Irfan’s ‘excuse to wage a cultural revolutionary war which seeks to replace decades of liberal democratic consensus ….’, sidesteps the fact that those mere decades of mushy, dangerous and wet liberal introduction – without consensus – of multiculturalism resulted from ‘Soviet-style’ social engineering and manipulation.

The piddling few decades of what we have been suffering is the real aberration – the overturning of millennia of natural distribution of cultures.

‘Will the complete integration of all minority groups ensure security risks are minimised?’ asks Irfan. This is a strange question from someone who doesn’t believe in integration; one who knows full well that the whole idea of multiculturalism is the antithesis of integration; one who knows that people from different cultures are encouraged not to integrate, and refuse to integrate.

There is some truth in Irfan’s criticism of a belief in a ‘monolithic’ Islamic culture in so far as not all Muslims are necessarily a security threat. But all Muslims have the one Koran, and for anyone to say that the Koran doesn’t deal with death, darkness, hatred and revenge is just plain silly. Until Muslims stop denying the really nasty bits about Islam, and just keep repeating that Islam means love, they will continue to make fools of themselves and not be taken seriously.

Yes. There is the Christian Old Testament. But Christians, unlike Muslims, have adapted to modern times, and we haven’t noticed too many Christian terrorists around lately.

For someone who, rightly, often points out that many different cultures adhere to Islam, Irfan seems to drop the ball in his 9th paragraph: ‘if culture and terror were related’. There are many different cultures in Australia in the ethnic sense. The only people alleged to have plotted terrorist acts in Australia, the only people who make lots of noise as ‘victims’ of terrorist legislation, are Muslims. More blurring of the culture/religion issue, as are references to the ‘Muslim community’.

Only when all people here see and project themselves as Australians first and keep their religions to themselves, will any progress be made

I’m glad you mentioned values Irfan because they can be the basis to unite rather than form a collision of differing beliefs. John Howard is probably quite narrow in his understanding of foreign culture – for you to be politically astute, however, you must realise he presents the view of many, if not, most Australians. It’s probably a little poor in the PR department to show little understanding of a democratically elected leader in one’s host country. He’s not necessarily a popular politician but more a ‘safe’ one.

Political correctness states we should be multi-cultural - what it doesn’t state are the underlying values or more importantly the structures that ensure it isn’t merely a pipe dream. It certainly doesn’t come about by ‘dumping’ people of varying beliefs and background together. As with intermarriage, it’s often not natural to tradition – but quite achievable and normal in a secular state.

I believe Australia does have the cultural maturity and innate values to absorb differing cultures – including Islam. We are both generally egalitarian in view (or theory), not always so in practice. As you state, a generation previous to you were more suppressive of women. Your change of view or attitude is co-incidental to our long acquired Australian values – which can either be eroded or reinforced. We must ensure our values, whether adopted or otherwise, are not merely skin-deep

Again in true Irfan style all are to blame but the culprits themselves.

Comparing Islam terrorism to other universal acts of terror does not bring any solace tothe fact that 9/11 was a Muslem plot orchestrated and financed by the militant Muslems of the world.

The fact that Irfan does not condemn islamic terrorism speaks louder than his attempts to shift the buck to the PM, his treasurer, multiculturalism, marxism, the cold war, the Armenians, the Catholics,... well anyone and anything but the source of Islamic terror which is Islam itself.

Islam as a religion evolved from the inability of its founder and self-proclaimed prophet to adapt in his social environment. Intolerance to any other religion, creed, race, even the female gender, found their way into what has become the unchaegable word of Allah.

If Irfan is fair dinkum about Islamic cultural integration - apart from a prior miraculous intervention from the real God that may convert all muslems out of islam - he better show us how he intends to change the very heart of his religious creeds of flagrant intensions for world domination...?

"We have sent down the Qur'an to confirm and as a safeguard to previous scritures (bible)..." Q 5:52

"Islam is to prevail over all religions..." holy Qur'an 9:33

With such assurances from the Qur'an who needs attackers?

Islamic attrocities are in accord with the teaching of their Qur'an, their god Allah, their prophet, and their teachers (Imams).

In the Qur'an, to be a terrorist is part and parcel of beeing a good muslem. To be peaceful is equivalent to weakness and cowardness.

Who needs to quote the Koran, when simply quoting Muslim leaders who live in the West or a look at Muslim survey results is sufficient to show that a large proportion of Muslims resist integration and pursue fascistic Islamist dreams.

from "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims", an essay by Fjordman:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&sid=433&file=article&pageid=1

* Omar Ahmad, the long-serving chairman of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

* a survey revealed that 81% of Detroit Muslims wanted sharia in Muslim countries. Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee, warned that mainstream US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists. These “extremist organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership” over American Islam. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence,” Barsky said.

* The northern Virginia-based Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) might easily be taken for a benign student religious group. At a meeting in Queensborough Community College in New York in March 2003, a guest speaker named Faheed declared, “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it ... Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.”

