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!