Hello again Nayeefa,

A good article disguised as a soft-sell for Islam as the religion of social equality and fairness.

What you did not mention is that the only way this equality could see the light of day is through the establishment of Shari'a islamic law in Australia.

Islam cannot survive and strive under any "other" civil law. Or else how would polygamy be allowed for example?

Democracy is the result of the think-tank of Christian values expressed by the power of people in action (vote) .

Islam is the surrender of people to the authorities of their religion.

The God of islam is uncharacteristically different than the God of the Jews and Christians. Therefore the flagrant difference in intrinsic values.

Humans according to the bible were created in God's image. A horrific thought for the Islamic concept of Allah.

A woman in Islam is not equal to a man like in the biblical scriptures. Women surrender to men in Islam.

This inequality alone makes Islam incompatible with our democracy.

Sorry but you miss the target yet again. Islam will never be part of the melting pot in Australia unless it becomes secular of course like the rest of us.

But there is no separation of State from Mosque in islam - therefore no true democracy.

And the lies and deceptions continue. Good luck to you mossies.

“Faith entails observance of a set of principles, so does Islam. It promotes human rights principles.”

Look around the word, no human rights in Islamic controlled countries. Executions, beheading, stoning,women subjected to unhealthy dress, limited education, controlled by men.

“Islam bestowed the rights of inheritance upon the Muslim women 12 centuries ago.”

I personally know of two women who've left their barbaric Islamic husbands, after beatings and other wives. After 4 years the government of Morocco refuses to help them. Men must first give their permission for the women to claim their share, until that time the law has no effect.

“Judea-Christian religious tradition gave birth to the notion of human rights” .

The Canaanite brought human rights to the M.E. 1500 years before Christianity, the Veda 3500 years. The followers of Abraham had the most despotic laws imaginable, not hesitating to ethnically cleanse everywhere, as they're currently doing in the Middle east. Indigenous people of the world had human rights and democracy thousands of years before the god of war Yahweh, was invented and removed democracy by force.

“The perceived clash between the Islamic and Western values is a fallacy.”

More lies, western values are fighting against the onslaught by all the followers of Yahweh. Your entire way of life is alien to freedom

“The Muslim world has absorbed the Islamic faith into its richly diverse customs and traditions.”

Don't you mean, ethnically cleansed its diverse customs, just as Christian Judaism has done.

“There is no doubt that there are some elements in Islam that stand in stark contrast to the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction.”

Less than 5% of the population would fit the categories you provide. Fact, 100% of muslims are mentally deficient, shown by the inability to step out side the dark ages. You cover your bodies sickening sensible Australians, causing you health problems. Along with all monotheists, you thumb your noses at us, creating all the division in the world.

Why is coach the only fruitcake to have commented on this article? Where are dee and all the rest of the non-integrated gang?

I cannot reconcile what Nayeefa is trying to say with the position being taken by others and indeed the facts, as follows:
1. Nayeefa refers to the way modern science is indebted to the Islamic civilisation. But where is the evidence in today's terms. Where are the Nobel Prizes, the patents, the inventions that have lead to the betterment of Human kind in the last 2-300 years? produce by muslims, arabic and others. Of course there are prescious few, if any.

2. If Islam is so civilised why is it that the least free countries are predominantly Islamic.

3. If Islam treats its women so well how do you reconcile your position with that of Janet Albrechtsen, in Wednesday's Sept 6th Australian. One of you has to be wrong.

4. If violent Jihad has nothing to do with Islam how do you reconcile this with the well written piece in recent MEF article, entitled "The Religious Foundation of Suicide bombings, Islamic Idealogy." Again one of you has to be wrong.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1003

5. If the steady increase in sexual assaults and incests on the record in Australia for the past 10 years, is a consequence of the pop culture in Australia, why is it that the incidence of rape by Muslims,in European countries has climbed by an amount that is far higher. Go and talk to the police in Sweden, Denmark and France about what religious group is grossly over represented in this type of crime.

You can soft-sell Islam all you want but the fact remains that recently, in Afghanistan a Moslem was condemned to death for converting to Christianity.

BTW and incidentally why are we sending troops to prop up that regime?

Neither Mossie or Aussie. Why not Mauslems?

And as for the claims of religious origins of justice and equity, they are all off the mark. The Celts had highly developed notions of justice that also extended to placing obligations on their leaders as to how they were to govern fairly with respect for the people.

The Roman inheritors of the Egyptian/Greek/Syrian traditions only applied notions of democracy to a small elite with a large body of disenfranchised slaves etc. And the civilisation they imposed on the Gauls and Celts merely established a more formal method of imposing higher taxes on an exploited populace.

Curiously, Magna Carta was no more than a rewrite of Celtic and Saxon traditional expectations of communities whose primary focus was not on monuments to power but, rather, the well being of the community. This lack of trappings of power (evidence of exploitation) was seen by the exploiters as an absence of civilisation. Plus ca change..

Irfan,
You are a funny guy. Coach says something you can't argue with, so you call him a fruitcake. Mark Steyn says something you can't argue with, you tell him to drop dead. What's the matter with you? You seem to be living in constant denial.
Villon

Yep, they're back.

Irfan,

I usually respect your articles as a pragmatic view from moderate Islam in Australia. You are concise and sincere.

Why then when you post to these forums do you normally just insult everyone else. I can understand you do not agree with coach, BD and others, but you do not even post any counter-arguments.

Your refusal to engage in meaningful debate with them seems to weaken your point of view, and strengthen their points.

gw

Religious faith of any kind, if you have such a faith, should not have any bearing on your regard for, and adherence to, the mores and culture of your country.

But it seems, to many of we ‘ignorant’ infidels, that Islam is different: so consuming and dominating of Muslims’ entire lives that the faith is far more important than loyalty a country and fellow citizens. In fact, we hear daily, some Muslims telling us that this is so, and that Islam transcends everything else. Nayeefa Chowdhury’s ‘human right’s principles’, and equality for women, comes directly from the Koran – no reference to the law of the land. Those Muslims, who do not believe in such things, will find suitable quotes nullifying the author’s.

As with all things Islamic, the question is: which Muslims do we believe? There are so many opinions on the same subjects! No wonder the rest of us are ‘ignorant’.

“A Muslim, by definition, is a person who acts in accordance with the principles of Islam”, writes the author. Other religionists would say the same thing, but the topical discussion, spurred by the PM, is how Australians act as Australians, irrespective of religion. We live by law and culture and mores in Australia; based on a largely Anglo/Saxon/Celtic heritage – evolving into a unique ‘Australianness’ with the addition of other races - not by religion, which is a personal matter.

The very fact that the author refers to her Koran for just about every point she wishes to make is proof that Muslims, irrespective of ethnicity, are very different from the norm in Australia and anywhere else not an ‘Islamic country’

Okey doke. Most of the posters here seem pretty convinced that Islam is responsible for most of the strife in the world.

Let's keep things in perspective, for just a moment. The author points out that a fifth of the world follows Islam.

Firstly, that is a huge number, and represents a wide variety of people.
Yeah, there are bad ones, of course. There are more than a billion of em. Just bear that in mind, that for each suicide bomber you hear about, how many hundred million are there out there who are now being vilified because of the actions of a few?
We didn't start hating catholics in general when the IRA was getting up to this kind of mischief.

Now I don't like the idea of a religious government, or adopting sharia law. But it also needs to be considered, that many of the Islamic nations of the world tend to be poorer than most. And poor nations tend to have bad government - that isn't the province of Islam.

Now I hear you getting ready to reply, that there are plenty of oil rich Islamic nations that have oppressive regimes. Fair call. But do you suppose it is a coincidence that these are the nations that have repeatedly endured wars prompted by western interference? What about the muslim nations of Africa? Where is the coalition of the willing there?

Yeah, there are some bad eggs in the billion or so muslims. But the simplicity of the knee-jerk hate responses regarding this pretty tame article have given me some cause for concern.

Irfan,
I absolutely agree with Peter Abelard. If you are so smart and knowledgeable why dont you respond in a logical and precise manner as befits a lawyer, and a mozzie one at that.

There is abundant published evidence to support most of the contentions of most of the posters. Some of it may be opinion only, but a lot of it is historical fact. Just calling them fruit cakes or Nazis as was your previous inclination advances nothing

If your beef is that exposing the seemingly unplalatable side of Islam is no help to integration, then tough titties.That is the mozzies problem to deal with.

If your beef is that what is being said is wrong, then cough up the evidence to the contrary,with references. At least Nayeefa to her credit tries to to do this.

"There is no doubt that there are some elements in Islam that stand in stark contrast to the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction."

I disagree most strongly to this particular line in Nafeeya's article. It is far too broad-brush, and does the rest of the article a great diservice.

I would certainly suggest that "pornography" and "drug addiction" are NOT a mainstream part of the Australia I know.

That said, I do agree broadly with the rest of the article - "Islam" is not monolithic, and for the time it was written, the Quran is reasonably enlightened. I disagree deeply with the second-class citizen situation of women within the Quran, but from what I understand of the holy books of all three major monotheistic religions, it is not a great deal different.

I saw a brilliant thing in a bank the other day - a three-generation muslim family - the Grandmother was covered head-to-toe in black garmets, only her face and hands visible. The mother was wearing long skirts and a long-sleeve shirt, and had a long headscarf on. And the teenage daughter was wearing jeans and a tshirt, and had a short, brightly coloured headscarf, which had me covetting the fabric and wishing I habitually wore a head covering, as it would provide me with another cute accessory to play with!

Nayeefa Chowdhury is the founding director of an Internet-based Islamic information service (Light-of-Islam.net). How on earth did we function as a society before the advent of Light-of-Islam.net?

Nayeefa, you say that one of the bedrocks of Islam is huquq al-‘ibad (the rights of people). Wouldn’t the act of compelling people to do something contradict ‘rights of the people?’ You regale us with the Qur’anic concept of al-amr bi’l ma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘ann al-munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil). Is hand chopping and lapidation enjoining the good? Islam and human rights are immiscible. It has to be that way or Islam would not be able to function.

Nayeeefa, you may be right about the contributions made by Islam in the areas of science and civilization but how come the train ran out of steam. Where is the Islamic version of Mother Teresa? Why is it that the ME muslim countries need to import so much technology if muslims are clever in that field?

The word Muslim means one who surrenders which is hardly a position from which to enquire about and test one’s faith. How then can a muslim seek guidance from an imam. Isn’t the imam required to submit and not question or interpret what the immutable words of the Qur’an mean? How can he dispense advice?

How can muslims achieve global harmony and justice when in muslim households women are being beaten.

You also say that Allah is against slavery yet he wants to enslave his followers.

Nayeefa, you point out that some elements in Islam are against the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcohol and drugs. I wonder if those same muslims were against the AUD$1 billion that found its way to Indonesia to assist in the reconstruction. What if the taxes paid by an Australian beer manufacturer were part of that money and it helped rebuild the house of a muslim family living in an outlying village? What a shocking thought

Bigmal, to be fair, Mark Steyn and Coach have both proven themselves to have pretty strong, uncompromising views.

Mark Steyn's brilliant idea is to wage a continuous war, taking the fight to anyone who remotely resembles a threat, before they can get too uppity. He's listed targets like Iran and North Korea.
Even if the US was to adopt this madness, that would be more than even they could chew.

In regard to Coach, he's repeatedly denied that Christianity is a religion.
And now he's commenting on Islam, which apparently IS a religion, and therefore evil.

I'd like to see Irfan present a logical reply, as I've enjoyed reading his articles.
I acknowledge that these particular replies aren't all that constructive, though I know from the tone of the posts so far that the response probably won't be received in a constructive spirit, and the debate is likely to be drawn out until it becomes derogatory.

That being said, it would be nice to have his perspective.

coach, you might want to check with BD regarding just how "equal" women are in christianity. Maybe we could say that women in christainity are not equal in the same way they are in Australian law and for this reason alone christainity is incompatible with Australia.

Irfan, why not try some discussion rather than snide comments from the side. You'll never convince coach and friends but educated muslim reponses to their claims might help the rest of us. Frankly the authors tone regarding "the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction." does not sound like she has a great deal of tolerance for diversity. Maybe I'm reading more into it than I should but I've read enough other stuff that suggests many muslims do feel superior "by righteousness and good action" judged on their own terms.

Her comment "Islam always abides by the philosophy that prevention is better than cure." lines up fairly well with the approach taken by those who would ban further muslim immigration and place severe limitations on those muslims already here. That's what they are trying to do - prevent what they see as a risk to our future.

I'll continue to defend the right of muslims to practice their faith so long as my right not to practice your faith is supported.

R0bert

When I was traveling in Malaysia, I met a Pakistani Muslim (I don’t know which strand he practiced) who explained to me that in his faith that “infidels” are not required to abide by sharia law, however Muslims are, and the code is rigidly enforced upon Muslims. Moreover he explained to me that Koranic law requires that Muslims should protect (ie. not persecute) infidels who live amongst them but attempt to persuade them to follow the path of Islam.

Now, that doesn’t really sound any different to me to the way Christians behave in their beliefs.

Furthermore, he explained to me converting to Islam requires one to declare, 3 times, and to mean it in one’s heart that, “there is no God but God (Allah) and that Mohammed is his (last) messenger.” Furthermore, he said that since God is the only one that can see into your heart, only God knows if your conversion is genuine or not ie. whether you really mean it or if you have doubts or are being forced.

The upshot of this was, in his explanation, that forced conversion to Islam is invalid and that Sharia law should not apply to anybody who is unwilling in their heart to become Muslim. Moreover, he said God would know if you had truly converted or not and whether Sharia really applied to you or not. Finally, he said that this is why Muslims are enjoined to persuade other to convert with reason and argument, not by the sword.

Now, I’m an atheist, so this is all so much mystical mumbo-jumbo to me, but it sounds at least like a rational and coherent platform that has an internally consistent logic within its own terms of reference. And it doesn’t sound so very different to the way Christians attempt to convert others either.

Could Irfan or Nayeefa possibly clarify this situation?

Gee GB on GB my mum would use the hose on’ya see all the hair pulling and biting that is kids stuff. All us agnostics and atheist can have a big laugh after, it really is funning to see you GB's on all sides talk about this stuff as if it's real.
There is no god(s) there no supernatural no nothing it's all in your head's. If all you people looked to the here and now rather then the "after life" then maybe we could make some progress. Don't hide in the dark, Step into the light.

Ps there two way’s to train a dog negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement. Fear teaches quicker the love and that is why all major religions use it

Nayeefa Chowdhury ,

After reading your article, I am fainted. Can you please wake up from your dreams and feel the reality of your religion.

Africa:

Today, Mohammed Taha's : who was put on trial for blasphemy after his pro-government paper reprinted an article questioning the parentage of the prophet Muhammad : beheaded body has been found on the outskirts of the capital, Khartoum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5321368.stm

Asia:

Mumbai has emerged as a big centre of this racket where old Arabs as well as people belonging to other nationalities, like Algerians and blacks, come for “some fun”. Mohammed Ali Road, Nagpada, Mahim and some other areas have many guest houses. Such alliances are backed a small group of unscrupulous Kazis and agents. In one place in the Nagpada area a kazi receives groups of people, mostly Arabs and Algerians who are very old. He prepares a nikahnama and talaqnama simultaneously, marrying the old Arab to the victim, who is always a minor. The fee is from Rs 10,000 to to Rs 1 lakh or more, depending on the girl’s beauty. The client then spends one or two nights with the girl and then goes away. The girl’s parents are paid half the amount and the balance is pocketed by the agents.

Sixteen-year-old Haseena who was married to a 75-year-old Arab, Jorani, for Rs 10,000
Abbasi was 14 when she was married off.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jun202004/sl2.asp

These are just glimpses of your wonderful religion

If Coach is a 'fruitcake' after this post I will be classified as in the region of "fruitcakex1000+armchair_nazi+anynameulike"

But I intend to take to task the very foundation of Naeefa's position by exposing her prophet.

Nayeefa said:

"Let us be fair and judge Islam by not the criminal acts of a terrorist, but by its primary sources, namely the Koran (the canonical text) and sunnah (Prophetic practice), which formulate its principles."

Nayeefa, having just watched a documentary on Pablo Escobar, I find an astonishing number of similarities between his life and Mohameds.

1/ BRUTALITY and CRUELTY
-Murder of Kaab the poet and Abu Jaal
-Mutilation of prisoners while alive including hot irons in the eyes (camel thieves)
-Genocide of Banu Qurayza Jews.

2/ SEXUAL ADVENTURER.
-A liking for underage girls. (Ayesha at 9)
-A general lust for uncountable women. (Surah 33.50 read 'carefully')

3/ POPULAR AMONG THE POOR
Escobar raided rich government 'caravans' and used some of the proceeds to build a power base among the poor of Medayin, he built schools and churches. Mohamed raided Quraish caravans.. he was a common but smart CRIMINAL.