* Imam Siraj Wahaj, who In 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress also warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has lamented that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

* Muslim Ambassadors to the Czech Republic from Arab nations and members of the Czech Muslim community were outraged by a documentary aired on ÄŒTV

that used hidden camera footage of conversations in a Prague mosque. The footage showed a reporter pretending to be someone interested in converting to Islam. One of members of the mosque said Islamic law should be implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery. “The result was alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage,” the journalist said.

* An Arabic-speaking journalist had on several occasions visited a large mosque in Stockholm, and noticed that what the imam said in his speech in Arabic didn’t match the Swedish translation. “America rapes Islam,” imam Hassan Mousa roared in Arabic. Minutes later the Swedish translation was ready. Not a word on how America was raping Islam.

* Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, has said in public that there’s a war going on between the West and Islam, and that Islam will win. “We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.” “Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.” He claimed that “our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.” He loosely defined “Western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-Islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, Krekar claimed.

*In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

I have read Irfan's post several times and I can only come to the conclusion that the trouble with Muslims in Australia is that they constantly draw attention to their tantrums so indicative of small children demanding, demanding.
Why does no week go by that there is not some misdeed,some complaint by or against Muslims, no other culture here makes as much fuss or claims as do the Muslims.
Truth is that most Australians are heartily fed up with these poor type immigrants.
Maybe there has been Muslim immigration before but we never had such a malcontented lot before. Those who arrived earlier just got on with it, now everytime two Muslims get together ,there goes another Association to demand new privileges.
Give it a rest.

Here are few words, from two very different people, which could sum up the problems for Muslims in Australia:

‘THE founder of Australian mobile phone giant Crazy John's has attacked "self-appointed" Muslim leaders, accusing them of destroying his community's progress, and questioning their allegiance to this country.’

‘John Ilhan, one of the nation's most successful Muslims, yesterday blamed many first-generation community members for being opposed to Western ideals and cultural diversity, and accused them of "conditioning" their children to follow in their footsteps.’

The 41-year-old entrepreneur, who at the age of five migrated to Australia from Turkey with his parents, said he often distanced himself from community politics because he found the "older folk" difficult to deal with.
"I've always known that what we've lacked in Australia is leadership in our community and that's why I don't get involved much with them, because (their) egos tend to get in the way," Mr Ilhan said.
"Australia is a very diverse country and the problem with Muslims in this country, most of them, especially the old folk, is they don't believe in diversity. They say (they do) but they actually don't get involved (in wider community activities)." (The Australian, 24/8/06)

And:

‘“Here, as in Britain and the US, Muslim organisations have deliberately installed themselves as permanent aliens and adapted a culture of constant carping about the majority, from whom they maintain their isolation with such bitter determination.” (Piers Ackerman 3/9/06)

This article seems to be in the same vein as the mantra that we hear so often that Muslims are being profiled in security matters.
Of course they are !
Would you have the security people
spend all or equal time following up Eskimos ?

In this period the major terrorists are moslems.
Thats the way it is, so live with it.
If they don't like it there is an airport at Mascot.
Multiculturism is dead, but a lot of people have not
yet realised it.

Leigh, both your sources come from the Murdoch press which immediatley makes your arguement almost worthless. But anyway, who cares what about bunch of crusty old Muslim men reminiscing about their homeland?

I went to a school where anglo folk like myself are a minority. I met dozens of older migrants who would whinge about Australia, 'no culture, no history, crappy napalese sauce', their kids would whinge about missing out on tickets to the Eminem concert.

I believe if we treat Muslims like dogs, they're gonna react like dogs, so why don't we just back off?

Well said Carl.

Coach.

"Comparing Islam terrorism to other universal acts of terror does not bring any solace tothe fact that 9/11 was a Muslem plot orchestrated and financed by the militant Muslems of the world."

Yes. And Saddam did it too! Let's go invade Iraq to get revenge. Oh wait. We already did.

When will the world learn?

P.S. 9/11 was a government conspiracy plot. No? you disagree? Well those theories are just as legit as the ones you claim somehow involve the Muslims of the world. Yeh sure. And George Bush is a terrorist.

Oh wait. That's a true statement.
I don't think I get how irony and sarcasm works in these examples.

Why is "Islamic terrorism" more evil than other acts of terror?
Why are they referred to as "Universal acts" as if they may as well be "universal values" that are accepted all over the world, while any act by a Muslim/Arab is strictly "Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist Militant Terrorism"? I'm sorry Coach but if you're going to try and indoctrinate us all with your anti-Islam propaganda, at least try to make some sense in the process!

Irfan

This is an excellent analysis. It explains a great deal. It is forward thinking and enlightening to any thinking person.

Keith

As I read the first half dozen or so comments regarding this article I must admit I was getting a tad worried. Is extreme conservatism becoming a majority view, or are they just noisier?... Actually, don't answer. I think it would be noisy.

Anyhow, Irfan sums it up pretty well. What interests me, is what the vehement anti-multiculturalists are proposing.

