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.