4/ WARM HEARTED FAMILY MAN.

It was Escobars love for his family which finally got him shot in 3 places. a 5 minute phone call enabled his whereabouts to be traced.

Mohamed was luckier..although I'm aware of a tradition suggesting he was poisoned by one of his captive slave girls.

So much for the SUNNAH !

Nayeefa, you can talk all you like about 'principle' but I can see only ONE difference between Escobar the drug king and Mohamed. Escobar did not establish a religion, BUT... he sure tried to attain high political office and became a member of parliament.
So, if Escobar established a religion it would have taken off for sure. His popularity even TODAY among the poor is tragically great.
Islam, grew in the same way. Based on brutality to 'outsiders' and kindness to the insiders.

CHALLENGE if anyone can demonstrate that ANY of the above charges cannot be supported from Islamic sources, I will apologise.

PRIMARY SOURCES.

You mention the Quran and Prophetic practice.

Sura 33:50 is a convenient "revelation" specially to mohamed listing all the women 'legal' for him. It states "This is only for YOU, not for the believers" .. and what is it that is specially for him ?

THIS.

in the context of 'women legal for the prophet'

" and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers."

GIVE ME A BREAK Nayeefa !

This is the authorization to have AS MANY women as he likes.
Knock knock..helloooooo.. turn that brain of yours on please...

Given that apart from survival 'sex' is the strongest human motivation, does it not mildly suprise you that this man used Allah to justify that most primal of human urges FOR HIMSELF ONLY...

So the question is not 'Mossie or Aussie' and please don't waste our time with references to Islamic contributions to science, or 'nice words of restraint' in the Quran.. THIS MAN WROTE IT... and I fail to see any basis for his claim as being any kind of messenger of God.

If Pablo Escobar, had written similar words, (I'll BET he spoke such things to his beloved chidren !) and started a religion, all the poor he aided financially would follow it. They would pay particular attention to his nice words, and would promote this 'new faith' as something wonderful.

Look at him as a reasonable person would... (to use a legal test) and run..RUN from this darkness that has enfolded you, take off the scales on your eyes...

I urge you to turn from darkness to light, from falsehood to truth, from the distortion of Mohamed to the clarity of Christ. Turn to him who is 'The' Way, 'The' Truth, and 'The' Life.

If I declined from speaking truth, I would betray the Author of Life,
and in your heart of hearts, you know I am speaking that truth from which there is no escape.

BD, for once your approach of challenging the teaching in the Koran and the life of Mohammed is valid, the author insists that Islam be judged on that basis.

As you pointed out "Let us be fair and judge Islam by not the criminal acts of a terrorist, but by its primary sources, namely the Koran (the canonical text) and sunnah (Prophetic practice), which formulate its principles."

Maybe the difference here is the difference between what the author wants Islam to be judged by and how most mulsims live in this country.

Just as with christains I'm glad most don't take the example of their god and prophets to seriously.

R0bert

The description of THE “Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction,” says exactly what this woman thinks of our infidel culture. If she thinks our culture is just about such vices then she and her Mossie friends plainly don’t understand Australia.

It’s a relief to see so few people here buying the ‘Islam is really a nice religion,’ but to those naive infidel who think it is being unfairly condemned and deserves a fair go, please, please, PLEASE, just go pick up a paperback translation of the Koran at any book store. It’s an easy read but be warned, even with a warm and fuzzy open mind, you will find it hard not to conclude that Islam is a religion of war and hatred. Yes it has all sorts of nice rules for how Muslims should be nice to Muslims, but it’s instructions on how Muslims should treat everyone else are no where near as soft and cuddly.

DB is on the money on this issue!

RObert,

I don't need to consult BD or anyone else on matters of gender equality in Christianity - my reference like BD is the Word of the true God - the Bible. God created them "one" man and woman to His likeness. Jehovah is a personal intimate God not elusive and remote like Allah.

Just a reminder in case you see gender inequalities in Australia - this is not a Theocracy (as Islam wants it to become).

Irfan,

Grow up mate and stop deflecting the issues. We are not all stupid and inferior to you. You want Islam go back to were Islam is - but don't bring it and impose it on the rest of us.

BD,

Well said - unfortunately you are talking to the deaf, blind and dumb here. Nayeefa like most other Muslems are sincerely following and surrendering their eternal life to a false religion. They are sincerely wrong but cannot question their religion because they were told not to by Allah and his prophet. What are they afraid of? that their followers will discover the truth?

They are also commended not to befriend unbelievers - same reason it might make them think for the first time and maybe see the light and convert out of Islam.

Mercurius,

Muslems will try anything to convince you of the purity and sanctity of their religion. They are allowed to lie, to use any means to "revert" people to their ways. Beware of the wolf dressed in cheep clothing.

I'm a new user to these forums. I'm not Moslim but I know plenty of Moslims. I live in Berala. It really embarrasses me that some people here are writing really silly stuff about the Moslim religion.

BD, you haven't even provided references to the quotes you've given. How do you expect people to believe you. You must think Moslims are guilty until proven innocent.

It troubles me that there are still people in Australia who treat Moslims the way us Catholics used to get treated up until 30 years ago. It's really sick.

I agree that Irfan should be more constructive in what he says. But I'd have to agree when he calls many of you fruitcakes or whateva word he uses. It really does fit alot of people here. Have you ever thought of getting jobs?

In Australia, Islam XOR Christianty. I agree, Australia's out in the open culture of "pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction" does stand in stark contrast to the crippling opium addictions, inequality of women, and atrocious legal defence of female rape.

I'm sorry Nayeefa, we don't have any skyscrapers we'd like to trade for smoking rubble and incinerated corpses; our people are at war! It is called the War on Terror for a reason; we are fighting terror with terror. Why just today our glorious leader was talking about the "alternative set of procedures" used in torture interrogations. He was just being coy, but he showed the world that we have the stones to fight on the same level as you frenzied fundamentalists.

BOAZ_David if we are to judge a religion by the sexual excesses of its founders can I draw John Smith the founder of the Mormons to your attention.

The Mormons believe in the supremacy of the husband over his wives - not limited to 4 either.

I am not sure that its valid to compare the actions of a man in the middle east in 800 AD with current Australian standards of cruelty.

Why are we tarring all muslims with the same brush. Yeah I am unimpressed by uneducated muslim youth bragging about honour killings but muslims from China and the Indian sub-continent are different. Remember that Pakistan has elected a female prime minister twice.

Oh boy all this because some cute people see difference, in this case religious, as a means of garnering support for their cause.
I do not know enough about either religion, or Bhuddism, Hinduism or any other. I do know how easy it is to search for cute sayings that vilify and irritate. How easy it is to be superior, Christian humility!
Our leaders are very fond of so doing., knowing full well that most males will jump at the chance of a stouch given reason, particularly if nothing else offers. (The unemployment M East and youth numbers exceed ours by a large margin. A lot of frustrated virile youths seeking purpose and cause.
I think the clash of religions is the kind of thing one sees in juveniles football followers particularly soccer; the origin being competition, fear of the other, all boys , the herd. Ones own behaviour is masked in that of the mob.
I am however glad that the treatment of women in the West is good, but you must admit they are still a source of possible impurity a temptation to the male hierarchy -universal?
Leaders always have more women !
There is an add currently, I have not read it but its headlines says all men are hypocrites. One might quibble with all and men but…
The other matter hyped by our leaders are suicide bombers. Try the Tamil Tigers or for terrorism try historical Africa. Or read the history of civilisation.
Labelling terrorism is very useful. On the one hand it absolves one from even wondering and on the other provides a useful tool to play wedge politics.
9/11 was a glorious opportunity for America, the century was a goer, Bush was the leader! The perpetrators, Saudi, middle class educated may be zealots, cleverly killed more than any other single act had done, except the Bomb or Tokyo firestorm! The summation of killings still favours state terror (or the roads. I may be wrong road deaths America only 1968-2005 26,347 death by Terrorist 29,678.

Pakistan has only elected a female PM because she inherited the mantle of her powerful father and grandfather - like all influential South Asian female leaders (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India).

This phenomenon is well-documented, and has absolutely nothing to do with the general status of women in these countries, and as such is nothing to crow about. It is all to do with the aura and power of their menfolk - powerful husbands, fathers or grandfathers. It is an extension of the backward belief that a woman's status only stems from the status of her male relatives. So wherever there is a token female politician, especially in a Muslim country, look for a powerful (often violently) deceased male somewhere in the picture.

This is completely different to the situation of female politicians in Scandinavia or New Zealand for example, where they rise to power on their own merits. These are true reflections of female empowerment.

Good post Kvasir, I'm sure you don't discount the majority of other women in the sane world, who've made it on merit in all aspects of life.

The problem we face, is a past its use by date violent belief system (Yahweh), which can't support its rhetoric by fact. So it resorts to psychopathic suppression, ending in violence.

Supporters of Yahweh can only babble incomprehensibility about illusion, then reject factual reality, accuse, condemn and finally enact death for any opposition.

Anyone thinking a women or man needs to conform to a belittling and restrictive ideology to have a life, is not very advanced on the evolutionary path. In fact if you look at the reality of our world, those suppressing women, rate lower than any animal or insect on this planet. No other living being suppresses or destroys everything in its path to be right, other than the followers of Yahweh, god of war.

Personally, I think anyone displaying their belief via dress, regalia, preaching, subversive actions or take over, lacks credibility and truth. They don't have a clue about peace, tolerance, love, caring or rational logic. I doubt there's a word for those who advocate the destruction of everything for superiority.

This is my first time visitting this forum and what a pleasant surprise to read the comments here. Good to see most people are not falling for the formulaic dawah whitewash in the article.

TurnRightThenLeft, in your first post you talk about most Islamic nations being poor. But not for a second do you consider that the culture of these nations is at least party responsible. For all their oil money they are still in the Third World. This has everything to do with Islamic culture holding those nations back. Dont blame "wars prompted by Western interference". Blaming the West for everything is ridiculous - Russia is gaining momentum each year, despite 4 decades of the Cold War, Japan was decimated in World War 2, the whole of Europe was levelled, South Korea had the Korean War etc etc etc. All the wars currently in Africa have little to do with Western influence.
Ralph Peters makes some good points about the above here:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/arabs_last_chance_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
In addition I recommend Dennis Prager's article where he asks whether particular religions make people better or worse:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/09/05/does_religion_make_people_better_or_worse
There is no question that there are millions of decent Muslims out there. But he also asks "How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of Islam?"
(not necessarily the best articles on the subject, but recent, so came to mind)

Billie, the Mormons have nothing to do with the future of modern Australia, so their failings are irrelevant. And "the sexual excesses of Islam's founder" have everything to do with judging Islam because Muslims hold him to be an absolutely perfect human being. This is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism, the other monotheistic religions.

(continued from last post)
Christians do not hold Jesus to be perfect, ie he was capable of making mistakes. As Muhammed was NOT capable of making mistakes, being perfectly guided by Allah in all his actions, everything he did must be explained away, and is to be emulated. This includes having sex with a 9 year old, raiding caravans, spreading his faith by the sword, forcefully taking women taken from defeated "infidels" as wives, recommending female genital mutilation because it is more sitely and pleasurable for the man, beating your wife, having multiple wives etc etc Noone is tarring all Muslims, as most where born into it (like say Russians were born and indoctrinated) into Soviet Russia), but Islam can be discussed as a religion, an ideology, a way of life. Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics (thus no separation of mosque and state) therefore can be critiqued as a totalitarian ideology, much like Communism - ideal in theory, but a tragedy when applied in practice, as can be seen by numerous examples. Muslims continue to pursue their utopia, promised by the unwavering belief in Islam, based completely on faith. But when you realise it has no basis in reality and judge it on its merits, without faith, you realise it is a system that may have been progressive in 7th century in Arabia, but has now become, as Churchill said 'the greatest retrograde force' on the planet. As Muslim says Islam does not need to conform to the 21st century, the 21st century should comform to Islam". And try and try they do.

'untutored mind', if you don't know about this religion or any other, perhaps its best to stay out of what is essentially a theological discussion. (invariably a political discussion with a Muslim becomes a theological one, for reasons sited above)

and thats just for my first post ;)

Nayeefa, The problem is NOT YOUR RELIGION. Its the fact that the majority of fundamentalist muslims only marry fundamentalist muslims and over generations they form tribes at the biological level. Every war and massacre in history has been between two tribes including religious tribes, over control of the land and resources. The war between the Jews and the Muslims in the Middle East is a Territorial Dogfight. ITS OVER THE LAND. Sucide bombing is a form of ethnic cleansing. That is territorial males trying to kill members of the other tribe and get them off the territory. The fact that is inescapable to me is that if their were no Muslims at all in this country then my children and grandchildren wouldnt be in danager of having their arms and legs blown off by some suicide bomber. And if the Muslims go down the tribal path of non assimimlation, then when they number in the millions are they going to demand a separtist state (territorial control) and then my children and grandchildren will be plunged into bloody conflict with more and more bombings as the so called freedom fighters fight for a Muslim state. I really dont care if you believe in pink fairies but I do care about the fact that if you change the fancy academic name of Ethnic Cleansing to territorial massacre it gives a much more accurate picture of the bloody territorial tribal warfare that has raged across this planet since the first recording of history.
Racism is as a cough is to the flu its a symptom of the much more deadly underlying territorial hostility. If letting it all hang out means a rapist gets 35years for attacking woman in the West but in Muslim societies its always the woman who is punished for sexual crimes then I say let it all hang out.

I want to apologise to Nayeefa Chowdhury whose article was both sincere and well-informed, but met with such a crass and ugly reception from most correspondents here. It's clear now, after reading OLO for a few months, that nobody can write anything on OLO about Muslims in Australia without attracting swarms of racists, like flies around an outback dunny, airing their ignorance and prejudice. One cannot "argue" in civilised fashion with such people, any more than one can "argue" with anti-semites. They are quite impervious to reason.

Some of you might actually read a good book - "Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain", by Maria Rose Menocal (Back Bay Books, New York, 2002). The title speaks for itself. You just might learn something.

Tony Kevin

As for the Arabs being responsible for all the inventions and technological advances of the West there's a list of people who invented a lot of these things for example-: Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, Madame Curie invented penicillin, Isaac Newton discovered gravity, Its a long list and there aren't that many Arab names amongst them.
I saw that obviously biased show on the ABC that tried to push that idea that the West owes all its advances to the Arabs but you only have to look at the names of the people who actually did invent these things and the stories of how they came to invent them to realise how ridiculous the claims on that show were. I turned it off half way through after realizing it was not presenting the whole picture.

It's ridiculous to credit Muslims or Arabs with so many inventions or innovations. Take paper, for example...when Muslim Arabs invaded and conquered Buddhist Central Asia they fought the Tang Dynasty Army and kidnapped Chinese papermakers as POWs. They were then taken back to Samarkand and forced to produce paper. The gentle Buddhist civilisations of Central Asia were forever lost to Islam. They make the Crusades look like a picnic. Similarly, "Arabic" numbers and the concept of zero are the invention of Indian Hindus, merely conveyed to the West by Arabs - this is why I, for one, refuse to call them Arabic numbers.

Many other similar innovations and inventions were the product of civilisations conquered by the invading armies of Islam (Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, Roman and Greek), and whose victims continued to live as second-class "dhimmis" under Islamic supremacy if they refused to convert. By the 12th Century a rigid orthodoxy and mental stagnation had set in to the Islamic world and the collective memory of pre-Islamic achievements had withered away under the suffocating weight of religion, and the oppressed dhimmi groups held less and less influence in Islamic society. Any flexibility, tolerance and openness to other civilisations that Islam had in this romanticised "Golden Age" was now finished. And that brings us directly to the 21st century...

Gee, just read a stack of comments concerning Nayeefa's thoughtful essay, and must back Tony Kevin and a couple of others.
Some of the anti-muslim/anti middle eastern stuff here is so crude and simplistic; like out of the dark ages. Some of you please, go away and rethink and read a few history books. Then come back when you have got some of the medieval fear and loathing out of your systems.
If cosmopolitian people elsewhere in the world read some of this KKK rubbish Australians will develop really an even worse name as boors and peasants in civilised parts of the wider world "out there"
I had no idea so many Aussies apparently know so little about the wider world. Are we all just big clumsy ockers stumbling around the place with heads up a dark place like bulls in a china shop?
Talk a bout "dumbed down"!
Seriously, am feeling quite sick with embarrassment at some of this Howard-like redneck rubbish.

I wonder how many of the writers here have ever met any muslims that they denigrate so much.

Perhaps if you look at the person it might enlighten you all.

