing. I hope it generates better understanding - without hostility. But it won't if we aren't honest. Without honest there's no trust.

By the way, you're lagging! 67 posts in 6 days! Another post achieved 98. Most posts slow-down after the first week.
(16/3/06)

Irfan (post 2:42:44 AM 17/3/06)

I'm disappointed that you've also denigrated this post into an insult of personalities.

Your quote: ".. all you racist ..".
I don't recall anyone - with 1 exception - vilifying ethnicities.

I certainly haven't - one of my daughters-in-law is from mainland China. A beautiful lady. So, I can assume that you're not talking to me on this issue.

"pseudo-Christian"?
Well, again that can't be me. I'm faithful to my beliefs, following as best I can the Ten Commandments as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount of Beatitudes by Christ (Matt 5-7).

I also hear Christ's calling: "If anyone is ashamed of Me & My words in this adulterous & sinful world, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the Father's glory with the Holy Angels." Mark 8:38.

Through the Apostle Paul, we're also called to "Test all things. Hold forth all that is good. Reject evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. So, I must ask & seek to understand that which confuses me.

"pseudo-Australian"?
Hardly! Like yourself I have dedicated much of my life to seeking social & judicial justice. I've come to your defence on many occasions.

If what you've said recently is indicative of your "true self", then maybe your detractors were right?

"fruitcakes"?
We're all that occasionally. So, take a bow. I like fruitcake .. & chocolate.

You seem to be fixated on numerical posting success? Why? Do you get paid a 'bonus'?

Surely your aim ought to be to encourage honest dialogue. Hopefully, in the process we'll all come to understand each other better.
(17/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Col Rouge (post 9:02:27 AM 17/3/06)

Agree!

I was at first defending him - as you no-doubt noticed.

"I am not sure from where you (Irfan) originate .."

Pakistan! [Just in case he doesn't tell you.]

(17/3/06)

Froggie (post 2:40:40 PM 17/3/06)

You are sadly right!

Excellent post & suggestions from yourself. Why not send your ideas to a pro-Australian Federal politician - there are some.

(17/3/06)

mickijo (post 3:27:36 PM 17/3/06)

They mightn't plan to conform, but at least a signed document gives Australia some 'legal' status after-the-event - if/when they don't.

It's now up to all of us to ensure that Australia doesn't remain ineffectual.

(17/3/06)

BOAZ_David (post 5:30:38 PM 18/3/06)

Your comments to Froggy are spot-on.

Unfortunately we do have an advisory 'organisation' - the Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF). It's an organisation which is/was federally funded, but is 'allegedly run' by Muslims/Muslim sympathisers. You'll find them on www.amf.net.au

Remember the VCAT trial, Reference # A392/2002, involving ICV vs CTFM? It ran from 2002 until 2005. The Appellant Court Judge 'allegedly' suggested that there may have been some judicial error. It's now going to the Supreme Court.

Well, a principal witness against CTFM was Anglican priest & Monash Uni lecturer Professor Gary BOUMA. You'll find that he is an 'official' of AMF. Very interesting. On p. 49 of Judge Michael HIGGINS' "Reasons for Decision", Gary, according to His Honour's quoted text, misreferences Scripture.

That's an 'expert' witness? What else might he get wrong? And this is from a man who praises Islamic thinking.

(19/3/06)

Cheers all