Baraka, it will not work , using the name of Jesus to promote your hatred of all Muslims,
Your posts identify with a troubled sick mind. you say you know of Anglo Whites being targeted by Muslims. I know of Anglo Whites targeting muslims , this post is a reaction to some of the filth they post on this thread, we are all the children of God like it or not, you said Muslims burned down two Christian Churches, anglowhite/ red necks burned down 14 Baptist Churches in America recently, African Americans worshiped in those churches, I have never seen a post from you condemning any white anglo for racist bigotry, I wonder why, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Jesus made the blind see, why did he not cure your blindness, blind guides can not tell you the colour of the flowers, so why are you blinded by colour, mangotreone.

The law is an evolving tradition, and will continue to evolve in Australia and all other countries. Traditions of law influence eachother and, in a different way, the people of a country wish to influence the laws they live under. The difference is perhaps the means.
It's very nice that the author has found some nice and caring aspects to sharia law as it is practiced. I suspect, however, that these cases
are not in the majority.
Australia has, from the outset of european settlement, sought to make laws on a secular basis (whilst acknowledging a Christian basis, it then ignores it pretty completely).
Sharia law is the broad term for any law based on any interpretation
of the Koran and Hadith, and is avowedly non-secular. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Hammas in Palestine, regard Sharia as divine and above man-made laws.
This aspect of Sharia law is to be utterly rejected. Australians live in a secular society, where laws are made for all on the basis of best available knowledge and reason, not on anyone's interpretation of 'god'. To suggest that sharia law could play a part (alongside?) Australian secular law is to consign a number of Australians to the 7th century pre-feudal whims of an arabian charlatan. Australians deserve the protection of Australian law.

mangotreeone1,

I post about Australia and Australian society - what happens or does not happen in the US is not pertinent to what is happening in Australian society.

Let us put it into context, mangotreeone1, NO Anglo in Australia threatened to rape young women and stabbed a man, breaking the knife off in his back, shot at primary school children singing Christmas Carols, burnt down a church... I am surprised you do not speak out against the things happening in Australia, mangotreeone1...

mangotreeone1, you state I have a, "hatred for all Muslims". I do not have a hatred for one Muslim, let alone "all Muslims". As I posted above, I am a Realist, I am not emotive about culture or religion - I merely post about documented racist Islam, and state that it is not in our interest to be culturally tolerant when it is not reciprocated, and young Australian girls are suffering in our society.

It surprises me that you respond to a post outlining a documented asocial and racist Islam, and state that I have a, "hatred for all Muslims". I am in effect speaking out against the racists, be it the KKK or racist Muslims, and you come at me and state that I am the racist one with hatred... Had my post outlined the KKK and not the racist Muslims you would have no complaints ;)

When Muslims state to a young Australian girl, as stated in court documents, "you deserve to be raped because you are Australian" it is clear who the racist ones are - I am NOT racist for posting it - and mangotreeone1, you SHOULD be more interested in the Muslim racists who stated this in a rape of a young girl, and less interested in myself for having posted it...

It says a lot about your morals, mangotreeone1, when you are more interested in myself for having posted facts about racist Muslims in Australian society, and LESS interested in the young girl who has suffered a rape based on racial lines... do you have morals mangotreeone1?

SHAME mangotreeone1, SHAME SHAME SHAME

Welll said Baraka (aka Darren Hunch :)

Your point is superb ! "Why indeed" is mango more interested in YOU than in the truth you post ? hmmmmm *thinks*

Why is Mango trying to assasinate YOUR character than critically assess your actual arguments ? *more thinking*....

Mango.. you don't sound very rational there mate.. you must be a refugee from the Green Left Weekly.. though Im sure in more casual circumstances you can hold a convo. But here.. you are just 'ranting'.

No insult intended, just making pertinent observations as I see them.

I really think you can do so much better.. all you have to do is scrutinize peoples ARGUMENTS.

The issue of Sharia law is highlighted yet again in Afghanistan, as they judge declared they will withdraw the charges because of questionable sanity of the Christian ex muslim ! This is EXACTLY Sharia law. If he is sane he must be killed. Even with this, we hear that the local Imams are threatening to get him killed by a mob if he is freed. They are the LEADERS of Islam.. surely they know there 'Sharia' ? Yes, of course they do !

camo,
I agree: "The law is an evolving tradition."

Patriarchs Abraham and Job lived under Hammurabi polytheistic law. Moses developed laws to suit Israel's particular monotheistic society after leaving Egypt. Their laws suited their situation; they were not absolutes as are creational laws.

Israel's laws from Moses till Talmud one underwent revisional changes. However post the Babylonian-to-Roman occupation there were Jewish cults that developed their own legal interpretations [eg first Talmud] that applied to their isolated societies.

Jesus outspoken against the burdensome nature of the Pharisees and Sadducee laws incurred their wrath. Jesus and Paul introduced a different approach to laws presenting grace, and forgiveness to lawbreakers. This angered the religious zealots and it was under their interpretation of the law Jesus was crucified as a blasphemer and Paul condemned as a violator.

After the Jews dispersion AD 70 a group of zealots that fled to Arabia in-about 600 AD developed Talmud 2. This had a profound influence upon Mohamed to monotheism and the law. Influenced by their genetic heritage from Abraham and with the strict discipline of Jewish zealots to their monotheistic faith and religious laws Mohamed developed Shari'ah. Shari'ah-is-not-divine-law!

There are those that believe that the more ancient the laws the more divine authority they carry. This has not been the evidence of 4,000 years of Biblical revelation; those that wish to take us back to ancient traditions have failed to recognise the developing wisdom and revelation that time has exposed.

Traditional law can be challenged is amplified in the words and attitudes of Jesus towards religious zealots. See John 8, where he releases an adulterous woman on the basis that her accusers were themselves sinners but they would have stoned to death.

Unfortunately one man assuming total authority for all time has given us Shari'ah and it cannot be questioned or changed. However I would think that other cultures during the same period had much more civilised societies. Buddhists would probably be an example. I cannot say much for the Roman Empire at the time, even though calling itself Christian.

CAMO
you said "this 'aspect' of Sharia law must be utterly rejected"
i.e. that it has a divine foundation.

I say that Sharia Law as a whole must be UTTERLY rejected BECAUSE of that foundation. Your comment suggested the law might have some redeeming value apart from its supposed/claimed divine mandate.

Well, Sharia cannot be understood apart 'from' its claimed representation of the Law of Allah. So, I say send it back to Hell where it came from.

Our Secular law having a Judao/Christian heritage, which is then ignored.. It should be said clearly that there is no concept of 'Christian' "Law" for a state. But the heritage as such is this:

"Do for others as you would have them do for you"

To the extent that this is fulfilled, Christians would be happy. We are not waiting in the wings to re-construct the Law of Moses in society, though we do wish to influence the Law on the basis of our democratic involvement.

I'll give you an insight of how I feel on ONE branch of law which I find most distasteful to put it mildly.

"Environmental Law" in the sense that the welfare of a gang of white cockatoos which strip every skeric of fruit from my fruit trees (100% this year) is placed above my own human interests.

Yesterday an environmental consultant came out to my place to survey for the sake of a buyer, what they must keep and what can be removed.
He also explained about trees on the property next door (which will be part of a sale settlement for ours). I felt my temperature rising with every syllable as he basically said "The Galahs are more important than you", whereupon I thought to myself "They have allllll of the Dandenongs to breed in (Im at the foot of them) why should I have to give them MORE places ?"

So, given the democratic opportunity I would CHANGE these laws to be in OUR human interest, rather than "They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1)