When I first got involved with the Afghan shi'ite muslim community it was at a New Year's eve party, December 2001 which was hosted by Lowitja O'Donoghue and the Catholic Aboriginal mission. I taught shy and beautiful little boys and girls how to dance while their parents watched with the greatest of joy - many of them are friends to this day. The men cooked all the food and served it with the exception of the birthday cake.

One thing all these young Afghan people had in common was being locked up in Woomera and tormented by nice, white Australian guards who used tear gas and water cannons along with batons - even on small children - at Ruddock's instigation.

I don't know any more about islam today than I did then because not one of them has tried to ram it down my throat - unlike every christian I have ever met who babbles about the love of god as if this god was a real person or thing.

I felt entirely safe with 130 young Afghan men that night - I rarely feel safe alone with even a couple of Australian men, Tony Kevin and Frank Brennan excepted - better add Jeremy Moore.

What ugly minds many of you have to abuse this young woman and then declare that muslims treat women with disrespect.

Tony Kevin

Yeah, I think you're right. A Muslim person makes a good-faith attempt to write an article that reaches out to "mainstream" Australia, and is met with a torrent of abuse from people who then have the hide to accuse Muslims of isolating themselves from our so-generous welcomes to this country.

Well, duh.

The moral panic about Muslims in Australia is a rinse-and-repeat copy of what the South-East Asians in the 80s, the Mediterraneans in the post-war years, the Catholics for decades, the Chinese in the 19th century, have all copped. Same "they won't integrate", "they're a threat to our society", "they'll take us over" BS rhetoric.

It really doesn't pay to be the latest new arrival in Australia.

When the swarming hate-locusts have moved on, I wonder to whom they'll next turn their attention? We haven't done over the Sudanese or the Brazilians yet, but if they start turning up in really big numbers, I guess it'll be their turn.

How infantile. And how predictable. And hurtful. And ultimately, boring.

I disagree the original article is an attempt to examine and discuss religion but what follows is about denigration.
I think this attitude is as I say the latest hyping of our leaders aided by a media who does not inform merely sits astride a position, commerce.
Yes as one post says there are previous examples and a lot more to the debate concerning faith than emerges here. For a start why do people need a faith? See Francis Crick The astonishing Hypothesis and for the use of fear of difference which is what comes out of these posts see Carmen Lawrence Fear and Politics as a primer for the use of fear of difference.
I can only think that you must all be young and virile in need of proving manhood using the sort of behaviour I experienced at boarding school from the popular groups arguing as this series of posts does.
Confrontation and disputer rather than dispute resolution, the use of might to make right!
Leaders who choose issues likely to arouse fear and distort them. See Israel’s Sacred Terrorism by Rokach on the web at www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/sacred_terror.html?20062
And search the web to seek confirmation of its truth!I might be lying.
Foreign Affairs are all about little coteries playing games and distorting data to achieve democratic support remember Iraq!

[Deleted for flaming the author. Poster suspended.]

[Deleted for flaming. See previous post.]

Thanks for the article, an interesting read. Very similar to the brand of Islam promoted by the "Islamic Awareness Society" at uni last week, and I think one, that most Muslims raised in Australia support.

You mention a lot of positive things about Islamic culture- the development of science, some sort of support shown to women, etc.- and I couldn't help thinking about all of the devout Christians that have brought about so much development in science to, or the revolutionary way that Jesus, 800 years before Mohammad and his dozens of wives, treated women as equal.

To the non-Muslim and non-Christian, we pretty much follow the same God anyway. They see our God as the same one.

I think the biggest non-theological difference is in how the two faith systems can operate under politics. Broadly, Christianity can work in conjunction with democracy. The early Christians, according to the New Testament, and under Jesus' direction, would go all over the known world preaching the Gospel. As individuals got changed, societies got changed.

On the other hand, Mohammad and his early followers, after his first 17 "unsuccessful" years of ministry (the time when he wrote all the nice things in the Koran but unfortunately had less than 200 followers), spread his religion by bloody force. Although, particularly in Western democracies, Muslims will try and convert through friendship, etc., the ultimate means of taking a civilization for Islam, has always been to take over a society, and thus force the individuals within it to change.

Thus, although the Koran does have some ideas of "human rights", a lot of these can not function when a secular heathen non-Allah-worshiping parliament is in progress. You might think alcohol is one of the roots of all evil- cool- but don't expect Parliament to outlaw it any time soon.

You spoke a lot about being a Muslim but not about being an Australian. I think being Australian is best summarised in the following.

'The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations. All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society. These are: the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, the rule of law, acceptance and equality.'

Tony Kevin,

The only person you have the right to apologise for is yourself, if you feel the need. Very cheeky of you!

Your sojourn to the land of sun and oloroso didn’t change you. You have your opinions; others have theirs.

A man of your education should be able to tell the difference between ‘racism’ and criticism of Islam. Even our resident Muslim, Irfan Yusuf, is always quick to point out that Muslims come from many ethnic and racial backgrounds, including yours and mine.

You also have a lot to learn to learn, Tony; and what you need to learn isn’t found in books

Marilyn, beliefs cause the problems, those following those beliefs then become the problem. You wrote, “I rarely feel safe alone with even a couple of Australian men “. May be you've never met a real Australian man, who could stand being with you.

You and Nayeefa believe its fine belittling those not following a particular monotheistic path and no wanting more proponents of despotic, barbarous Yahweh in our country. All followers of god intend taking over the world, its in all their books. Nayeefa is typical of monotheistic mind set, bigoted, racist, sexist, as you are, self-righteous and blind to reality.

I agree many times with you, but your intent seems as irrational as monotheists, having the same outcome, the fracturing of our society. If you can't see where this forced acceptance of these barbaric ways is leading us, then you've failed as a humanitarian and become an advocate of social degeneration, under the guise of supposed caring. Lets have a country free from repressive religious cultures.

It may be an obsessive disorder, monotheists suffer from, requiring them to impose their stupidity upon reluctant sensible people, by increasingly forceful means. Countries under gods control, have the death penalty, use torture, degrade and enslave women. They program children to hate non believers or other factions and live in mental destitution without freedom of thought or action.

You're doing all in your power to fill Australia with more mental misfits posing as lost souls. We've seen 3500 years of their niceness, it's outcomes and its spreading destruction. Still, having a one way brain, doesn't help either, just ask Boaz and Co. Your all in the same boat just using different oars.

There's only one way to stop this, ban the public expression of religion. Anyone not happy with that, give them a ticket to wherever they want to go, if they can't decide, send them to the origins of their belief. Its a perfect example of the hell they produce.

Mercurius, you still don't have a clue about real life yet, do you.

Can I make an observation? Alot of the names I see here making anti-migrant remarks are the same names I see at other blogs. There is a blog of someone called Tom Blair (did I get it right?). And there is also a blog which someone called "Leigh" does. She claims to be a conservative christian. And there's another blog I found where people spend alot of their time praising white supremacy groups and spreading hatred of particular people they think are Moslims.

It sounds to me like these forums are one place this lot like to hang out at. And during office hours. I'm having my morning break and I am just about to get back to work.

So don't worry, Tony and others. The racists here are just the same people who hang around other sites. It's all the same people. There is only a handful of them - thankfully.

I re-read Nayeefa's article again and not everything she says is totally accurate. She is trying to communicate her culture with words. I'd rather she do that than copy the British National Front or KKK and communicate culture with fists.

Billie,

The Mormons are not Christians – it is a false cult that is piggybacking on the name of Christ. It is deep into the occult. So I don’t really see your point in this discussion about Islam as a rampant political force in our country and the Mormons?

The Alchemist,

There is a difference between Allah and Yahweh even if you don’t want to understand it. Maybe reading on the subject might be helpful. Right now your posts don’t make much sense to main stream Australians. Like it or not there is a war out there – you can’t avoid that fact by hiding behind your stupid ideas.

Popovich,

Good post – welcome to OLO – we need balanced intelligent points of view here.
Although not sure what you mean by “Christians do not hold Jesus to be perfect, ie he was capable of making mistakes.”

Sharkfin and Kvasir,

Yeah, who cares what Arabs may have invented, contributed, or acquired by force? It’s all in the past.
The war on terror is today and now. What does Islam stand for now? What good are the Moslems really bringing to world peace and security today?

Nayeefa’s article is a plea for acceptance by stealth. She knows damn well that Islam has nothing positive to offer Australians – so she (and others) resorts to propaganda.

Islam is not your common migrant. Islam is here to invade and conquer Australia. Prove me wrong.

No Islam is not 'your common migrant' (whatever that is) - it is a religion related to Judaism and christianity.

And time will prove coach wrong.

BTW - doesn't mean I agree with everything that Nayeefa has to say - just her right to say it.

Madame Curie actually discovered radiation and it killed her. Now it is killing thousands of people each year after the US put it on their nice, white, christian bombs.

Penicillin was invented in Adelaide by two Australian doctors. Having said that - I have to take on most of the tripe on this forum especially the notion that Islam is trying to take over Australia.

As muslims are still out numbered by 70:1 I wonder just what is the proof of that?

" Add pornography to alcoholism, and you will get precisely the explanations for the steady increase in sexual assaults and incests on the record in Australia for the past ten years. "

Correct.

Yeah, we are all pornographers.

We are all drunkards.

Similarly,

" Add violence to rape, and you will get precisely the explanations for the steady increase in terrorist activities and rapes in all Muslim/Islamic countries for the past 1600 years. "

You are all terrorists.

Your(men) are all rapists.

Am sure if you asked Nayeefa, she would admit that cranks exist in her society too, it being populated with humans.
No doubt we see a double standard at work in Indonesia as xenophobia has oafish drug mules in even more trouble than local bomb-throwing wingnuts.
But in Australia double-standards also exist, that slip below the consciousnes of locals.
For example, during the recent "defence" of Israel in Lebanon, an Jewish Australian joined the Israeli army and was killed in Lebanon. He was lauded as a hero. No one questioned if he had a conflict of loyalty between Australia and Israel and no one called him a "terrorist" for being part of an action that killed a thousand people in Lebanon alone, generally civilians.
Had his name been "Hicks" or "Habib", he would have been reviled, despite feelng he was defending Australia's honour by siding with the underdog in some war-ruined corner of the world and whether he had actually picked up a weapon.
I've seen some silly stuff in this thread about Muslim societies falling by the wayside. Where would we be without Cordoba, Avicenna and the like?
The rise of alienation and conservatism is a global phenomenon. It comes in the wake of Neo Liberalism and Globalisation and is driven by exclusion and uncertainty, as the Western Empire and Big Business continue to expropriate resources away from locales. Locals are left bewildered, with only older certainties for reassurance and consolation. The promise of Democracy offered by the West after WW2 has proven hollow, with Business as Usual resuming its normal place as the exclusive priority.
Where else have people to go but nostalgia and consumerist pop-culture (in the secular West), or religion elsewhere?
The "War of Civilisations" is such a crude and false dichotomy. Invented from the most base of motives by the neo con, Huntingdon and worked today by black propagandists like Paul Kelly, it is a form of "wedge" employed by the privileged minority reacting from a pitifully misconceived conception of self-interest.
We superstitiously cling to power and wealth the way illiterate religious cling to culture.

Nayeefa: In the nicest possible way - you are either a complete fool or a liar.Perhaps your letter is an example of - taqiyya - you know what that is don't you?
islam w/ships 'hubal' the moon god of mecca not an omniscient God.It carries a crescent moon on its standards in respect for this arabic god.
islam promotes human rights principles - this is completely wrong how many democratic islamic nations are there in this world?
Was does 'Sense and Sensibility' have to do with the way Western woman are treated today? In many - that's many islamic nations if a woman takes a man to court alleging rape then this "free and equal member of a moslem society" has to produce three males who have witnessed the whole sordid rape to testify for her. If she cannot prove her case then she is adjudged to have committed adultery and can be executed. By the way the word of a moslem woman is worth half of the word of a moslem male you must know this!
What exactly does the Western civilisation owe to islam? just what? I think Nayeefa it is the other way around. I see you as an apologist for a death loving, anti-democratic, brutal, misogynistic utterly false, dare I say a pagan religion..
It's not the Methodist Ladies Guild that promotes and is part of terrorism in this world nor the YWCA would you believe - no it's the bloody as in gory moslems trying to get their 70 perp. virgins and 32 untouched boys. Regards, numbat

Marilyn,

"I felt entirely safe with 130 young Afghan men that night"

Tell your cock-and-bull stories in islamic universities.

In the real world, you'll be elevated like this:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/4.htm

DalCorn,

Thanks for sharing your 'observation' with us. Perhaps you could say something useful next time? For instance, do you have any opinions of your own, or do you just delight in critcising other people who do have opinions? The word is "Muslim', incidentally. They don't like Moslem, which you cannot even spell.

I do not have a blog. Nor do I post on other blogs. And I am not a she! I am a (fairly) grumpy old man, and certainly no Christian.

You don't like 'anti-migrant'remarks. Care to elucidate? Who is anti-migrant, specifically? I'm not. If you don't like other things you read, what are you? Someone who never mixes with anyone other than those who agree with your?

Back to work, and stop using your employer's PC in his or her time. I suppose you don't like the new PR laws, either.

Leigh, I'm not sure if DalCorn likes the new PR Laws. Perhaps you could enlighten us on their provisions and their relevance to the current discussion.

Is it just Leigh? Or does anyone else here have any comment on the new PR laws?

Marilyn I'm trying to work out if you think that you are really any different from the worst of the mossie bashers.

"I felt entirely safe with 130 young Afghan men that night - I rarely feel safe alone with even a couple of Australian men, Tony Kevin and Frank Brennan excepted - better add Jeremy Moore."

Transpose the groups in your statement and then ask if the statement would be one you could expect from a racist stereotyping bigot.

My guess is that most of us who genuinely think individuals should be judged on their merits would think so. Most Australian men are not violent and/or rapists, just as most migrant men are not.

Your obvious dislike of "Australian men" leaves me wondering how much you have contributed to some muslim migrants feeling alienated from australians and "the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction.".

R0bert

Sorry, can't resist the bait.

Alchemist, of course I don't have a clue about real life yet. I'm only married, a homeowner, got a career, lived in the city, lived in a small town, lived in the suburbs, lived overseas, visited a dozen or so countries, driven across Australia and back, been through family deaths, break-ups, illnesses & hard times.

But remarkably, as you point out, I've done all that without learning anything about real life. But then again, I'm not you, and as you so often remind us, you're the only person on the OLO forums who does know anything.

Next time I disagree with someone, I think I'll just follow your winning formula and tell them they know nothing. It's such an incisive and compelling line of argument, and it'll vastly enrich the standard of debate around here. Thanks once again for your sagacious contributions, they're a real adornment to the forum.

Avagoodweegend and try not to get too frightened of the scary Muslims - BOO!

Marilyn,

Penicillin wasn’t invented in Adelaide by two Australian doctors. It is a natural product of a particular mould, and the scientific work around its discovery and development as a vital medical treatment was performed by many people, most working in Britain during the 1930s and 1940s. Three of the most prominent workers, Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey, and Ernst Chain were rewarded with the Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology in 1945 for their work in this field. Florey was an Adelaidian, and Australia can rightfully be proud of his scientific work in the development of one of the most important medical developments of the 20th century. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Walter_Florey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Boris_Chain

This is a most important debate !
In fact it is so far and above something so simplistic as ‘We don’t like them newcomers’ as Mecurious naively suggests, not is it plain racism and prejudice as Tony Kevin would have us believe. To me it is an issue of national survival.

Dalcorn, I gave the Quranic refernce 33:50 Read it from about verse 30 onward. Other sources are hadith based.
jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au If you want detail.

Billie.. exactly... I share your assessment of Joseph Smith.

Solomons many wives (100s) were NEVER sanctioned by God.

CHALLENGE to Tony Kevin and Mercurius and others of a similar ‘tolerant_progressive’ viewpoint.

1/ Can you demonstrate the factual error in any statement I made concerning Mohamed ?
2/ Can you demonstrate how his true nature is irrelevant to understanding Islamic extremism ?
3/ If Nayeefa is promoting the religion founded by this man, and his true nature has been clearly exposed, -is this not of concern?

TONY you made specific charges against me and my posts.

a) You praise Nayeefa as ‘well informed’... errr.. really ? You call her ‘sincere’.. aah.. we can agree on that, but sincerely wrong I’m afraid.
b) You called me i) Racist ii) Ignorant iii) Prejudiced.

I’m afraid that’s simply name calling. Can you back it up ?

RACIST

Sorry, I don’t regard any other human being of any race as ‘inferior’ to me.

IGNORANT

Sorry, I researched my material thoroughly.. can you dismiss it ?

PREJUDICED

suggests an absence of a factual basis for the position held.

Again, can you demonstrate that Mohamed was NOT the things I charge him with?
You can hardly call a truthful account of a man ‘prejudiced’. Would you call those who declared Pablo Escobar ‘brutal thug and drug running murderer’ Prejudiced ? He did a lot of very socially commendable things.