Do we:

a) ban all muslims from entering Australia? A fifth of the world's population? that'll endear us to them for sure. It's bound to make Australia a safe place.
Of course, that would require excising all the current muslims to be truly effective. People who have been here for generations.
Though what does that matter right? they haven't 'integrated' just how we want them, so out you go?

b) Invite them in, but tell them there's no muslim religion here. Worshipping the jesus-type god is cool and all, we got no beef with the hindu blokes with all the arms either, but Allah's not our cup of tea sorry.
Aside from the fact that religion thrives on oppression, it would simply drive Australian muslims underground. You want a recipe for fundamentalists, there you go.

c) Make em be Christians.
hey! it reeks of the crusades and years of botched colonial efforts, but shucks, everybody should love jesus, cause he's the only real god. Right coach?

Ok. I'm being facetious here. But I get a little sick of all these commentators bashing the Muslim faith on a terrorism basis, who haven't got any ideas as to how we solve this.

As I see it, even if the muslim religion was the problem (and I don't think it is) you can't just make it go away cause you don't like it.

Usual stuff from Irfan.

Leigh, I liked the last paragraph of your first post.

Cheers
Kay

The refusal to integrate that is marry outside of your tribe is the ultimate racism. Its the old black daddy or moslem daddy doesnt want his children to marry white girl and white daddy doesnt want his children to marry black.

The old kings instinctively knew that intermarriage, that is forming biological links was the way to avoid war when they married their sons and daughters off to the children of the King of another country.

Yes religions are tribes because strict religions dont't marry outside of their religions for generations and so they become tribes at the biological level. Religious tribes often mask there racist attitudes towards other tribes behind a smokescreen of religion.

When the Catholics were killing the heretics in early day England they wanted control of England. They couldnt admit to this and still be seen as good religious people, so they called the people they wanted to kill heretics(enemies of God) and killed behind a religious smoke screen. Heretic sounds a lot like Infidel to me.

This Howard "integration" stuff was blown definitively out of the water last week, in Adele Horin's punishing article in the Friday SMH.
He and his government have bent over backwards to sabotage by every means possible, civilised communication with Muslim communities and immigrants. Integration/assimilation programs and even teach-English courses have been gutted,in relation to muslim arrivals. and rather than encouraging a civilised response from the gutter media, he has assiduously dog-whistled the most mindless, hysterical components of it.
Howard has not yielded an inch in his studied hostility. Only traditional scapegoats like the unemployed and aborigines have fared as badly. This adds exponentially to the difficulties of these people settling, yet he then has the cheek to claim he can't understand how a few have not settled well. But, I have always looked forward to the day when Howard qnd his ilk impose the same rigorous demands they make of others upon themselves.
Nor has the harrassment been in the interests of the furphy of "security". Rather, an ignorant and arrogant group of politicians and their supporters have created a "bogy", through a foul and premeditated smear campaign for electoral purposes. So, the parading of the manufactured ideological "bogyman", including an unprincipled smearing of Islamic philosophy and thought and a thousand years of scholarship is as crude as the old "Judenhecht " of feudal Europe. But the stereotypes conjured induce enough fear in a deliberately ill-informed public, that it will vote for precisely those massaging the fear, out of a mistaken idea that such gangsters will "protect" them from what is merely a chimera. In the mean time, the Rules and Spirit of Law and Justice are dismantled to further protect those in power, under the pretext of the imperatives of a bogus "war on terrorism".
I must say I find Irfan's defence of Costello here incomprehensible. This narrow individual, who claims he was brought up by his parents to never tell a lie, has just done such damage to FOI in this country, under the heightened smokescreen of "governance", as to deny him ANY right to future trust.

Funguy

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I believe that only time will reveal the full measure of deceit and corruption that is at the very heart of the Howard regime. Ironically, it is the most religious government that Australia has ever experienced. Leading me to conclude that its anti-muslim stance is no coincidence.

Interesting report from John Warhurst, Australian National University who states:

" Public Presentation of Religious Beliefs

The public presentation of personal religious beliefs, now widespread in public life, is of equal interest to the denominational changes that have taken place. More than any other federal government the senior members of the Howard government have been active, in word and deed, in emphasizing (or at least being open about) its religious credentials and beliefs and in emphasizing the positive contribution of Christian values to Australian society. One has only to compare the publicly Christian approach of the Howard-Anderson-Costello-Abbott team, for instance, to the privately Christian, even secular,approach of the Fraser-Anthony-Lynch team in the 1970s to see that this is true (Mutch 2004: 15-16)"

and concludes:

"Not for the first time religion has had a heightened profile in Australian politics during the Howard era. Just as in the 1950s Labor Split the overall impact of religious intervention appears to have benefited the Coalition parties. In fact, some elements of the
story, such as the growing presence of Catholics in the Liberal Party and the diminished contribution of Catholics in the Labor Party, are actually a long-term consequence of the Labor Split. The cultural receptivity of the parties towards religion has altered.

Nevertheless, although the ultimate impact of religion on the parties may not yet be equivalent, the last decade is a more interesting story. During the Howard decade the influence of religion has been markedly more varied and has crossed denominational boundaries from the mainstream to the newer evangelical churches. Furthermore, religion and personal religious belief has been much more public. A wider cultural change has occurred in 21st century Australian politics."

The full report is available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/occa_lect/transcripts/

Howard plays on fear, superstition and the gullible.

Irfy

Your attempts to paint the Muslim threat in historical terms misses the point.

