Mike M - I'm not sure that dobadan first mentioned Hitler.

I know I tossed in a comment in regard to what I considered an inaccurate statement that Hitler would not have claimed to have been doing Gods will even though I agreed with most of the post the claim was made in. I don't think my post was a Godwin candidate - certainly not the intent to claim that those who have concerns about muslims are Nazi's. I'm hoping the post I originally responded to was not a disqualifier either.

Thanks for the reference, it added some fun to this discussion.

R0bert

MikeM

MikeM, you should apologise to all the Australians of this forum.

MikeM, whatever 'model' is to be imposed in Canada, I don’t think Australian law, or the majority of Australians for that matter, would allow “amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy” to be practiced in Australian society, whether it be practiced in no more than 2% of society or not... it is not one law for the 2% Islamists and one law for all other Australians, (which is racist in itself). There is ONE LAW in Australia mate!!

AND;

In its essence, Islamists see it as Allah’s law to be imposed on ALL of mankind and do not share your perspective of cultural tolerance. If it were imposed at all, it would most definitely be imposed on you also, no matter how tolerant you were, and Islam assures us that such cultural tolerance will not reciprocate to you, MikeM.

AND;

MikeM, you and others, "have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race."

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?archive=022006

^
^
^

MikeM = MikeMuslim...?? It does look like it ;)

Dear Mike

firstly a correction to a point you made in the thread "An Enterprise of Fools" by Ted Lapkin. You said Reuters claimed 'Eta' were "Muslim" terrorists but you gave no source, and in any case the Basques are VERY Roman CAtholic, not Muslim.

Regarding brave witness for Christ in Afghanistan.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws. And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities.

As so, the prophetic words of Jesus, fulfilled in the life of this humble brave servant of Christ.

18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

[Rahman said "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."]

21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Mike, Stewth, Dawood and others.. the point about Rahmans case is the role of SHARIA law in its consideration.

It was reported he will be given a chance to recant, then his 'sanity' will be questioned, if found 'sane' Sharia declares he must be executed.

Dawood.. you can speak about 'nuance' all you like.. this IS Sharia, practiced RIGHT NOW in 2006 in a country SAVED by the West.

What happened to YOU when you turned your back on Christ for Islam ?
very little I suspect.

Better still, why not have enclaves of "Satanic Law"

"No creed must be accepted upon authority of a "divine" nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!
"He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom.
"The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards material success - to rend the rusty padlocks and chains of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that may have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean destruction, slavery, and dishonor to us!
"As environments change, no human ideal standeth sure!
Whenever, therefore, a lie has built unto itself a throne, let it be assailed without pity and without regret, for under the domination of an inconvenient falsehood, no one can prosper.
"Let established sophisms be dethroned, rooted out, burnt and destroyed, for they are a standing menace to all true nobility of thought and action!
"Whatever alleged "truth" is proven by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber and wreckage!
"The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy, the sanctified, the privileged lie - the lie everyone believes to be a model truth. It is the fruitful mother of all other popular errors and delusions. It is a hydra-headed tree of unreason with a thousand roots. It is a social cancer!" BOS II. 8 - 13

Quote from "The Satanic Bible" - Anton Lavey 1969(Originally written by Arthur Desmond Circa 1890 Australia).

There may be some changes taking place in the Islamic world, and that is to be encouraged.But there is no way they are going to rescind some of the more objectionable aspects, such as apostasy, dhimmitude, the goal of the Ummah etc, etc.

There are vg reasons to be very wary of Islam. These reasons are well documented, and the reference source provided by Philo above, is a very good one.

Churchill over 106 years ago said much the same things.

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - SPEECH IN 1899!
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50
(London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

I wasn't aware that Churchill was a "hater" but thats what he would be, according to the idiot logic of MikeM.

I shall skirt along the sides of Godwin's law.
Bringing up Hitler, and his use of God is an excellent point. Hitler didn't really care about God, but it was a good way gaining legitimacy & power of people. Look what they were capable of!

Western civilisation have secular laws to attempt to avoid such things. Allowing sharia, a leftover from earlier times legitimacy as an equivalent to our laws is inviting trouble. It would be the same for any other religious-based laws be they christian, buddhist or the flying spaghetti monster.

Which law takes precedence when two laws (the laws of the state) and sharia are incompatible?
There are only three ways it could pan out:
* Sharia will be watered down until only the parts that are compatible with our own secular state laws are left, making it pointless to claim its sharia.
* Muslims will be allowed a special status to practise their own laws seperately.
* State laws will be secondary to sharia.

The last two outcomes are unlikely as they have major ramifications for the entire legitimacy of the state, and opens the door to other religions doing the same. Not really a great selection is it?

Lets extrapolate a bit...

Why should a sub-section of the community get its own subset of laws? If one subsection gets it, why shouldn't other subsections? Imagine a mish-mash of ridiculous, incompatible laws from however many religions get them!
Think of how an individual could be tried depending on what religion that person ascribed to!!
- I know I'd happily convert religions if it meant that the punishment was either non-existent or lesser in another :)

*pant*, *pant*. Thanks for the opportunity to extrapolate to the nth degree.

=my2c

PS. Baraka: Anyone linking to Little Green Footballs, that ultra-right wing, fascist, rascist American blog deserves to be discounted from meaningful discussion immediately.