It all comes back to .... your ability to engage the issue, and debate and disprove the points raised rather than calling me names. To do otherwise (Mercurius) is ....dare I say it..”infantile”.

I’m wrong...or I’m right, but not racist, prejudiced and ignorant.

Nayeefa, as an individual, appears sincerely well meaning – harmless in fact, as with many people who might merely state adherence to a faith. When, however, does faith become dangerous as an ideology? Fundamentalist ideologues of Christian, Hindu and Muslim faiths alike have historically shown how a digression from an original, often peaceful ethos, often generates into violent fanaticism.

Well meaning people of many persuasions (or faiths) are generally “serious about life and determined to help make the world a better place for all, upholding truth, justice, and social harmony.” There are many humane societies who profess little faith except for the concept (or principle) of “treating others as they would like to be treated”. The golden rule, if you like, is invoked not merley by Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism or Unitarianism etc. but also forms the basis of our inherited Westminster law.

Traditionally, for Westerners, a visible (often corrupted) medieval ‘Church’ generally presented sole access to all things spiritual and controlled (or at least sought to) most things physical. It was not until there evolved a strict separation between the Church and a secular State, with the establishment of both common and equity law, was there protection afforded from the authoritarian, often ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ driven, megalomaniac. This departure should not distort the basis for faith but can certainly raise scepticism toward those who profess understanding of ‘higher authority’.

Unbridled, the ambiguity of “The Koran exhorts its followers to strive for success and not to sit idly by - “God does not change a nation’s condition until the people change themselves" (13:11).” merely allows the militant the freedom to annihilate.

Why is it that whenever Islam is mentioned, all the red neck, fanatically Christian bigots in Australia get out of their shells to engage in their favourite pastime of the day: - “Muslim bashing”.

At least I got a good laugh reading some of these comments.

“Democracy is the result of the think-tank of Christian values expressed by the power of people in action (vote).” Believe it or not, the first democracy began with the roman republic in 510 BC (BC stands for before Christ for those who don’t know). Christianity didn’t promote democracy or human rights in Europe. If anything, it stalled it and took Europe into the dark ages. It was only when Europe moved away from the church and embraced secularism that European democracy began to flourish.

“A woman in Islam is not equal to a man like in the biblical scriptures.” Have you ever actually read the bible? “wickedness of women”, “wives submit yourselves”, “let your woman keep silence”, any of this sound familiar? The bible openly calls woman inferior, at least the Quran says "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE or FEMALE, you are EQUAL to one another” (3:195).

It took Christianity 1900 years to give women the right to vote. So using that as a benchmark, Islam still has 500 years to go.

Islam is intolerant? Ask any historian how tolerant Christians are. While Europeans spent a good part of 2000 years trying to eradicate Jews; Muslims protected Jews and Christians within their borders. When Christians retook Spain, were any Muslims allowed to stay? Ever heard of the crusades? Read about it for a summery of Christian “tolerance”. If Islam was so intolerant, then how has significant Christian and Jewish communities survived in Muslim lands for so many years?

So to all the Christian fascists here, read about your own history before criticising others.

I think all this unbridled Muslim bashing is really dangerous. I think we are probably developing the same attitudes towards muslims as existed towards European Jews in the 1930s. That hysterical stereotyping and vilification escalated to th epoint where European Christians stood by and watched or actively participated in the methodical extermination of whole communities of jews who thought they were part of the social fabric.

Let me re-iterate.

This is not about 'Muslim Bashing'.

As for me, I am 'Mohamed bashing' to use the same but rather vulgar terminology.

Put more politely, I am deliberately exposing the nature of the man who underpins "Islam" and raising crucial questions about whether this religion is "from God" or not.

If it is from God, then we who are not Muslims are doomed. On the other hand, if it is NOT from God, then 1.4 billion Muslims are living in total lostness and delusion.

Forget scoring points about historical tit for tat, or various innovations which arose in this or that stream of history, they are totally irrelevant to the central issue.

I can not think of even ONE 'Prophet' from the Old Testament where God has 'made legal' as many woman as any man could want. What I DO find, is the clear record that 'many wives can lead a man astray' such as in Solomons case. If his life shows anything, it shows that multiple wives simply does not work. Even Mohamed, who claimed that a man must treat 'all wives equally' had a FAVORITE.... Ayesha.. the underage one. The one who under our law would see him locked up for at least 15 yrs or more.

"Revelations of convenience" which, rather than deter permissive and promiscuous behavior... instead JUSTIFY and REINFORCE it... are in my view diabolical.

Such a situation is so similar to the behavior of Pablo Escobar, Columbian Drug Lord who lived a similar life in all points except that he did not found a religion.

Ask one of the poor people around Medayin who's life had been saved by the hospital built by Escobar.. "What kind of man was he"... the answer is obvious. But ask the father of a son who had been kidnapped and tortured then murdered by Escobar ?... a different story.

Failure to see this in regard to Mohamed is to be naive to the point of danger.

I invite anyone who considers this 'bigoted' to scrutinize the life and teaching of Jesus, and find anything remotely similar

Hi Boaz

In response to your “challenge”

1/ No, I’m not an historian or an Islamic scholar, so I can’t “demonstrate the factual error” in your statements. Neither can my cat. The fact that neither my cat nor I can “demonstrate the factual error” in your statements does nothing to establish that they are without factual error. Moreover, the validity of the Muslim (or for that matter Christian) religion is of no interest to me. I’m interested in how Australians of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and values can co-exist peacefully, an endeavour for which most of the commenters here, you included, are yet to make a positive contribution.

2/ I don’t know what was the Prophet’s “true nature”, and neither do you. According to what I know of Christian, Jewish or Muslim theology, only God can know the “true nature” of a person. Your claim to know the Prophet’s nature is inappropriate even in terms of your own belief system. As for Jesus’ "true nature", I don’t know it either, but I too can twist the known facts about Jesus to paint a portrait of an unemployed vagrant cult-leader who consorted with prostitutes and schizophrenics and had hallucinations of serpents and who forced his disciples to participate in some sort of symbolic (or actual?) blood-drinking and cannibalistic ritual the night before his execution.

3 / Come to think of it Boaz, if you are promoting the religion founded by this man – is this not of concern?

And for the record, I don’t think you’re racist, ignorant or prejudiced. I just don’t agree with the conclusions you draw from the premise(s) with which you start.

As for Coach, who declares “Islam is here to invade and conquer Australia”, time will prove him wrong.

But don’t worry Coach, by the time you are proved wrong, there will be a new group of Others you can hate and fear to your heart’s content. Indeed, though I’m sure that the parade of Others will come and go, you still have many years of fearing and hating to look forward to.

I also flatly reject the notion that comments herein are Mozzie bashing.If the author wants to write an essay that makes certain claims that are open to dispute/debate and wishes people to draw inferences that are not supported by her evidence, then she deserves to be criticised.

As an immigrant as well,I am all for migrants integrating and making a contribution to our society, but let it be on the basis of openeness,and acceptance of what is here already.

Who gives a toss about what Islam contributed in the past.The issue is what can it,and its followers, contribute now. If the average joe blow aussie has some misgivings about muslim immigration and ability to integrate perhaps mulsims themselves should do some soul searching. Superficial essays like this one dont give one confidence they know how.

The moslems, therefore, are responsible for the distorted image of islam. Among those who incite to jihad, have you seen a single one who set out to wage jihad himself or sent one of his sons out to wage jihad? On the contrary - while encouraging innocent people to wage jihad in Iraq and in Chechnya, they themselves take additional wives....
What do you expect the west to do when it sees its citizens being murdered in the name of religion?
The truth that we must deal with today is that people of the West no longer trust moslems in general. The moslems in the West must therefore sever their ties with moslems in the east and repair their relations with Western societies by announcing that they accept the humane values on the basis of which they were recieved by the West. They must also sever their ties with religious clerics and their fatwas...If they fail to do this, they must bear the consequences and the difficulties that will ensue. They must not blame bin laden and al-zarqawi, but {only} themselves for being driven, in ignorance, by the views of the clerics.
Couldn't have put it much better myself, the above is from Dr. Ahmad Al-Baghdadi a reformist Kuwaiti intellectual and political science lecturer at Kuwait University. Regards, numbat

Ultimately, ones deeds will eventually betray true motive (or true nature) – until then it’s all just a matter of words. Those who blow themselves up (and others) in the name of Allah appear to defile their own so called ‘faith’ and certainly reveal their own innate violence – all who desire peace should unequivocally repudiate these actions, as I believe many Muslims have done – but it needs to be the majority.

The true nature of Mohamed or Jesus is guessed at through theology or traditional belief – unless of course your religion becomes one of ‘revelation’ with true understanding open only to a choice few. It will often be rather polemical when dealing with ‘true-believers’ because the basis for debate relies not on logic but their ‘authority’. Perhaps the four noble truths, eight fold paths and middle way of Buddhism is an exception. The true ‘seed’ of any belief or religion eventually unravels – the polemic we now have is but natural.

The issue at stake here (as has been pointed out) is not with Mohamed or Muslims generally but as to how we might all integrate peaceably within Australian society. We have evolved beyond the so called 1950’s ‘golden era’ – some believe we have denigrated (maybe…maybe not). Mohamed by all accounts, to put it perhaps a little crudely, wished to help create a more equal society where the marginalised and ‘underdog’ were given a go. He was known as the “last prophet” and Christianity calls Jesus, the “Son of God” – taken metaphorically, neither need contradict nor conflict. Taken obsessively and literally there’s plenty to fight about – but it’s really a furphy. The real issues of power, wealth and greed, as always, grip the world where we all seem to want more with the available resources literally drying up. The world is in testing times…if we get it wrong now it may be history’s last mistake.

If anyone has any doubt as to just how wrong Nayeefa is on just one of her points. Have a look at at this for starters.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20552

The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled over the last 2O years, with 85 % of these being by people who were born on foreign soil, and mainly from Algeria,Libya,Morocco and Tunisia.

Not much of an example to follow here

Hi Nayeefa,

Your imam says:

An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi stated in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are "asking for rape."

http://jimball.com.au/features/Political%20%20uproar%20over%20mufti%27s%20rmearks%20-The%20Copenhagen%20Post.htm

In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.

London Telegraph reported that visiting Egyptian scholar Sheik Yusaf al-Qaradawi claimed female rape victims should be punished if they were dressed immodestly when they were raped. He added, “For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.”

Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.

In Sweden, “Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace.” A few weeks ago “Five Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.”

The BBC pulled a documentary that shows how Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abused young, white English girls as young as 11 for fear of muslims.

In July 2005, Melbourne Sheik Mohammad Omran told Sixty Minutes that “...we believe we have more rights than you because we choose Australia to be our home and you didn’t

I have not had time to reply as I'd like to, here's an interesting read though. btw, I am one of those people that reads Tim Blair's website (www.timblair.net) and I do have my own (www.taoofdefiance.com)

A speech by John Stone, published in this month's Quadrant.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2207

Extract:

"We need to understand that the core of the Muslim problem—for the world, not merely for Australia—lies in the essence of Islam itself. It is the problem of a culture that, for the past 500 years or so at least, has failed its adherents as its inward-looking theocracy has resulted in it falling further and further behind the West. It is that sense of cultural failure, that sense of smouldering resentment that fuels the fires so busily stoked by the more extremist Muslim teachers. Fiercely exclusive rather than inclusive, Islam holds that church and state are inseparable; that women, while respected so long as they stick to their appointed place in the Islamic scheme of things, are less than equal to men generally; and that even the most extreme violence is justifiable when applied in pursuit of approved Islamic ends. Until all that changes—and it can only be changed from within Islam itself, if indeed it can be changed at all—the Islamic culture will never reside in harmony with others.

This is where all those comfortable (one might even call them “lazy”) assumptions about our own Muslim community break down. Contrary to those assumptions, I do not believe that this latest body of newcomers amongst us will emulate the examples of their predecessors from Italy, Greece, Poland, the Baltic states, or more recently Vietnam, Hong Kong and China. How can it be possible for them to become part of a united Australia, when any Muslim woman who wishes to “marry out” risks not merely social and familial ostracism, but outright violence, even death by way of “honour killings”, by her father or her brothers? Almost without exception, the only marriages occurring in Australia today between Muslims and non-Muslims involve conversion to Islam of the latter.
(continued next post)

(continued)

The high priests and priestesses of multiculturalism should not be surprised by this. It is after all a product—admittedly, an extreme one—of policies they have been espousing with such religious zeal for thirty years or more.

This reality of separateness, however, does not stop at the marriage line. While individual ethnic communities throughout our postwar history have always tended to cluster together at first, gradually they have dispersed. My very nice next-door neighbours are Chinese, as are two other families down the street who, together with an Assyrian family, make up our own little example of that “diversity” of which our politicians so blandly prate.
..
Alex Alexiev, of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, interviewed by Alan Jones on 2GB in June last year, reported the extensive Islamisation of schools in Muslim ghettoes in France. As he says on his website:

“Having by and large completed their takeover of the Muslim ghettoes, often by “targeted violence” against non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike, and turned them into “anti-societies”, the Islamist fanatics are making great progress towards achieving control of the educational system as well. As usual, girls are the first victims … The punishment for refusal to conform is often physical violence ...
“This new generation of Muslim children, born and raised in Europe, is growing up already indoctrinated to consider themselves part of a ‘Muslim nation’ separate and opposed to everything Western civilisation stands for.”

Are we so stupid, or so lazy, or so frightened of being criticised for political incorrectness, that we are unable to recognise such developments?—and more importantly, to demand policies to stymie them?

read the rest here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2207

"The following Muslim Organisations collectively denounce the statements made by Sheikh Feiz about rape.

A number of Muslim organisations have responded by saying it is inappropriate and incorrect to suggest that if a woman does not dress appropriately then she is in some way responsible for what happens to her.

The responsibility for an evil act such as rape lies solely at the feet of the person who commits it. There is never an excuse for rape.

These organisations point out that Islam is a faith that encourages self restraint and discipline, and it specifically encourages both men and women to avert their gazes as part of this approach to modesty. It encourages each Muslim to avoid sin regardless of the temptation. Rape, being one of the most heinous of sins, can never be justified on the grounds of dress. The press release appears in full below."
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=1244

Obozo, I don’t doubt that some men with very unreconstructed attitudes about the culpability of female victims in rape cases are Muslim. Such attitudes were very common in Australia in recent decades, and you still hear them from time to time.

However, my Wikipedia check of the “Copenhagen Post” tells me this is a giveaway paper with a weekly circulation of 15 000 founded in 1997. I have no information as to the editorial credentials of its publishers.

Many of the objectionable attitudes set out in the comments following that report have been commonly expressed in courtrooms and other forums by non muslims in this and other Western countries over the past few decades.

Problem is, these days you can get any collection of nutcase rants and pass it off as representing the mainstream of a religion or ideology.

Relda, what the hell is that link you provided? It appears to be one particular Jew's anti-Zionist rant (although not the worst I've seen), published on a Muslim website. Did you mean to direct us to

http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/

Muslims denouncing antisemetism is, I think, a good thing, but this site's attributing antisemitic racism to Darwinism is just plain dumb.

Zionism as an ideology deserves intelligent criticism and analysis, and some of its most credible critics have been Jews.

But what has this got to do with the current discussion?

Mercurius,

You failed to address DB's challenge. Your ignorance of religious matter is your (and all other ignoramus) downfall.

Islam is NOT a race or a particular people. Islam is a political movement fuelled by a (false) religion.

Islam's only way of integration is to change the host country NOT themselves.

Muslems may be born here and fluent in English etc.. but that does not alter the fact that their religion is inflexible, unchamgeable, and intolerent of our societal "secularist" attitudes.

Muslems use violence, cultural dress, rape, vulgarity, etc... to move (scare) non-muslems out of their ghettoes. Many suburbs in Capital cities are already a no go zone for outsiders.
Try to drive a car in the streets of Sydney's Lakemba on a Friday Islamic public day. (Now that' a Challenge) - the streets are wall to wall illigaly blocked bodies praying to their god.

Once a Mosque is built - this is a sign of territorial conquest - land aquired for Allah. A Mosque will never be demolished, sold, or used for any other purpose (like Church buildings) than for land claim and a mark of victory for Allah.

Not to realise the reality of Islam is to hand over Australia inch by inch to this politico-religious invasion.

Don't trust the propaganda and PR lies offered by their educated representatives either. It all part of the game. Waste time in dialogue and rhetorics while their women are breeding new muslems at alarming high velocity.

Islam is a supramist religion that is to abolish all other beliefs by any means - peaceful or violent.

All islamic countries were once Multifaith if not predominantly Christian, Bhuddist, Jewish, etc... (Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, to name a few). Europe's Islamisation is at a point of no return...