Yep in 1868 an Irish nationalist shot the visiting Duke of Edinburgh, 1980 later Armenians, Ananda Marga and Croats had their moments.

But you are clearly clutching at these historical straws to avoid the obvious that the common denominator for Australia's main and current terrorist threat comes from Muslim wouldbe terrorists - both "homegrown" and of the al Qaeda (international) type.

As you say its not a monolithic Muslim threat, but Muslim nevertheless.

Whether the motivation for wouldbe terrorists is more to defend (or exact revenge) for the occupation of Middle Eastern countries by the West, rather than a religious motivation, is a big question.

Even if nationally motivated, Islam, provides a psychological path for suicide bombing.

These nasty truths aside you should placed in the Muslim Community Reference Group for a very long time.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Interesting historical fact. The first recorded act of terrorism against Australians of European decent was a rifle attack on the Silverton Picnic Train by a group of Afghan Cameleers in 1915.

Scout, thanks for Warhurst link.
Timely and puts in an unexpectedly clear perspective some of the stuff turning up in the news today. Firstly, yet another pompous, offensive and sanctimonious lecture from Toad Hall. Howard's patronising and arrogant load of tripe about secular politics to "Muslims"( which ones?), comes from the leader of a government deliberately crammed with right-wing Opus Dei and Pentecostal Fundamentalist nutwigs.
Some of these people are infamous for the lies they hve told about the ABC. By a strange twist, this gives us a clue as to how much veracity we should ascribe to comments they make any one/thing else, doesn't it?
If they'd lie about Auntie, what hope a small and nearly-marginalised community like the hapless subgroups lumped together under the label "Muslim"?
Then there is the whimsical, picaresque proposal from peanut Beazley that even has members of his own parlimentary party wincing in embarrassment ( embers of last week's Steve Irwin/ Germaine Greer contretemps still glowing amongst the ocker anti-thought brigades on the ALP right?).
I reckon any pledges to be signed as to loyalty to this country should firstly come from the neo libs in Beazley's own party, then people like AUSFTA/AWB Vaille, Lord Downer, IR minister Andrews and the imigration minister, whose behaviour has become so gross she has come to resemble an escapee from a piggery. Her decision to pitch out another forty East Timorese brings genuine and incrementally increasing shame to REAL Australians.

Leigh said:

"Yes. There is the Christian Old Testament. But Christians, unlike Muslims, have adapted to modern times, and we haven’t noticed too many Christian terrorists around lately"

Mate, the reason there are no "Christian Terrorists" around, is that neither the Old Testament or New can be used as a basis for such things. While the OT "reports" many atrocities and wars, it does not really 'advocate' them as a general principle. Certainly not in the manner of the 10 commandments, which form the basis of the relationship with God that is central to the Old Testament.

KEITH the 'more' interesting thing about the Afghan Camaleers shooting at the train, was 'why'...... they believed that "Muslims were under attack".... sounds rather familiar.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH MUSLIMS ? asks TurnRightThenLeft...

1/ Those here, we evangelize and leave the result to their own hearts and conciences.
2/ We tell them the truth about Mohamed.
3/ We clearly explain the culture of Australia to would be Muslim migrants and highlight specific areas of incompatability.
-Treatment of Women and good cultural manners toward Aussie girls.
-Emergency Service procedures
-No female genital mutilation.
-No Polygamy nor polygamous family re-unions.
-No underage brides
-No forced arranged marraiges
-No honour killings.
-Intermarraige is encouraged.

We then tell them to make a decision: "Can you and will you live under these conditions and be loyal to the values of Australia"?
Finally, they will be asked this "Will you embrace Australia and call yourself 'Australians' or will you call yourself Lebanese or Turkish or whatever.... ?
This would be part of the visa application process.

(The same should apply to ALL would be migrants)

4/ Those already here. Not much can be done unless they have dual citizenship, in which case I'd ship em out unless they renounce the other citizenship.

Professor Robert Pape of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism says that at least 2 Hezbollah suicide bombers were Christians. The majority were socialists and nationalists.

The thing with suicide bombers is, at least they inflict also on themselves what they inflict on others. None of this pushing a button in an air-conditioned bunker hundreds of miles away stuff.

Irfy... clearly they had not read their Bibles lately.

"Christians" ? I think its time we all read our Bibles again...specially the New Testament :)

There are "cultural" Christians and Biblical ones. Please make the distinction.

That aside, I am certainly interested in the background to their involvment. I'll check it out.

I am unsure if they can be called "Hezbollah" because this is a specifically "Muslim" party and would like to know more detail about what they said about their actions in any suicide note, and what their targets were... may have been against SYRIANs ?
Who knows..... if you have more, please let us know.

Some of your suggestions have merit boaz, but an awful lot of them are already illegal in Australia. You say 'no honour killings' or 'underage brides' but since when has it been legal?

Now these things are probably happening in rare instances, though if it's already illegal the people that are responsible for these crimes clearly don't have much respect for Australian law anyway. If they're not Australian citizens they can be deported, and if they are they can be jailed. What exactly is your proposition in relation to these matters?
I understand that the ultimate goal is to break up the tightly knit muslim communities where acts like this can occur... but bear in mind that increased intrusiveness is only going to increase resentment.

As for the suggestion to 'evangelize' people and let them decide... would you convert if someone tried to convert you to the muslim faith? And as for the 'truth' about mohammed, I'd argue that there is too much interpretation there.

I mean honestly... take L Ron Hubbard. He died 20 years ago, and there are thousands of people who believe he was a stand up guy, but look a little deeper and there's some rather unsettling facts.
There is dissent in opinion for someone who died 20 years ago. How can we be objective for someone 2000 years ago?

The writers here read as if their as confused as I am about Islam and it's place in a modern western society, like Australia.
A site I read yesterday helped me a lot and I recommend it you all.

http://www.iranian.com/Namazie/2006/September/Relativism/index.html

Please let me know thru this site your reactions.

I believe our PM as Ifran states is making political capital from the Islam debate, as opposed to edifying the populace.
fluff

Irfan,
You must know and have contact with many people who have migrated here. Do you know, or can you inquire, as to what information they were given prior to deciding to immigrate here.

I know it would seem obvious that they are fully informed about our culture and society, but sometimes the obvious is not considered.

My inquiries to DIMA have uncovered nothing and the website is not very helpfull.

What I can't understand is why someone who feels strongly about a cultural matter, say arranged marriages, would come here IF he knows it is not permitted here. This makes me wonder if migrants are properly informed before arrival.

Turn Right turn left,
I believe Boaz was referring to the same issue. i.e. prospective migrants need to be told about cultural differences before deciding to come here.

Well Fluff4, I read Maryam's blog. Quite interesting but after all;
Why Should We Bother !!

I see no reason why we should divert our efforts from running our
society to cater for the Moslems and the Islamists amoung them.
Why should we bother ? Its all their problem not ours.

Just let them stay away and leave us in peace.
Those that cannot cope with us should not be here, let them go back.
Frankly, I am becoming heartily sick of hearing about moslems.
They seem to do nothing but whinge about being profiled.
As I said elsewhere should we chase up Eskimo terrorists ?

David

I think they just objected to the way the trains disturbed their camels.

Keith

Does any one else out there doubt the substance of this war?

- as well as engaging in a shooting war over a few - albeit tragic in a human sense for those who died or lost some one - minor atrocities ; we now seemingly have a bi partisan commitment to fostering a cultural war in order to fan the flames of the militaristic one.]

A few have gone so far to tag this war on terror and I suppose the accompyaning cultural war some form of conspiracy - I think that affords a few people too much credit - it is more like a universal form of paranoid psychosis - with associated delusions of granduer - at least a sense of granduer about the value of the lives of those who could be broadly described as Westerners -

The lies surrounding the war on terror are so vast, so omnipresent that they have sucked the oxygen from the debate and suffocated the truth - this cultural conflict is another artificial theatre of war opened up to continue the divergence from any truth at all.

a pox on those who promote it

Integration is a roll for ALL australians. EVERY person must give a little to "fit in" not just muslims with dark skin or budhas with orange skin or gothics with white skin.
Irfan you shot us muslims in the foot by implying muslims are mutually exclusive from Australians.

Bazz, you surely can't mean assie's have no responsibility to new migrants?
All the programs for immigrants defies that logic. I must say I'm surprised at your reaction to my post.

The site made me feel better about being accused of racisism when I'm not, and its on an Islamic site?
We do have obligations to new migrants, as they have to us, or Australia. Our history says as much, the successful immigration of 1945/50 included all, even Nazi's apparently.
We have a problem of mutual resposibillity here and need to sort it, not fight it.
fluff

Personally I don't want Australia to become a sharia state.

Why not?

Because Plantagenet,
Religion should be the personal choice of the individual and to have it forced on people against their will is undemocratic and intolerant. Beware of the priests who earn their living off the donations of their followers. They can not allow any truth if it flys in the face on their teaching,because if they dont have many worshippers at their church and they cannot derive their income then
they could literally die in the street from hunger and poverty.

Thats why the christian priests imprisoned Gallileao in earlier centuries when he dared to say that the earth wasnt the centre of the universe as they proclaimed;that in fact the Sun was.

The priests are playing their own power games in this war on terror.
Read your Koran but beware the priests. To give control of your country to priests is madness they straight away become totalatarian regimes and the people lose their right to any vote.

There has never been any country in history that has benefited by being under the control of priests and usually terrible cruelties and suffering are inflicted on people who dont conform to their idea of Godliness. Bloody Mary Queen, of England beheaded everyone who wouldnt convert to the catholic faith. For heaven sake learn the lessons of history.

Sharkfin people didn't want Australia to become a Communist country either.

Do you want to know what I think of those people? Apart from them being incredibly stupid and ill informed?

Actually nevermind. We'll excuse those people because they didn't know any better. It was the first time round after all. But what excuse do they have now for thinking the same thing?

No scrap that. I'm sure most of the Vietnam veterans are just as anti war as ever. I'm sure they think this "fear of terrorism/Islam" is just as nonsensical as the fear of Communism in the 1950s

If we do indeed live in such an enlightened and democratic society then shouldn't we start to act like it?