Wait until the muslem population reaches critical mass - then it will be just a push of a pen to declare this country "Australia" Islamic.

Again I ask anyone to prove me wrong.

Coach, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable. It can't be proved wrong by anybody, only by time. But that doesn't mean you're right.

Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim population, is multifaith. There are Christians and Hindus all over the place. I lived there for 3 years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Same goes for Malaysia. Walk down the streets of Penang or Malacca. You'll find a mosque, a synagogue, a church, a Hindu shrine, a Buddhist temple and a Daoist temple all within 3 blocks of one another. The newspapers are full of letters debating what their immigration and racial policies should be. And the tone of those letters is respectful and polite. It's a far more successfully integrated and balanced multiculture than we self-declared (just ask us) "tolerant" Australians have managed to produce.

I go to uni with a lot of Muslim girls. They grew up here. They have the same self-confident swaggering body-language of the typical Australian teenager. They sound like rool Aussies (think Kylie Moll) when they talk. They go to parties. They listen to bands. They swear (although they think I can't hear them do it). They never turn their bloody mobile phones off in class.

Who's changed who?

They make heartbreakingly naive statements in class like "because Australia's a multicultural society, we don't have the problems like in the Middle East." They're too young to understand that there are haters like you lurking out there, ready to pronounce them a threat to the very society they grew up in.

So Coach, while you're busy hating and fearing, they, and their Anglo and Asian and Indian and Vietnamese and Brazilian and Japanese friends and I will be hanging out together, working together, talking together and making the Australia of the future.

It's already begun.

Did nobody else pick up on Alchemist's call to ban public expression of religion?! And replace it with what? The public expression of non-religion?

But how do you define religion? I've heard so many say that its an ideaology that professes a belief in a god/gods. Thus Bhuddism is not a religion.

Problem is, I and a lot of other people disagree. Atheism can be a part of a religion. Secular Humanism is a popular atheistic religion (read the secular Humanist manifesto), as is Bhuddism (when you go to a temple to worship a statue and bow/"wai" very high to a monk, its a religion).

I think a more appropriate call would be to ban the public expression of "worldviews". This is a much more broad term and puts all of the "religions" of the world on equal footing. The problem in this is the blatant affront to the freedom of speech and religion we prize so highly in Australia.

I think the right to convert is just as important as the right not to be converted. Both principles have to be upheld if we want to avoid becoming like the many other countries that have banned this.

Oh and btw Alch, how about you take your own advice? If you want to live in a country that bans the public expression of religion, why don't you move somewhere that already does? Say for example North Korea? China? Oh, such free, tolerant parts of the world.

Yng

YngNLuvnIt. Both china and Nth Korea are religious, communism, humanism, atheism are all religions, secularism is an acceptance of all religion. I follow no ism, yet accept you can't understand anything beyond your fantasies.

People with "worldviews" are normally open to change, their views change as understanding unfolds before them. Unlike monotheists, locked into repetitious dogma their entire lives.

Maybe I should've said, ban the public expression of repetitious violent dogma, i.e. monotheism.

“I think the right to convert is just as important as the right not to be converted.”

Only if the desire for conversion is expressly wished for by someone, not badged, instilled by stealth, lies, force and violence as exhibited by every monotheistic belief since their inception. After all your converting people to violence, fantasy, war, dysfunction, the disembowelling and destruction of every society your ilk enter.

Presently, no country or social system has evolved beyond controlling ideologies. Australia would have the best chance of providing a good example to the rest of the world, if your ilk would leave. Your so obsessed in your desperate desire to enforce your righteousness, you neglect the planet you live on, destroying it along with all its inhabitants.

The time will come, when you may have to decide whether your an Aussie, or just another peace of cannon fodder for the god of war. All monotheistic beliefs suppress women, children and non believers. Name the many countries banning religious expression.

Mercurious, any follower of gods a threat to the society they grew up in, if it doesn't exclusively follow god. Just curious, did you live in Nth Malaysia, Borneo, Sabah, West Papua, rural provinces of Indonesia, you'll see real violent monotheism in action there.

Popovich,

Your reference to the John Stone paper in this months Quadrant is a key reference will certainly stir the issue up, as it should be. It should be precribed reading for all those interested in this subject,including govt policy makers.

His paper gives a good summary/definition of the problem, and suggest ways in which Australia could handle the solutions.

His point that we have to take all or any refugees from anywhere in the world, if the UN organisation says so,(without any vetting by us), is particularly disturbing.

As John Stone said I thought J.Howard gave a categorical assurrance, "that we will say who comes here". Appears that that is not the case at all.

Mercurious
While you may not be a 'historian' as such, you are quite capable of using the inductive method of deriving conclusions based on all available facts. Were this not the case, then you would have little to say about anything.

Such facts as:

-He has a web site which states Jews are subhumans.
-He distributes pamphlets which make the same claim.
-He often is found addressing rallies ranting about 'subhuman' Jews.

A valid conclusion based on these facts would be "This_man_hates_Jews"

Lets look at the question of "Holy Men". I don't think you would need to ask too many people, or examine much information to discover that legally 'reasonable' people would take a dim view of a persons 'holiness' if they observe that his conduct panders to that aspect of human nature which they categorize as our 'lower nature' or.. 'lusts of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life'.

Indian holy men are renowned by their self_denial. Such was the case of John_the_Baptist. This is the very reason he was considered "Holy".. the meaning of the word is 'set apart, pure' etc.
Budhism is based on 'denial' of these common fleshly appetites.

Now.. my problem with Mohammed.

-He surrounded himself with females, including underage.
-He declared 1/5th of all war booty was his.
-He used revelation to AMPLIFY his opportunities for female conquest and stifle/limit those of his followers.
-He used 'revelation' to shut his nagging wives up.(threatening that just as Allah had given them to him, Allah could also replace them at the drop of a hat.)
-He murdered.
-He tortured.
-He accepted lying as a means to an end.
-He happily accepted genocide of men and boys and the enslavement of women and children as a solution to a "Jewish problem".
-He drove out, taxed out, or intimidated out the Jews of Khaibar.
-He raided caravans, killing people.
-He stole other peoples goods to feed his 'gang'.
-He was nice to his 'gang'.

He is called 'holy' by Muslims but do the facts support this conclusion ?

BigMal

If the government does not have a policy of in PRACTICE determining those who come here based on the 'values compatibility' then we are in the same position as the early Aussie diggers were where the massive influx of Chinese to Australia during the gold rush was based on treaties that the British had with the Chinese government, which was based purely on the self interest and greed of the Crown.

This lead to increasing anger among the diggers who could see their identity being eroded by the boatload and the very real possibility of them becoming adrift socially and culturally with the impact of these large unmanaged influxes.

The government of the day, being subject to the Crown, sought to enforce the immigration policies by force, and to subjugate the wishes of the diggers with the gun barrell.

This led to one of the first examples of the assertion of Australian nationalism in the riots of LAMBING FLAT where the Chinese were driven out.

What many fail to realize is that this had nothing to do with relative inferiority or superiority of culture and race. (though many probably did hold such views) It was plain and simple a struggle for cultural and linguistic integrity and survival in the face of policy which could only have one result if left unchecked.

Given how the Chinese reacted (JUSTIFIABLY SO) to the invasion by the British, and the Opium wars, inflicting social disintegration on the Chinese populace for the sake of British profits..we can see why people react like this to challenges to their cultural integrity.

The BOXER REBELLION was against 'Foreign Devils' (British and other whites) why ? Simple... they saw their culture being eroded by the 'large influx of British people' who enforced their presence AND their socially destructive opium policies at the point of a gun.

Australian Diggers had just as much right to drive out the Chinese as the Chinese had to try to drive out the British, and for the same reasons. Xenophobia ? :) nah.. REAL LIFE

Sorry for the error Snout,
Here’s the correct link:
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=12448

Islamists and extremists are not represented here just as the KKK, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson etc. are often generally regarded as the ‘wackos’ of Christianity. To vilify all Muslims is similar to calling all Christians as Fundamentalist or perhaps as "Happy, Clappy” twits. You can’t generalise – you need separate religion from culture and groups from communities, even if they may have cause and affect on each other.

The Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis “believes the advent of Islam in a sense was a revolution which only partially succeeded after long struggles due to tensions between the new religion and very old societies in the countries that the Muslims conquered. He thinks that one such area of tension was a consequence of what he sees as the egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine. Lewis believes that "the equality of Islam is limited to free adult male Muslims," but according to him "even this represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents." - Wikepedia

“According to scholars such as William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad was both a social and moral reformer in his day and generation. He claims Muhammad created a "new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men."” - Wikipedia

Radicalising all Muslims only serves to force many to react forceably or some to retreat, mariginalised and ostracised - thus destabilising society further. This can only serve well for the purpose Bin Laden and his cohorts are striving.

Tony Kevin,
I will not apologise for speaking the truth. As to this book Ornament of the World. Let me state some of my own oberservations of history. I've stated them before but obviously you havent seen them.
Last 56years of history-:
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE OF THE JEWS IN GERMANY
ATTEMPT AT TERRITORIAL TAKEOVER OF AUSTRALIA BY JAPAN
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN SOMALIA
TERRIORIAL MASSACRE IN BOSNIA
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN RWANDA
LONG TERRORIST CAMPAIGN TO TAKE CONTROL OF IRELAND BY THE IRA
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE OF THE KURDS BY CHEMICAL GASES BY SUDDAM HUSSEIN
TERRITORIAL GRAB FOR KUWAIT BY SUDDAM
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN EAST TIMOR
DEMAND FOR SEPARTIST STATE IN RUSSIA BY CHECHYNA
THE TAMIL TIGERS
THE MASSACRES IN SUDAN
THE SHIITES AND SUNNIS KILLING EACH OTHER OVER TERRITORIAL OF IRAQ
THE TERRITORIAL DOGFIGHT BETWEEN THE JEWS AND THE ARABS IN MIDDLE EAST
World War one started in a multicultural Germany when the German Kaiser went down to visit the Serbian Section and was assinated. The Serbs called on Russia to assist them and then France and England were pulled into it also.
I think that maybe the culture of tolerance in this book you speak of needs more research because it sure flies in the face of history.
Of course these multicultural societies can succeed if their is enourgh assimilation, or they can succeed for a few generations until some kind of territorial pressure such as overpopulation and scare rescources or one tribe acheiving numerical dominance suddenly wants to rule. It confounds me how you can look at history and not see the truth of it. If we are ever going to have world peace we have to come at it from a true perspective of whats causing it.

To Tony kevin,
I make no apology for speaking the truth. As for the book "Ornament of the World" I would like to draw your attention to the last56 years of world history which I have stated before but you obviously havent seen it.
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE OF THE JEWS IN GERMANY
ATTEMPTED TERRITORIAL TAKEOVER OF AUSTRALIA BY THE JAPANESE
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN SOMOLIA
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN BOSNIA
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN RWANDA
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE OF KURDS BY SUDDAM HUSSEIN
TERRITORIAL GRAB OF KUWAIT BY SUDDAM
LONG BLOODY TERRITORIAL CAMPAIGN BY THE IRA FOR CONTROL OF IRELAND
TERRITORIAL MASSACRE IN EAST TIMOR
DRIVING OF CHINESE BUSSINESS PEOPLE FROM SOLOMONS
DEMANDS FOR SEPRATIST STATES LIKE CHECHYNA IN RUSSIA
TAMIL TIGERS
TERRITORIAL FIGHT BETWEEN THE JEWS AND THE ARABS IN MIDDLE EAST
TERRITORIAL FIGHT BETWEEN SUNNIS AND SHIITES FOR CONTROL OF IRAQ
WHEN THE BRITISH PULLED OUT OF INDIA -FIGHT FOR CONTROL OF INDIA BY TWO RELIGIOUS TRIBES THE SIEKS AND HINDUS
TAKING OF TERRITORY AND GOLDMINE IN WEST PAPUA BY THE INDONESIANS
The first world war came out of a multicultural society when the German Kaiser went down to visit the Serbian section and was asassinated.
I suggest that your book about this utopian society needs further research because it certainly flies in the face of history.
Multicultural societies can work as long as enough assimialtion(INTERMARRIAGE) takes place; or they can work for a few generations until some kind of territorial presssure arises, like overpopulation
or the attaining of large numbers by a a tribe who then wants territorial control.
Unless we start to face the real reasons for war instead of thinking it'S about some vague intolerance we cant begin to find solutions.

YngNLuvnIt, wrote: Atheism can be a part of a religion.

As an Atheist I am confused. My bible, the Oxford dictionary, gives this definition of religion.

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.  a particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Please explain as I have never been aware that I worship any gods or supernatural powers.

Mercurious

Thank you for excellent posts, sometimes reading the discussion on threads like this I am at an absolute loss at what to say. I really wonder if people like coach have ever actually known a Muslim person, or maybe they are the types who say 'some of my best friends are muslim, but they're different'. You are exactly right in saying that they will find someone to fear and hate in the future.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Australia is a Muslim nation within a hundred years or whatever, its just history and progression. I just hope for true progress, higher living standards, a cleaner environment, less war, who cares about race? Happiness is what counts.

Carl,

That would mean you are as unconcerned for a white Australia as a muslim nation. Provided that living standards are up to scratch a white australia is as palatable as an islamic state. Is this correct?

Hells angel,

Well, I am an agnostic who is very much against the mingling of any church and state, actually, I'm not a fan of religion at all and would be happiest if we were 100% secular, however I am not very confident this will happen.

I would be appalled to have any form of theocratic form of govt. in Australia, be it Islamic, Christian or whatever. What I hope for is a better democracy. One where we actually control the use of our resources, where we have a truly independant media and a society that values education and hope over ignorance and fear.

If our society moves towards these goals in the future, but the demographics have changed and it so happens that the majority of Australians are Islamic, I would not be in the least bit bothered.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.

Mercurious,

I may have overestimated your judgement and intellect of the facts of life now that I realise you are still young and hopeful.

You missed my point again - the fact that those chicks are Australised does not mean they are free like we understand freedom. Just ask one of them what would happen if they go out with a non-muslem. And what would their family think if they decide to marry one of "them"?

Islam is a religion of oppression and submission (to a false god). Muslems are sincerely following their religion to their own peril and to the detriment of those around them.

Tolerence is gimmick in Islam.

Carl,

I and my wife have lived some 50 years in Arabic speaking Islamic dominated countries. So it is fair to state that I know muslems.

Speaking from first hand experience I have seen the social and economic decline in all the places were a mosque exists. The danger goes beyond what you can imagine from a synthecised casual observation of the news or current events.

Being an Agnostic or Athiest does not alter the historical facts that Islam is a territorial grasper and a freedom squasher.

Noted query from Irfan, earlier posting, as to IR laws.
Well, yes, Irfan.
IR laws are the internal "mainstream" (in that they are repression directed at the "Aussie" mainstream) manifestation (like laws directed at the unemployed), of the same mentality that rejoices with a smirk the undermining of rational law; as per FOI.
This mentality is arguably the same one that celebrates the misery of Lebanon,Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, fears "others", ignores tragedies like Darfour and Congo, subjects asylum seekers to grief beyond proportion to any tresspass they may have inadvertantly committed, detests the environment and sets up neo lib eco rationalist programs to only exploit humanity globally- improvements for local people being only accidental and peripheral to profit.
The IR laws are manifestations of a dark and repressive mentality that is the dark side of European culture; a sort of atavistic yearning to return to a medeival serfdom-based lifestyle where all issues can mercifully be sorted at the end of a club by the powerful, free of constraints.
Which is not to say Islamic states might not be infected by the same paranoia.
But Westerners dare NOT claim moral superiority to ANYONE,let alone EVERYONE.
We are only the same as the people of the Dark Ages. We simply do not "see" what we live in, the same as peasants covered in fleas and living in crap are habituated to what we "civilised" people, from our privileged, "enlightened" vantage point recognise as "filth".
But really it is just an airbrush job.
What was once external dirt now reveals itself only in the covert and cryptic manifestations of neo con "policy", thousands of miles from Wall street or Washington or Canberra.
That is, a child's or old woman's corpse at the bottom of a rubble-heap in Gaza or Falluja.

Carl, perhaps a little bit off topic, but you claim to be an "agnostic" and I was wondering if you could please help me to understand exactly what that is. Excuse my ignorance, but I've had agnostic explained to me on several occasions and still can't quite get it right. I'm not "having a go" at you, simply asking a question.

Personally, it is hard to stop wondering at hypocrisy exercised in Australia wherever.

Speaking of “Australian Islam” is laughing at females smoking from under hijabs, fool-around in traditional clothes with their males on Williamstown beach near barracks, recalls drinking while gambling “Middle Eastern appearance” studs, and read sometimes of Arab gays simply enjoying possibilities an Australian (and even Israeli) way allows.

As it was already here rightfully to my understanding mentioned, Islam is as much Aussie as any non-Catholicism is, and factual tolerance is being based on ignoring any own orthodox prescriptions where speaking of atheism seen somehow being a very common denominator in multi-nation societies is a bad tone, which is a next example of hypocrisy itself.

One of the most dishonest concepts ever perpetrated by people is this belief in the "existence of the one and only omnipotent, omniscient" King Teddy, creator of the universe and the morally perfect shaper and ruler of everything. Like how could it be possible for a morally perfect Teddy to seek this sacharrine adoration from his creations, seek and be persuaded by their prayers (five times a day), but become petulant and a displeased Teddy if "he" does not recieve this flattery? LOL

Be it Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, how can anything supposedly and deliberately created by a morally perfect being, be so imperfect and condone, command, or cause immoral acts? Just seems that this supposed happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. Without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, we have the chilling fact that this belief is heavily biased to accept a role for the irrational.

e.g.
We mostly all understand that Islam's early successes produced great mathematicians, scientists, scholars, physicians and astronomers etc. But were these "achievements generated by the requirement of the religious practices and rituals of Islam"? Half way on, it is an understanding that new interpreters of Islam appeared and that we see a teaching that the acquisition of knowledge by Muslims meant only the study of Islamic theology where the study of science, medicine etc. was discouraged. Does this suggest some intellectual regression? ..... Does this help to explain how Muslims missed the Industrial Revolution, were seen to be weak people and were carved up by England and France?

Nayeefa, "To be 'Mossie' or 'Aussie' - that's the question!" is NOT the question.

Wildcat, in my understanding an agnostic is someone who realises that they don't know everything.

We've not seen enough evidence to convince us of the existance of a god (or gods) but realise that it's possible that one or more do exist and have not made themselves known to mankind in a meaningfull manner.

It may also mean that we've had a look at the more well known ideas of god and realised that they don't stack up.

Hope that helps.

R0bert

Wildcat, I consider myself an agnostic, and I've thought long and hard on what that means, to me at least.

There are plenty of people who view it as a passive view - a stance along the lines of, 'don't know, don't care'.

I for one, view it a little differently. I see it as a realisation that there can be no way to know for sure that there is a god, or heaven.
Both of these things by definition (i.e. need to be dead to be in heaven, and god is all powerful) cannot be proved to exist.

Religion is often termed as faith. This is because in order to truly embrace it, you have to reject certain notions that don't quite fit and have 'faith'.

Agnosticism rejects this definition of faith, and it rejects the ritualism that surrounds organised religion. You can have faith in man, you can have faith in mankind. But you're basing this faith on your past experience.
Agnostics need more than the words of the church minister, or the text of an ancient book to be convinced.

Basically - nobody can know the answers to some questions, the world is just wired that way. And you mightn't be able to know everything, but perhaps the world would be a boring place if everything was known.

Finally - these questions can't be truly answered, and those that try to convince you otherwise require you to have 'faith' in what can't be explained rationally.

Well, I guess that would make life easier, but if I was buying a second hand car I certainly wouldn't just take it on 'faith', so I can't expect less from a worldview.

Atheists are subtly different. The atheist says 'there is no god.'

The agnostic says 'I don't know, but neither do you.'

This may be cynical, but it is my way of explaining agnosticism. Hope it makes sense.

Fair points popovich: rebuttal:

Fair points popovich, when I referred to Africa, I was merely pointing out the gross difference in attitudes - almost every night we are saturated with media coverage of conflicts the Middle East, but Africa is never mentioned, even though the body count may be much higher? Why? because the Western world can ignore it. With the presence of Israel and the nearby oil reserves, middle eastern politics affect western economies.

In relation to governments, of course culture affects how the country will run. I'll say right now, in miy view, religious governments aren't effective. There is too much scope for corruption.
This is the case regardless of the religion. Italy has been stagnant for years due to rampant corruption in the government ranks. As the closest thing to a christian government, it hardly inspires confidence.

You say we can't blame western interference for the poor economic record of these islamic nations, because other countries have recovered after wars.

The thing is... there hasn't been all that much opportunity to recover. The interference has been constant, or did I forget the Iraq war. And the Afghanistani operation. Before that, we had gulf war part one. Not to mention the fact that there is at the very least, tacit support from the west for the Saudi Arabian regime, which while friendly to the west, is brutal to its people.
(Did I mention pretty much all the 9/11 bombers were Saudis? everybody seems keen to ignore that fact, while we bomb anywhere BUT there)

Then there is the fact that the west dictates the price of oil - I'm certainly not meaning saying the west has control over the price, but they do refuse to let the sellers to dictate the price, as it is a necessary component of all western economies. Effectively, they are blocking cartels.

Fair enough there is a desire to block cartels, but there is hypocrisy here. Why is it okay for the oil companies to do the same once they have the oil? Perhaps because the bottom dollar's a little closer to home?

Very true Robert, close to my understanding. Maybe this may help wildcat with relating to where "agnostic" derives from and some associated beliefs.

Animist, There are many gods, each controls different elements of the universe, appease them and they will treasure us, annoy them and they will destroy us.

Christian, Muslim, Jew,etc. God created the Universe, He rules over us, I know what he thinks, and I know what he thinks I should do. I will destroy anyone who doesn't accept my dogmatic control and finally, thinks different.

Deist: God created the Universe, but he only gave us the laws of nature to rule over us and does not concern himself with us.

Atheist: The Universe was created naturally and I don't see or know of any gods or supernatural causes, so after death, that's it, blank.

Agnostic: The Universe is a mystery and the origin of it is beyond human understanding. If there was a creator, as a being or thing, it does not concern itself with us and is also beyond our understanding

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God or heaven, it holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was used by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas Huxley, who believed only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. I beloeve he made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word meaning knowledge, which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”. Gnostic referred to those having that knowledge. In using the term agnostic, Huxley considered “Gnostics” as his fellow intellectuals who embraced doctrines and theories, which explained the world. Huxley first used the term agnostic in 1870. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Wildcat,

It seems that everyone else has beat me to the punch, and they have all offered good explanations.

Personally, I believe there could be a God, or there may not be, there is no certainty either way. I see aetheism as not much better than religion, because there is a certain inflexibility to it.

I don't think there is a point in speculating about who created us and why, I believe spiritual saisfaction can be derived from caring for other human beings, which is basically what all the major religions say, I just take out the dogma.

Regardless of a migrants' heritage, Its like this ;- "If you like Australia's culture and want to live in Australia, then you need to become an Aussie", and you'll be welcome.
Be proud of your heritage but please dont expect Aussies to change to suit you.
If you prefer your own heritage, then why stay here?

Rhys,

I mentioned that atheism can be part of a religion. Alchemist mentioned humanism, communism (especially in practice), and a few others where atheism becomes the new theism. You don’t need to believe YHWH is the superhuman controlling power, you could interpret evolution or change as that power. In fact your second definition, “a pursuit or interest followed with devotion” in its broadness fits the bill for religion even more.

Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you devoutly follow some sort of religion (same could be said, just because you’re a theist doesn’t necessarily mean you devoutly pursue some sort of religion). But there are religions which include it.

Two examples I like to give are Buddhism (technically no god, but they worship the Buddha statues anyway) and Humanism http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html (I guess they technically worship themselves).

Alchemist,

“Both china and Nth Korea are religious, communism, humanism, atheism are all religions”
Nice to hear you admit that Alch. But they are countries where the traditional religions are banned from publicly being spoken, which is an approximate of what you’re hoping for. My suggestion is that people are naturally religious. Take away the belief in some sort of God, and we will worship our families, our sports, our politics instead. It’s not going to solve any problems, just silence the free expression of those traditions which have added so much our country already.

“Can’t understand anything beyond your fantasies”. Really? Fascinating. And here I was learning more and more about atheistic philosophy and non-Christian religions every day. I guess I lack the capacity to think objectively though, because as you pointed out, I think differently from you. I could easily make some untrue assumption about you “can’t understand beyond your meaningless self-centred life” but I don’t think its fair to make those kind of judgments about a person I’ve never met.

I love how you focus on monotheism alone. Like polytheism and atheism has never been a violent dogma. No, the Hindu religion has never taught any violation of human rights, nor the atheist religions you mentioned.

Do you realise that for many people their “repetitious violent dogma” has been the final straw in deciding the change the world for the better? One example, ending slavery in USA. You might say “but it was Christian Americans who started the slavery to being with.” Yes, but that was an aberration, an exploitation, of their faith, not a fulfillment of it.

You make too many blanket statements Alch. If I did the same about you, I’d have every secularist in this forum responding, but on the basis of my religion, you feel it ok to judge me as ignorant, violent, and dysfunctional. I’m sorry if there have been those in my religion who have acted this way, but I don’t like you generalizing those things about me. Look at Jesus, He’s what we’re all aspiring to be.

“[conversion] not badged, instilled by stealth, lies, force and violence”. I couldn’t agree more. Yay, we agree! :-)

“If your ilk would leave.” I assume you mean the religious population of Australia, so about 80%. Hmm, if we want to be fair, perhaps your ‘ilk’ should leave.

“You neglect the planet you live on, destroying it along with all its inhabitants.” I’m afraid religion isn’t the only determining factor in this. http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0320_earth_day.asp This talks about why environmentalism and the Bible are not mutually exclusive (in fact, they go hand in hand). I for one care a lot about the state of the world. My primary concern is with the 2/3rds of the human beings of this world living in poverty, but of course I care about the environment as well.

“All monotheistic beliefs suppress women, children and non believers.” Got to love the absoluteness of that statement. Methinks you’re a little dogmatic too, Alch.

The NT was revolutionary for the way it treated women 2000 years ago. I think even today, it continues to be, providing you are reading the original Greek text, not some 16th Century white guy’s interpretation of it. I know I always plug this book, but “Why not women”… excellent reading.

And 42% Americans are Christian, Americans second:
http://pewresearch.org/datatrends/?NumberID=136

Going back for a moment to clear up this myth of a "tolerant Islamic Spain", so tolerant that saying "Christ", wearing green or ringing a bell incured a death penalty, and non-Muslims had to step aside to let Muslim pass on the road.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1243
Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest...it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations and killings. Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis, like elsewhere in other Islamic lands - and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing...

Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, looting and burning as they went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves, and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as

equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

The Andalusian Maliki jurist Ibn Abdun around 1100 AD:
No Jew or Christian may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual; on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to [greet] them with the [expression], "Peace be upon you'. In effect, "Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God's warning. They are the confederates of Satan's party; Satan's confederates will surely be the losers!" (Qur'an 58:19). A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace.

Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling of scientific books to dhimmis under the pretext that they translated them and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops... Whole Jewish and Christian libraries were looted and destroyed.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph,were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade. The Granada pogrom was likely to have been incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote:

Bring them down to their place and Return them to the most abject station. They used to roam around us in tatters Covered with contempt, humiliation, and scorn. They used to rummage amongst the dungheaps for a bit of a filthy rag To serve as a shroud for a man to be buried in...Do not consider that killing them is treachery. Nay, it would be treachery to leave them scoffing."

"There is no doubt that there are some elements in Islam that stand in stark contrast to the Australian pop corn culture of pornography,gambling, alcoholism and drug addiction."
Yeah! Take suicide bombing of innocents,gang rape,amputation of hands of thieves, beheading, stoning of 'wicked'women,insurgents hiding behind women and children, the bad behaviour of Muslims who caused Cronulla, that'll do for a start. There is more.
It is attitudes like yours that have worn out your welcome here in Australia.
Read John Stone's article in Quadrant,it will make anyone ask,why were these people allowed to migrate into this country.
Back to my armchair!

mickijo, is this the same John Stone who opposed John Howard in the 1980's and supported that fruitcake Queenslander to become PM?

Is this the same Stone who glorified the Spanish Inquisition? The same Stone who even Andrew Bolt described as an isiot?

You might want to take this chap seriously. I certainly don't.

Woops, I meant to say that Bolt described Stone as an "idiot". There goes my 2-response a day quota!

Gee Popovitch,
your tales of the Ummayyad Emirate remind me of Lebanon, just the other month (let alone Gaza,West Bank, Falluja!). For example, Just today Haaretz revealed a million illegal clutzer bombs had been indiscriminantly scattered acccross southern Lebanon by the IDF. Also hidden away in the corner of some publication, comes the suppressed information of a major battle in Afghanistan- 500 dead!
Just as well its only the Moors of a thousand years ago that were the sole humans to ever show brutality to their fellows! (ain't nuttin' to what Joshua did to the Moabites, either!!)

If Nayeefa and Irfan find Australia such a depraved and sinful country,why are they not living in a Muslim country,free from such evils?

Good on you Arjay.
I think you have said it well; when you said (If Nayeefa and Irfan find Australia such a depraved and sinful country,why are they not living in a Muslim country,free from such evils?)
Now, please excuse my ignorance, and I have no real idea who these groups of people are, BUT, it doesn't matter who they are, I strongly believe that if persons, or groups of persons, dont like the Australian way of life, then they ought to find somewhere else to visit, or live.
I'm an Aussie, of many generations. I like it here. Others come, and either criticise our way of life, or wish to impose their own 'ethnic' culture, or way of life upon us.

Accept us as we are, or GO AWAY.

This is Australia - we like it like this.

If you dont like our way, then stay away! (Sounds like the basis of a song there somewhere, eh?

Note; I have been admonished by the moderator for using too many exclamation marks - sorry, but these are necessary to emphasise the relevant point - is there REALLY a need to constrain one so?

Cheers all.

Of course, it does not matter, Aussiefella, who people are as long as they used to dirty cash in hand works only and they do not pretend on anything professional supposed in Australia for a higher race of Anglo-Aussie fellas.

(First part):

Respected readers,

Peace be with you.

I planned initially to refrain from commenting on the thread as I left it to the readers to decipher whether or not it was possible for the Mossies to remain true blue Aussies. Clearly, however, it seems I have failed to communicate my message – after all, English is my second language.

Frankly speaking, the individuals I think most highly of come from U.S.A., Australia, U.K. and other parts of the world. My friends who I admire the most are from agnostic, Christian, Jewish and Muslim backgrounds. I have been to a number of countries and spent a long time in Australia and Japan. Australia and Japan offer *very* different cultural atmospheres. To be honest, both countries offer cultural elements I found benevolent (e.g. integrity, courtesy, humility, fair treatment of the others etc.). That said, these benevolent cultural elements already formulate a part of the Islamic principles. That’s what I actually attempted to express – “[t]he perceived clash between the Islamic and Western values is a fallacy.”

(Last part - continued from part 1):

In my article, I have mentioned about the land of Arabia where female infants used to be buried alive. Does that mean that I am implying all Arabs are barbaric? By no means! I am simply trying to say that the principles Islam promotes may not be compatible with *some* social mores of a region – be it Arabia or Australia.

I believe I wouldn’t be inaccurate to state that the youth culture of alcoholism, gambling, pornography and drug addiction does exist in Australia. I think I did furnish a reference in my article to back my statement. However, to cite anther reference, drink driving is the factor in more than one-in-four cases of all fatal crashes in country areas in NSW. The Federal Government-funded study on pornography in Australia reveals that “[t]he amount of porn that's distributed suggests the idea of the porn consumer as deviant doesn't add up, otherwise you'd have to say large numbers of Australians are deviant.” (Amy Lawson, The Sun-Herald, July 27 2003). Almost 30,000 Australians participated in the 2004 National Drug Strategy household survey, conducted by the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW), at the request of the Australian Government Department of Health. According to the survey, 38 percent of Australians (i.e. more than one-third of the populace) aged 14 years and over admitted using an illicit drug.

Personally, I do consider myself as an Australian, an insider, that is. In the past, I had made crtical remarks about customs practiced in Bangladesh where I was born and bred, as I always believed that self-criticism comes first. Naturally, I don’t think any differently when it comes to Australia. Hope I have gotten my message across clearer.

Nayeefa

The 'clash of cultures' is simply the politics of fear created by certain 'coalition of the killing' to justify their behaviour in the Middle East.

The level of potential conflict is the same as between Christian and secular Australians.

You were brave to publish your article. Don't let the muslim-bashers indicate that the majority of Australians are hostile, intolerant and ignorant. Some of us are really OK and just try to get along, like humans do.

Regards

How about answering a query Irfan,why did you and other Muslims come here? Did you come because you wanted a better life that Australia and AUSTRALIANS have provided and who, though far gone with alcoholism,gambling, pornography and the rest of the bad ways, need to learn by example from the moralistic,pious muslims.
You parade your piety, your women so overdressed in hijabs,veils,chaddors and all the rest of the stuff, as a desirable way to live. We find your ways stifling of any humanity, lacking in any art, literature or any of the things that make us human. You would force your sterile,rigid,unhumorous religion on us given the chance.
You would turn this prosperous, humane nation into something that follows the poor third world countries you left. We will not have it
,we do not want your ways, your religion or your traditions.
No matter how super moralistic you appear to be.We enjoy life too much to want to be like you people.