Boaz David. My father who recently moved to England does not declare that he is English. He is Australian. Kinda puts a jam in the flow of your argument there. It poses the question - what makes us so great that you have to become one of us in order to live here? Why can't we accept diversity? Isn't that part of democracy and freedom?

sharkfin,

>>There has never been any country in history that has benefited by being under the control of priests ...<<

Do you know of any country that has benifited from being under the control of imams?

fleurette my dear,

>>what makes us so great that you have to become one of us in order to live here? Why can't we accept diversity? Isn't that part of democracy and freedom? <<

It is democracy and freedom - but when a group comes here with opposite values to democracy and freedom - one must not allow such an allien group to mix in our midst - integration is not on their agenda, because it requires change something islam does not allow.

I don't want Australia to become a sharia state because I have never lived in a sharia state. I've spent my whole life living in a multicultural, tolerant democratic Australia.

I also don't want a state ruled by monocultural fruitloops because I think these people would be worse for our country than Mullahs. At least with Mullahs, you can please them by faking a conversion. But with people like coach, even if I converted to Christianity and became a parish priest, he would still hate me because I am the wrong colour.

There are people who hate me not because I am Muslim or come from a Muslim family. Deep down inside, they hate me for the same reason their ideological ancestors hated Jews 60 years ago.

Dearest Sharkfin

Almost anyone could see that I was having an impish go (maybe a bit subtle) at Irfy's seemingly throwaway comment that he'd prefer not to have Sharia law here.

I see Irfy has replied with the sincerity typical of this outstanding communicator (I kid you not).

But now that you have doubted my intellect I, like Don Juan, will rise erect to the occasion.

Look at the advantages of Sharia law (Saudi style). Think no longer of Christianity, Bloody Mary or the wealth the Papacy has brought to Italy.

Think of an Australia where a religious court could sentence a thief to lose an ear or hand. Sentence could be passed in the town square just like in the days of Cromwell.

Through most of recorded history crowds, young and old, have enjoyed the removal of digits, limbs, ears, noses and throats (executions). Under Sharia law these traditions live on in several of the world's oil sodden countries.

O yea of little faith ;-)

Pete
(An Atheist)

Dear Feurette

You have an important point as follows:

"what makes us so great that you have to become one of us in order to live here? Why can't we accept diversity?"

Now..hidden in that little gem is an assumption that we feel we are 'superior'. We need to avoid a 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach to such issues.

We do have a culture, and ways of doing things. Not 'superior' in every case, but definitely 'familiar'. It's 'ours'.

Being a very young country, our traditions are quite vulnerable to the impact of outside cultures which have a much longer history, and tend to regard themselves as in fact 'superior'at worst, or at best they simply have no desire to change their cultural habits. Now this can be a bigggg problem. If it was limited to the first generation, I might be a bit more forgiving, but when a THIRD generation Australian born lady says "I'm so proud to be GREEK" it makes my head explode. Its not only insulting, its undermining and outright RACIST !

In the absense of universally held agreed Australian cultural values, we will be like a ship which has lost its rudder and engine. Bobbing this way and that on the cultural stormy sea according to the strength of the biggest wave.

Do you see this ?

You mention 'diversity'...ok.. I also accept it to a degree. I accept it for first generation newcomers. I also accept it up to the point where newcomers seek to stick their fingers in pies they shouldn't. Such as our foreign policy. By this I mean that if one 'tribal' group (say "Sunni" Iraqi refugees) tries to get us out of Iraq, or Lebanese Shia try to change our assessment of Hezbollah....etc.. this is just NOT ON.
Newcomers should not try to circumvent our democratic processes for their own ethno/religious/tribal agenda.

Irfan,

I am deeply touched by your feelings of insecurity even after living in Australia all your life since you were 5.

I can't help you there - if you think people hate you like they hated others before you (Jews for example)...

The opposite of love is not hate - it's apathy, not caring.

I do care immensely for you, all Muslems, and my country Australia.

The reason why "you" (muslems) have become my main raison de vivre is that Christ died for ALL - even you Irfan.

Unless you accept this fact - not mentionrd in your Qur'an - you will perish. Jesus is the only way to heaven, other "ways" including religions rituals and good deeds etc... mean nothing to God except for the belief in His Son Jesus and acceptance of His salvation.

But you knew that - and still persist with another way.

I have never made a racist remark or called you or anyone else black, yellow or purple. So don't try to add words and ideas to what I say:

>>But with people like coach, even if I converted to Christianity and became a parish priest, he would still hate me because I am the wrong colour.<<

Like I said before Christ died for all people, all colours, all sizes, all shapes, all genders.. well male and female anyway.

You don't know what colour I may be. Like we don't know what colour is Nayeefa under her desguise.

When I look at your mug, I see a person who needs to know the truth about salvation. i pray for God's love to touch you deep in your soul and change your heart and open your mind to see Jesus as your only lord and saviour... and not just another prophet, one of many thousands the Qur'an tells you.

Now you can call me names again - but base you comments and remarks on what is really being discussed and said ... not your colourful interpretations.