Mickjo,

Do not use the word 'we'

You do not speak for me, and you never will

Nayeefa, your point is made. Thanks for your attempt to discuss these issues.

If you are stuggling to understand why your comment "There is no doubt that there are some elements in Islam that stand in stark contrast to the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction." has featured so heavily can I suggest that you turn it around and rewrite for personal review a version that goes something like

"There is no doubt that there are some elements in Australian culture that stand in stark contrast to the Islamic practices of (add stereotype images here used by the worst of your detractors)"

Most of the claims that your enemies make are true for some who would call themselves muslim, but I'm guessing that you might find the completed sentence as annoying as some of us found your original version.

I hope that does reads as a tip to help you check your phrasing rather than an attack.

Cheers
R0bert

mikijo, if you read my biography on my Online Opinion profile, you'll see I came here when I was 5 months old. I have yet to meet a 5 month old baby who can determine where they live. So I am here because this is where I grew up, went to kindy, went to school and went to university. This is where I have lived for most of my days.

And despite the designs of you and your fellow-travellors, this is where I intend to be buried (unless, of course, you want me to be burnt to a crisp in an oven just as your ideological colleagues did to the Jews in Europe 60 years ago).

Perhaps, mikijo, you can advise why you came here. And given that you hate Australia's multicultural status quo so much, what are you still doing here?

Another thing mickjo,

I couldn't help but laugh when you said 'we enjoy life' you obviously don't enjoy life, you spend your time on internet forums saying how much you dislike 'dem ragheads', you are obviously a miserable hate filled indivdual.

I much prefer people like Nayeefa and Irfran in my country than the likes of you.

A fair enough response, Irfan. Your profile shows you as 'Aussie' as anyone and with a bit of flavour.

Nayeefa you seem genuine, but you are hopelessly lost in naive arguments you have been indoctrinated into believing.

Drug addiction? More than a third of Irans rural male population is addicted to opium and hashish smoking is probably more rampant in Middle Eastern cultures than it is here. Most of the world's heroin comes from Afghangistan, heck, Hezbollah make methamphetamine and heroin in the Bekaa valley. The Koran may prohibit alcohol, but not marijuana or opium (I am aware there are fatwas to the contrary).
There are far more people dying on the roads of Turkey, Iran and Indonesia than Australia. eg. Turkey's accident rates are 3-6 times above that of the EU. Why? Because Muslims believe that they are in Allah's hands, so he will save them from a crash, inshallah, or cause them to die, but it is out of their hands - hence they drive wrecklessly. In fact some silly Islamic organisation in Turkey even attempted to out a pamphlet last year saying that driving is in Allah's hands, dont worry about learning the rules.
There is little correlation between pornography and rape. The highest incidence of rape is in African countries, South Africa being the worst, not in the West, where porn is most freely available. There is far more rape in Pakistan and India than there is in Australia (although that is increasing as the Muslim and African populations increase). It is a cultural issue, and is closely correlated with poverty and lack of education. The antidote are capitalism and democracy, which would raise the standard of living. Of course cultural Westernisation also helps. An interesting issue is that of multiple wives in Islam. I am sure you have heard that wealthy Muslim men from the Gulf states go on holidays to places like India where they marry young girls for a few days to have sex with. Then they divorce and go home to their other wives - all perfectly legal under Sharia. Far more conducive to rape is the niqab and the mysoginist culture of Saudi Arabia. Men, until they are married, are

completely sex starved and get aroused at the mere sight of an arm or an ankle.

Now, how about the fact that the Koran instructs men to beat their wives? How about the fact that Muhammad personally stoned at least 2 people to death for adultery? Clearly a person who holds Muhammad to be perfect and the Koran to be the perfect word of Allah must think these things are ok.(the stoning verse may be abrogated, but the command holds, with several Hadiths to back it) But they are incompatible with Australian culture. Many other examples can be sited. Therefore I do not see how a person who thinks that Muhammad is perfect and the Koran is the unaltered word of God can be compatible with Australian culture.

I can pretty much turn your statement about Australian culture on its head and say Islamic culture is a culture of drug addiction, reckless road fatalities and rape. The instructions of Islam simply do not optimally correlate with human nature. Far from it. Western culture is far from perfect, but capitalism and democracy are far more effective forces for good in the world than Islamism, as can be seen from the most basic objective observation. You may not see yourself as an Islamist, but a blind adherence to Islamic dogma constitutes complicity in that idealogical movement. Currently, although less than 20% of Australia's Muslims can be accused of pursueing an obviously Islamist agenda, more than half are complicit in the movement. Lately Muslim voices of reason are finally emerging and this has been encouraging.

Nayeefa, Islam is undergoing a Reformation. Australian Muslims are some of the most well integrated Muslims in the West and thus have a unique opportunity to spearhead this Reformation. Look outside the dogma you have been tought, objectively. Perhaps you already have. Sure Mossies can be Aussies. But only when they let go the notions that Muhammad was the most perfect human being, that the Koran is perfect uncorrupted instruction from God and that Islam is the one true religion and by extension the perfect political system.

" Personally, I do consider myself as an Australian, an insider, that is. In the past, I had made crtical remarks about customs practiced in Bangladesh where I was born and bred, as I always believed that self-criticism comes first. Naturally, I don’t think any differently when it comes to Australia. "

Dear Nayeefa, Do consider yourself as a muslim woman/girl and make critical remarks about customs/evils practised in Islam, started by Mohammed and spread in all islamic countrries. As you always believed that self-criticism comes first, Naturally, you shouldn't think any different when it comes to Islam. Hope you got my message.

As you love self-criticism, Your role-models should be:

1. Ayaan Hirsi Ali [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayan_Hirsi_Ali]

Hirsi Ali is very critical of the position of women in patriarchal Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery

She criticized Muhammad's moral stature. In January 2003 she told the Dutch paper Trouw, "Muhammad is, seen by our Western standards, a pervert". She referred particularly to the marriage between Muhammad, who was 52 years old, and Aisha, who was nine years old.

She answers:

Do you think it strange that there is a Saddam Hussein? Muhammad is his example. Muhammad is an example for all Muslim men. Do you think it strange that so many Muslim men are violent?


Female genital mutilation, girls dying in child birth because they are too young. The rise of radical Islam is an important part of this. I feel I have the moral obligation to discuss the source. I think if I think you are enriching the debate if you question it, you are not the enemy of Islam. We can look elsewhere using reason to discover answer to these problems, and we do not have to abolish religion. But we must do it by finding a balance

She says : I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission

To Nayeefa, Irfan, & co.,

Popovich states this crucial point worthy of your reply.

"Therefore I do not see how a person who thinks that Muhammad is perfect and the Koran is the unaltered word of God can be compatible with Australian culture."

Our politicians are trying to nail this Islamic malaise with the recent tick a box entry visa to Australia.

It’s a good start BUT Islam cannot and will not change to conform to our fundamental Australian values – except maybe to learn the English language.

1. Democracy (not theocracy)
2. Gender equality
3. Freedom of speech
4. Freedom of religion
5. Monogamy
6. Freedom of marriage (Inter-religion)
7. Freedom of expression (dress)
8. Respect for the authorities
9. Respect of the legal system
10. Separation of church and state

As long as Islamic values contradict and oppose our basic Australian ideals, (it) has no part in our society. Respect must be based on merit not birth rights, or by force.

To allow such a political religious system in our midst is playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

The legitimacy of Islam as a permissible religion must be scrutinised openly. It is not too late (yet) to reverse the damage that is being done due to our gentle approach of this particular group of migrants.

To attach an Aussie tag to this brand of belief does not take the sting out of its social and political destructive potential of our free country.

The so called “moderate” Muslems should decide once and for all their allegiance to their Islamic Umma or to the host society they live in.

To borrow the words of G.W. Bush after the September 11th Islamic act of terror on the US soil: “Are you with us or with the terrorists?”

I say: are you an Aussie or a Mossie? You can’t be both.

I am currently reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "The Caged Virgin", and have almost finished it. Ali is critical of the widespread use of female genital mutilation. However, sadly for her supporters here, she admits it is a tribal practise and isn't supported by Islamic texts.

Also troubling for her new sponsors at the American Enterprise Institute, Ali supports free availaility of abortion. I wonder how that will go down with the FoxNews types in the "land of the free" ...

Irfan, re your reply to mickijo. Am sure there were Jewish people in the 'thirties who couldn't beleive later that what happened in Germany; happened.
Do you remember the film "Ship of Fools"?
I don't believe what has happened in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Darfor, Congo, Nicaragua, El Salvador and other places in our time will happen here either, but don't underestimate the damage the rednecks are capable of, just the same.
Seriously.
As for Nayeefa, I'd love to sit down and have a listen to your impressions of different parts of the world and life in general. You'd be worth fifty of the drongos who infest blogs like these across Australia.

YngNLuvnIt, Your entitled to your opinion of me, after all you can only judge by what I write and that's fine by me. I concentrate on monotheism, because it's the major problem in the world at this time. If it were atheists, Hindu, Buddhists, Jedi Knight, dimensionalists, or any other ideology then I would be hounding them, for their unevolved barbarity towards life on this planet of all kinds.

I spent a lot of my life preaching biblical crap, until I got to see and understand what was really written. By whom, the time frames, the historical and geographic facts. I couldn't care how many factors are destroying the world its your belief in Yahweh leading the way to destruction, with increasing zeal.

If monotheism of any faction was truly peaceful then irrelevant as to what I think of it, I would support and applaud it. As I do anything having decent results for all and not just a few self-centred fools fighting each other all the time.

Nayeefa, along with all commenting monotheists on this thread only show a desire to be right, irrelevant as to how the sane people of the world see their religious expressions that try to enforce dress, customs, laws, morals and violence upon us, whilst trying to look cool.

Monotheists can't concede any part of their beliefs may be wrong, as its so fragile in its veracity, any accepted chink, will bring the entire delusion crashing down. That's why the followers of god can never be trusted, unlike unbelievers they have everything to lose.

So you can never be a mossie and an Aussie, nor a true christian, Jew and be an Aussie,.Your first priority is to your god. To say otherwise is to say your belief isn't strong enough, or your a hypocrite and liar to your god, yourself and everyone else. Sounds typically monotheistic.

Well said funguy, its good to have equals to communicate with isn't it.

Hi Nayeefa,

I think that we really all need to get over this islam is great, aussies are sluts mentality. It saddens me to see that this sentiment is still prominant in how islamic people percieve "true blue" aussies to be.

"There is no doubt that there are some elements in Islam that stand in stark contrast to the Australian pop-culture of pornography, gambling, alcoholism, and drug addiction."

You complain in your article that people stereotype muslims to be suicide bombers, war hungry jihad crazy villians that are against the western world, yet you make stupid misguided generalisations about western cutlure such as the quote above. This article was nothing more than a in-direct sale into the pureness of Islam vs the "harram" driven culture of Aussies. Why do you bother honestly? Do you even know many "aussies"? Most of my friends happen to be Australians and guess what? None of the are junkies, alcoholics or obsessed with playboy magazines. In fact they are all university educated and doing quite well in life.

You cant just take a few rednecks from a current affair, or a hand full of "aussies" from sydney's poverty stricken western suburbs and genralise the whole population to be the same. Who are you or any muslim to say that Islam is the pure perfect way of life and other cultures are just infested with wrong values and morales?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming alcohol responcibly. Just because it is not apart of your culture / religion / hadith scriptures, doesnt mean its wrong. Likewise with drugs (of which Aussie soceity itself frowns upon, not the other way around). Nuditity is something that most western cultures have gotten over along time ago! No offence, but if we didnt get over nutidy then please explain to me how doctors would perform surgery on diening patients?...

cont...

Now some of the anti-islam posts are a touch over the top here, but your condesending article on Australian culture is very uncalled for. No one is stopping you from you beliefs, if you wish to quitely think that your beliefs are the pinnacle of good values and Australians are nothing more than drug addicted "sluts" then by all means keep it to yourself. But dont come on a public forum and stereotype / insult Australian culture in a tone that suggests islam could never adhere to such disgusting values, consider stepping across to islam and your life will be saved.

Your just as bad as the Australians that look at the hijab and start yelling our terrorist! We don't need anymore martyr's preaching the goodness of god, everyone here knows what religion is, if they wish to adhere to it, then im sure by now they would have! I would also like to add that if Australian culture is a little too much to bear, if you feel the corruption of Aussie "values" is an insult to your beliefs, I hear plane tickets back to india are on special!

Funnily enough, one of my best friends is also bhangladeshi and quite religious at that, and not once since I have known her has she ever tried to soft sell me islam or put down Australian culture / grossy exagerate austrlaian culture to such contraversial depths. I really think you need to "get out a little more" if this is the backwards, narrow minded, misguided perception you have of "aussies".

There is such opinion existing broadly:

"Reality is no deal with them [islamists] possible.

Convincing them is unthinkable.

Communicating tolerantly-suicidal.

Those thinking differently are self-betraying."

Oriana Fallacci

Kish has put this so much better than I did, I went over the top and I apologise for any real offence.
But it is the sheer hypocrisy that we get pushed down our throats about how MORAL Islam is when everyday somewhere in the world, Islamists are killing,killing,killing, even their own co religionists.
And the sheer barbarity of some Islamic practices are horrifying. Yet we still get ,'how moral Islam is'

"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities,but the influence of the religion paralyses the social developement of those who follow it, no stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

That also say it.
Winston Churchill in a speech in 1899.

(Part 1 of four parts):

Kish:

I feel hurt to have hurt your feelings. Please accept my most sincere apologies, and I did not mean to say, to the least, that “aussie” culture is a s**t culture. I request you to kindly read through my previous posts on this thread where I have tried to explain my position.

R0bert:

Thank you for your advice! I appreciate any constructive criticism. Good that how things have turned out though – it has served as a lesson for me as to how to communicate thoughts more effectively.

As a matter of fact, I was trying to discuss what values Islam and Australia held in common, and what aspects of the two were mutually exclusive. My first half of the essay discusses about the common values both Australia and Islam promotes. In the following sections, I was trying to focus on the mutually exclusive aspects of the two. I couldn’t possibly mention about sports, for Islam does not discourage the spirit of sports. I couldn’t bring the topics of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, or honour killing, for Islam endorses none of these. Mohammed, the last prophet of Islam, was fiercely opposed to forced marriages. I couldn’t bring up the topic of misogyny, for the contextual reading of the Koran (as opposed to a literalistic reading) reveals a profoundly liberating ethos as regards women’s rights and status. So, the only way in which I could possibly draw a contrast between Islamic principles and *some* social practices rampant in the Australian society was what I mentioned in my article.

I understand I should have structured my words in a different and more meaningful way. Perhaps, I should have made it clear in the concluding section that I am perfectly happy to be an Aussie Mossie. There arises no question of overriding loyalty, for the Australian constitution does not coerce me to attend pubs during the weekends or go on a date with my neighbour’s hubby.

(Part 2 of four parts):

Mercurius:

Thanks for your posts! Responding to your query, to the best of my understanding, I would certainly agree with the Pakistani Muslim you met in Malaysia.

You see, the Sharia Law is not a single ‘law’ to be found in any book; rather it is a concept which has been manifested in a variety of different ways and contexts. The core elements of the Sharia Law during the early dynamic phase of Islam constituted an interlocking of the positive law (i.e. God’s Law) and natural law (i.e. the exercise of our inherent cognitive capacity, namely reasoning). Perhaps you may like to browse through another essay of mine that slightly touches on the topic of Sharia (http://members.optusnet.com.au/nayeefa/HumanRights).

I am not an expert on Sharia Law, however. I am still studying and plan to gain some knowledge on this subject by 2009, God willing. Before that, I would hesitate to discuss about Sharia, for I try not to discuss topics without gaining at least a minimum amount of knowledge on the subject matter.


Obozo:

Thank you for your advice. While you may happily read Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lied on her Dutch asylum application, please don’t forget to add Lamartine or Bosworth Smith to your library: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?” Lamartine, Histoire De La Turquie, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports."
Bosworth Smith, Mohammad and Mohammadanism, London, 1874, p. 92.

BOAZ_David:

(Part 3 of four parts):

BOAZ_David:

Would you mind if I made a guess? You have a “Koran Combat Kit” at home, don’t you? Guess what, I was given a “Bible Combat Kit”, too, long time ago. I don’t use the kit at all for fear that I might quote things totally out of context and annoy my Christian brethren. Perhaps, the “Bible Combat Kit” may as well carry heaps of misinformation, who knows. I wouldn’t dare discussing about the Bible without having to read them through from A to Z.

Just some food for thought for you: What would you think of a text that dedicates a whole chapter (titled Mary, chapter no. 19) attesting to the purity of virgin Mary and the miraculous nature of the birth of Jesus (peace be upon them)? The Koran has unequivocally raised the status of blessed Mary and set her as a role model, “an example and a sign for all humankind”. Wouldn’t you be surprised that the only woman to be specifically named in the Koran is Mary and *not* any of Mohammed’s wives? You may like to browse through the site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jondel/Virgin_Mary_in_Islam

(Last part of four parts):

Boaz_David (contd...):

Are you aware of the fact that the Koran attests to the true prophethood of Biblical prophets (almost all of whom, incidentally, were polygamous anyway)? What would you think of such a text then? That it has come from satan? Or God? Whatever you may think of Islam, take a moment to ponder over what I mentioned, please. Would you mind if I recommended a couple of books for you to read?

“The Message of the Quran” (A translation, with explanatory notes, authored by Muhammad Asad), and “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Source” by Martin Lings (perhaps you’ll have a better idea of how many wives Mohammed had and how many underage women Mohammed married).

Anyway, if you still insist on using the “Koran Combat Kit”, then, this thread shouldn’t be used to discuss and prove the infallibility of the Koran or the prophethood of Mohammed. I have your email address here on this thread, jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au isn’t it. I will email you as soon as my “Bible Combat Guru” arrives from Nigeria and invite you both for dinner – I am sure he’ll love to have a chat with you. How does that sound? Meanwhile, you are most welcome to attend the following show:
http://www.allahmademefunny.com/calendar.html

To *all* commentators:

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in the discussion. I’d love to respond to each of you, but unfortunately I’m limited with time and space on OLO. Besides, Ramadan is knocking at the door and I’ll have to start making preparations for this. So, I am sorry to say that this would be my last post on this thread.

Peace be with you!

Hi Nayeefa,

your reaction to pope's comments? hope he is a hitler to you. iran's prez is 'buddha' for you. am I right?

To say that the somali born muslim woman is a liar shows your mentality. she was not only mutilated and suffered, but she is facing death from moderate & non-moderate muslims. The fact that you show no sympathy to her speaks volumes.

Theo Gough was her friend. He was brutally murdered for doing a film on Oppression of women in Islam. Before he did that movie, he did blasphemous articles on christianity. Many got offended but none threatened him or did violence on him. But, as he did that movie on islam, he was brutally murdered by a devout muslim.

Do you like it?

: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?”

Nayeefa, What! Mohammad is the greatest man in modern history??..Yes in murder, in violence, in taking wives as young as 6 yr old.

You may think that mohammad is the greatest man for you, but he isn't for me nor for the rest of the non-muslim world. The greatest man at the moment is Charles Babbage or Bill Gates. Without their efforts, you may not be writing your mo-praising articles here on Online opinion forum. got it?

The Qur'anic description of man and woman in marriage: "They are your garments/ and you are their garments" (Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 187) implies closeness, mutuality, and equality. However, Muslim culture has reduced many, if not most, women to the position of puppets on a string, to slave-like creatures whose only purpose in life is to cater to the needs and pleasures of men.

Despite everything that has gone wrong with the lives of countless Muslim women down the ages due to patriarchal Muslim culture, there is hope for the future. There are indications from across the world of Islam that a growing number of Muslims are beginning to reflect seriously upon the teachings of the Qur'an as they become disenchanted with capitalism, communism and western democracy. One can only reflect on the obvious flaws in all three areas if any even handed criticism is to be applied.

A prerequisite for authentic peace can only occur with elimination of the inequities, inequalities, and injustices that pervade the personal and collective lives of human beings, it is otherwise not possible to talk about peace in Qur'anic terms. Here, it is of importance to note that there is more Qur'anic legislation pertaining to the establishment of justice in the context of family relationships than on any other subject. This points to the assumption implicit in much Qur'anic learning, namely, that if human beings can learn to order their homes justly so that the human rights of all within its jurisdiction - children, women, and men - are safeguarded, then they can also order their society and the world at large, justly. In other words, the Qur'an regards the home as a microcosm of the "ummah" and the world community, and emphasizes the importance of making it "the abode of peace" through just living. The disintegration of “family” held values within Western culture leaves a vacuum that true Qur’anic thinking can aptly fill.

Mickijo,

I’d question your quote from Winston Churchill:

"Individual Muslims 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."

In reply I’d quote London School of Economics Professor Fred Halliday:

“… it confuses cause and effect: Arab society and much of the Muslim world are not dictatorial, authoritarian or intellectually paralysed because of religion, but the other way around – it is the existence, for other reasons, of such states and societies that produces a paralysed religion.”

- “100 Myths about the Middle East”, 2005, p 165.

It is very tempting, in my view, to see the current crisis with Islamist terrorism as being purely the product of a paralysed ideology rather than looking more broadly at the history, which includes Western imperialism and colonialism in the Middle East, along with other factors which have produced the societies which have given rise to these ideologies.

Islam is not as inherently rigid and monolithic as some of its critics suggest. There are traditions of “ijtihad” – the open and critical interpretation of sacred texts, and the principles in Islamic theology of classifying Koranic texts as “nasikh” – those which prevail - and “mansukh” – those which are prevailed over.

I don’t for a moment want to minimize the enormous challenge that Islam faces in maintaining its relevance in the modern world, or in a society like Australia’s. Perhaps it can't. But nor should we be took quick to dismiss it as outdated or inherently intellectually defunct. (And I write this as a proud secular humanist!)

Actually, Tony Abbott made some interesting remarks on Friday night. He said he could understand why Muslim males become resentful when the people who tell them to respect women come from the same culture which objectifies women in its popular culture. He said that proponents of western culture often display hypocrisy.

Tony Abbott speaks about these issues with far more respect than the monocultural troll-minority that hog these forums. I think that is because Mr Abbott knows what it's like to be maligned for holding unfashionable views on religion and morality.

Irfan, I've respected what you have to say mostly, but

“Tony Abbott speaks about these issues with far more respect than the monocultural troll-minority that hog these forums. I think that is because Mr Abbott knows what it's like to be maligned for holding unfashionable views on religion and morality.”

Abbot's a useless monotheist, just like you, referring to everyone posting here, as “monocultural troll-minority” shows the depth ignorance and arrogance of your infantile understanding of reality. The only unfashionable views on religion and morality, comes from you and Abbots ilk. The majority are sick to death of your moronic suppressive way of life.

Your belief in the despotic Yahweh and ignoring the reality of what following that belief is doing to the planet, is true monoculture. I understand your emptiness, other than being an enslaved clone of a barbaric god, Yahweh.

You rave about how your Australian, yet you forcible try to impose your primitive ways upon others. Your about as Australian as Boaz and co, traitors to the peace and harmony of the world. Your Koran's as plagiarised as the bibles and just as lacking in veracity. I couldn't care if your prophet had 500 wife's, just shows how inadequate a man he was. Nor whether Jesus was resurrected, if any of you had half a brain you'd be more interested in saving this planet from the assured mutual destruction all your despotic factions are driving us to.

Sadly like all clones, you see only illusion, you couldn't care less for Australia nor could Nayeefa, Boaz,.coach, or any following the same path as you. All you care about is being right and finding ways to enforce it. If religious war came to this country, all of you would support your factional belief before Australia. To say or do otherwise, is to show yourself as being hypocrites and cowards. The quicker your god gets you all of the earth the quicker we can have peace.

Nayeefa,

I thought that these forums were exactly the place to discuss points of view - especially when the one making the points is following and endorsing a dangerous false religion that is threatening us as a society.

The points I really would like to discuss here are:

1. is mohammad a real prophet?
2. is the qur'an really divine revelation?
3. is Allah the same as the God of the Bible?
4. based on the above is Islam a true religion?

You don't need a Combat Kit or a Super Guru to examine and see the flagrant evidencial differences comparing the two books - complete distortions of biblical facts.

You can mention Mary, Jesus, Abraham and Moses - but so could anyone else.

Until you are able to take the heat of critical analysis of your beliefs - there will be no improvement in the way the rest of the free world look upon you.

If your religion is so pure and beyond compare - well prove it.

Words are not enough - you need to take some honesty tests and compare both your texts and revelations to the Bilblical texts and its revelations.

Saying that the Qur'an superceeds the bible ain't enough.

Coach,

Please read Alchemist posting above.

Alchemist,

Good comment.

Now this is only a rumour, but I heard that the Pope posts on OLO.

He uses the moniker "Coach".

You heard it here first.

;0)

Fellow_Human,

Are you so desperate now that you must rely on Alchemist - of all posters - for protection?

How about answering my challenge above?

As a muslem you should be able to provide some evidence for your religion - don't you?

Hypothetically speaking - If you had to register Islam as a new religion today in Australia - What concrete evidence would you supply? how could you dissociate yourself from active muslem terrorists - or are they a different breed?

The fact that you worship a god and a man-prophet and a holy book don't necessarely make you a religion.

Jesus Christ was the last messenger from the real God - He fulfilled the law and all the Biblical prophets.

Jesus' dying words on the cross : " It if finished "

God's work for humanity is DONE.

So where does your religion fit in? And why return to the Mosaic laws when salvation is no longer judged by the law? jesus took away our judgement. He is now The Way and The Truth.

Me thinks Islam is unrelated to Christianity - because the Christian God does not lie, or change His mind. (one example: Jesus' crucifiction - Islam says: it never happened!)

Apart for the words of your self-proclaimed prophet - do you have any other back-up proof?

_____________

Very cute Scout - maybe now you could help FH in his research and make yourself useful for Islam.

Fellow_Human, Irfan, Nayeefa, Flu, Tao

The reaction to Pope's comments:

Iraqi jihadists issued a video showing a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.

The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to 'shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home.'

In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life."

Sister Leonella Sgorbati, 66, was shot four times as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu

Early in the day in Iran, powerful cleric Ahmad Khatami told theological students in the holy city of Qom that if there was no apology, 'Muslims' outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks.

'The Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam.'

In London demonstrators outside the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral carried placards saying 'May Allah Curse the Pope' and 'Trinity of Evil: Christian Crusade Against Islam'.

The demonstrators also carried signs that aimed at offending the religious sentiments of Christians by suggesting that 'Jesus will raise the sword of Islam' and 'Jesus is the slave of Allah'.

I love Islam. It is indeed a Religion of Peace. How can I convert to Islam?

Coach,

Accepting each other and co-existence means that I accept you and your rights even if your faith does not make sense to me. I explained that in plain English and yet you seem to struggle with it.
Crucifix is a religious content that you believe in. It doesn’t make sense to me and many other religions (including the Judeo part of the “Judeo-Christian” term). Yet I accept and will defend your right to practise it and don’t judge. Get it?
So far you are unable to reciprocate.

BTW, your ‘applied ignorance’ of Islam is amazing, Muslims don’t worship Mohamed. The Qu’ran refers to him as ‘just a prophet’. If you are into theology you need to read some more.

Hi Scout,

By the way I believe the pope comments were taken out of context to create a media bubble. Although one would think that feeding half a billion starving Catholics in Latin American should be more important than talking about us.

Coach, are you sure you are not him? His holiness? :):)
Last joke before Ramadan:)

Have a peaceful day,

Nayeefa and Coach, ...... why do some people decide to embrace totalistic "belief systems" which ironically take away their freedom to choose? i.e. It's hard for me to understand how a modern women could embrace such a misogynistic nightmare. Apparently for some, this abdication is preferable to a true and deep confrontation with their existential pain, uncertainty, and fear of death. However, just observe, open your eyes and see that men who rely on an ancient book to justify their insecurity and codify their domination of women are villainous and incapable of understanding women on equal terms. Women who value themselves enough should stay away from these women-hating supstitious mind viruses because they all share this view of truth as revealed, rather than observed or discovered. This approach to belief is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology.

On this matter of belief, when we hear someone say "believe in the power of faith", are they not saying believe in belief? LOL Never is the connection between thought and action considered because where is the need reinforced with an effective assessment of the situation, strategy, and the appropriate action to be taken? If the subconscious message is one of "simply believe, and it will be so." then this is nothing more than a cultural codification of ancient magical thinking, a solipsistic dream, a drug, a mind virus and its implied corollary is "don't think negative thoughts, you might cause bad things to happen".

Because for many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts, we need to learn to distinguish the two.... and it is that simple. Just state the role of bringing your mind and perception as close as possible to apprehension of the physical reality we all inhabit ... i.e. the world that IS. When it comes to the nature of reality, if we want truth, we absolutely must not preconceive but just open our eyes and OBSERVE ........ because understanding and accepting that all causes and phenomena are natural is really not so far-fetched.

Of course, you are spot on F_H, the pope WAS taken out of context - unlike Coach - couldn't resist having a little fun though.

Humour is the best medicine.

Even though I do not follow any formal religion and people like Coach will ensure that I never do,

I wish you a happy ramadan.

Nayeefa,

Thank you for your apology, though unnecesary as you did not hurt my feelings. I have read your posts and it is from these that I have constructed my opinion. Unfortunatly your responce was only one sentance in length and hardly offered any explanation as to where my opinion of your post has been misguided. When you give evidence of statistics that demostrate australia has a youth drinking problem, drug problem, etc and then suggest that this "aussie pop culture" is in direct contrast to teachings of islam; then one does feel as though you look at this "supposed" aussie culture in a condensending manner.

I would love to see statistics of every muslim country about youth drinking, drugs, etc. Why do I get the feeling that such statistics do not exist / are hardly credible. What disturbs me more is that statistics or no statistics your perception of Aussie culture about abusing drugs, alcohol and sex is absolute nonesense. Like I said before and I re-itterate, how many Aussie friends do you have to make such a claim? Furthermore, why is drinking alcohol bad? Just because it is not apart of your culture why must it then be branded "evil". Either way you are entitiled to your beliefs and I wish you a great ramadan.

coach and others,

I think it is a bit dissapointing that this whole debate has turned into a battle of religions, when it really should be about defending what truely is "aussie culture". Being Australian I think it is quite offensive for Nayeefa or anytone else for that matter to suggest that aussie culture is one plagued with drugs, alcohol and sluts. I also believe that one shouldn't like nayeefa suggest that any cultural values that dont adhere to their own are wrong. Debate islam all you wish, but don't take the same "if its not christian or whatever religion I believe in, then it must be wrong" approach.

You missed gambling,kish.

Is undersigning to these values is a part of new visa / citizenship rules?

MichaelK

hahahaha how could I forget gambling! If muslims or any prejudice immigrants / ethnic minority have actually bothered to visit a casino, they would realise that many more asians gamble than aussies. I dont believe there is a question that insists you follow these "cultural norms" to fit into society. However there must be a clause that states:

"ethnic minorities must only assimilate with people of their own culture and in doing so must make prejudice conclucions about mainstreame aussie culture based on second rate media shows like A Current Affair and over dramatised stereotypes. By doing this, ethnic minorities can still be a minortiy yet feel as though their cultural values are superior to that of the majority giving them ample reason to never assimilate with the majority and have a chip on their shoulder again the majority"

Now naturally this above clause is not followed by all, but it is a common sentiment I have noticed amongst quite a number of ethnic minorities who I would like to think in todays array of cultures would regard themselves as apart of the "mixed majority" (i.e. Aussie). Unfortunatly they wouldn't lower themselves to be apart of the "majority". When you ask such people why they reside in Australia, they respond by pointing out that they "hate aussies but love the country". By no means am I directing this post to nafeeya or anyone else on this forum, its just an observation that I am getting rather sick of witnessing.

Nayeefa

you say:

"the Sharia Law is not a single ‘law’ to be found in any book; rather it is a concept which has been manifested in a variety of different ways and contexts. ..."

and later:

"I am not an expert on Sharia Law,..."

Can I suggest that you have indicated the core of a serious problem for us infidels.

You are obviously a peace loving person and presumably your sharia law is a peaceful concept.

But what about abu baku bashir,(apologies to abu for spelling) who hopes to introduce the most barbaric practices, which he claims to be sharia law, into the Indonesian legal system? Similarly the Saudi Immams.

Whose concept do we infidels believe?

Would like to integrate your peaceful version into the Australian legal system?

If you can sort this out and communicate it clearly to the rest of us, you will be doing a great service to your community.

Thanks for providing the topic.

Kish , I hardly believe that “must be a clause that states:

"ethnic minorities must only assimilate with people of their own culture and in doing so must make prejudice conclucions about mainstreame aussie culture based on second rate media shows like A Current Affair and over dramatised stereotypes”, because minorities are being effectively locked in ghettos by being denied employment outside “own communities”, by a “mainstream” majority.

Nayeefa,

To your rhetorical and laughable conclusion that "Islam tells you to become.... serious about life... help make the world a better place...",

Please explain the deeds of suicide bombers in relation to such supposed teachings in Islam.

.