One for BOAZ.

D, you said: 'Newcomers should not try to circumvent our democratic processes for their own ethno/religious/tribal agenda.'

Is this relevant in comparison with contemporary Spanish and Australian electoral outcomes?

when I said priests I meant it as a broad term including immams, rabbis the lot

Coach, Irfan

It sounds like if you stopped allowing your respective scriptures to get in the way, you'd both be on the same page (no pun intended).

Irfan

You say "Deep down inside, they hate me for the same reason their ideological ancestors hated Jews 60 years ago." I do not know who you are referring to but my family have lived in Australia for over 100 years as Jews and have never met people here who hate us. In fact all the Australian Jewish histories I have seen point to a unique lack of hatred or discrimination to Jews in this country.

I wish I could say that other groups have enjoyed the same level of tolerance. The various Asian and Muslim groups have all gone through a rough deal not to mention the original inhabitants. Perhaps it is their different skin toning although many other immigrant groups have had to wait for acceptance.

It does help to produce a Military leader or a High Court Justice or generally supply a few community leaders to be accepted. Certainly our Prime Minister supplied a leadership in racial prejudice to save his own skin at a regretable cost to Muslims.

fleurette

It does you no good to show your anger Your normally reasoned and sensible arguments loose their force when you do. I have my own bias which you well know but have only seen good things from those Muslems I know and do not stereotype, at least I hope not.

logic,

Thank you for your remarks. I just thiught i should point out that i was referring to 'ideological ancestors', not literal ancestors. Indeed, Australia has been very kind to its Jewish inhabitants. It's often forgotten that our first Australian-born Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, was of Jewish faith.

Boaz_David,
Would you try to find out what info we give to prospective migrants before they decide to immigrate?

The DIMA website reveals little and two letters to DIMA have simply got the responce that they are not permitted to give out information.

It looks as though Irfan cannot help either, but I will keep trying other avenues. It would not surprize me if we give little info about our culture and society to migrants. I think it is important that we find out. The beginning is always a good place to start.

It is far too late when they get here.

Banjo, I think migrants are expected to make their own inquiries. I'm not sure what info is provided by Australian embassies and high commissions overseas.

Irfan,
Thanks for that. I intend to find out one way or another. If we simply tell prospective migrants, in a lazy and offhand way, that we are a Multicultural society, it is not good enough.

We are deceiving them and fooling ourselves. Migrants have a right to be properly informed about our culture and society.

How can we expect migrants to intergrate if we do not inform them about what is acceptable and what is not.

Thanks again, I will keep trying to find what we DO tell them

Banjo...please check out this link mate

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/news/DIMA_Citizenship_Discussion_Paper.pdf

I can't speak for what currently is the case... but this is the new approach.

What I want to know is whether Muslims can legally bring polygamous wives here... (which leads to multiple family re-union opportunities)
All I know is that centrelink will not recognize any more than one wife.

Just rang Dimia... here is what they said:

1/ A man with multiple wives can only bring one.
2/ He may bring ALL the children of ALL of his wives, but not the mothers. (except the one he chooses to be his 'legal' wife here)
3/ Family re-union as 'dependants' does not apply.

Irfan...for goodness sake mate... your color does not mean squat to us in terms of your acceptability. From a Christian point of view, 'there is no longer Greek nor Jew, Slave nor free, '....ethnicity does not matter.

but....

having said all that. Here is the story from SMH 2002 regaring our friend Mr Trad.

[Trad arrived in Australia at 13 as part of a family reunion complicated by polygamy. His half-brother who had settled in Sydney got permission to bring his mother and siblings from Lebanon. Because his mother was married, she was able to bring her husband. At the time her husband was married to two other women. One of them (Trad's mother) came along, too, with her children. The older wife divorced her husband in Australia and the patriarch lived with Trad's mother.]

Dimia tells me that now, the child brought to Australia of a divorced wife left in an overseas country,can apply for family re-union and sponsor his/her mother to migrate here when that child is 18 yrs old.

It still seems to have the same result.

EXAMPLE.

Man + 4 wives+ 12 children.

-can bring 1 wife and 12 children.
-Those 12 children, when 18 yrs old, can then sponsor their mothers, who much be divorced from the father.

-Presumably, the mothers could then sponsor their brothers, sisters, etc etc... Or..even go back to Lebanon or somewhere and marry again and bring that spouse here, and so the multiplier effect continues.

This seems like a very unbalanced and dangerous bit of social policy.
Likely to create extensive networks of related people who share bonds and values which are totally foreign to our culture

Monogamous Migrant: 1 man 1 wife, 4 children. Family Reunion=2 sets of parents. TOTAL 10 People.

Polygamous Migrant: 1 man, 4 wives each with 4 children.
Migrates with 1 wife and 12 chidren and then 2 sets of parents.
4 parents + husband+wife+12 children =18 plus 3 ex wives when children are 18 = TOTAL 21 PEOPLE.

Then...the newly sponsored ex wives PARENTS 3 x 2 =6 more
Grand TOTAL 27 PEOPLE.

B_D, I look forward to reading empirical evidence from you to the effect that all of Australia's 360,000 Muslims from over 60 different ethnic groups and speaking over 200 languages engage in polygamous marriage.

BD,

No wonder Muslems need to bring with them their own family laws and push for a new Islamic state and constitution - it's far too complex for our Australian monogamous society.

A question on an even more dangerous matter;

Are they allowed to bring a wife who is their cousin ?
Are they allowed to marry a cousin here or must they go overseas to marry a cousin ?

Hi Irfan,

Hi Fellow_Human,

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=18514

Read and enjoy

http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=40215

Read and enjoy

See, how the 'christians' react to these blasphemous acts.

Jesus Cartoons Everywhere and Christians Are Not Rioting .. Why?

I "Googled" and "Alta-Vista-ed" the phrase "Jesus Cartoon" this morning and found that there were quite a few to choose from. Most were from Christian sites, some from anti-Christian sites, some were whimsical, some were coarse and degrading, many were from European sites (mostly German with cartoon dialogues that defied translation by Babel Fish). There were even political cartoons from American newspapers.

When I was finished I checked for "Muhammed Cartoon" and found . . . nothing. Google and Alta Vista have apparently blocked access to the many Muhammed cartoon caricature that are everywhere on the internet these days. Even the newsworthy Danish cartoons that kicked off the current Islamist riots have been censored by these search engines.

I am sooooo glad that these internet gateways have no problems guiding me to all the pornography I (don't) want to find but are thoughtful enough (or scared of having their throats cut) to protect me from finding the images that have set off major international rioting.

A search for "Piss Christ", however, delivered over 45 "hits" (just of the image itself) on Google and 31 on Alta Vista. Go figure. Sure.

Apparently images of Jesus, no matter how demeaning or insulting, do not create a threat of rioting, burning down an embassy, boycotting a nation or beheading somebody. Clearly, the American news media are not afraid of Christians.

Irfan,
As a non-Muslim who really doesn't agree with any of the fundamental views of your religioin, I am writing to say - keep up the good work!

I am more than happy to share this country with someone who has different beliefs to me - that is what humanity is about. However the fear campaign is working and it is making it harder for us to live as a peaceful society. Fear driven marketing from the government and the media is what is driving the increased xenophobia I keep reading. And as master Yoda said, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side.

All jokes aside though, a scared society gets backed into a corner and then willingly surrenders their civil liberties in the name of security, it then attacks the unknown. How sad we are not so comfortable with ourselves that we must attack anyting that seems foreign.

We then start generalising and saying that if there are 1 billion muslims on the planet then there must 1 billion terrorists - oh my God are my children safe! should I call the government to eradicate this evil within our midsts? (pathetic). How narrow minded, I mean I haven't seen anyone blame the pope for the IRA, it just doesn't make sense.

Speaking of the pope, I liked your blog on the response by some Muslims on his comments, others check it our here http://madhabirfy.blogspot.com/

So what we need to lift the consciousness of the nation, and the planet, are more Muslims like yourself to group together and publicly denounce terrorism. We need to show that a muslim terrorist is a minority. And you're going to have to be vigilant because the media will make it hard and some of the people in this blog will keep looking for a way to hate you (they're just sour and probably need to get a life, but hey, they're out there)

Keep it up.

B_D and Irfan,
Firstly thanks for the link, I will put a submission relating to Annexure B, Information given to prospective migrants. I have written to the Minister and will await her reply, but it is looking like Irfan is right in that it is left up to the migrant to find his own info, mainly.

Some migrants must get a rude shock on arrival to find things they would consider normal to be totally different here. Like alcohol consumption and freedom women have without supervision. Then there is the clothing, or lack of, at beaches, etc.

If the info on the DIMA website is what we give them, I can only say it is woefully inadequate. Just a few things like using a hanky to blow ones nose, shaking hands when introduced and saying 'pardon' if one belches. Revealing clothes gets about a sentence and FGM is not mentioned at all. Nothing about unacceptable foods.

However I will wait for the Ministers reply before making a final assesment, but it is not looking good.

Why are so many on the Left so determined to ignore the obvious? How long will it take before the majorities in western democratic secular societies finally face the fact that we really do have a "fifth column" in our midst? It is pointless to prattle on and on about how many "moderate" Muslims there are, because it is not the moderate Muslims who are setting the worldwide Muslim agenda for the destruction of secular society and the rise in Muslim populations in western nations. It is the zealots who are setting that agenda. It is the zealots and fanatics who are increasing THEIR numbers . . . financed by both Saudi and Iranian oil money. The Saudis have been financing Wahhabi/Salafist/Qutbist/Deobandi indoctrination schools for children and young adults, for decades. That propaganda campaign began even before the creation of the state of Israel. It is a manifest falsehood for Muslims to claim that Islamic extremism is solely a product of hostility to western foreign policy.
The fanatics of Islam have a long-term agenda, and they do not care if it takes 200 years to achieve that agenda. They have created for themselves a means of continuance . . . both by population increase and by schools of propaganda. Many of the very same Muslims who demand - and get - freedom of religious expression in the West are not willing to grant the same freedom to non-Muslims in their own countries of origin. What is clear - beyond any reasonable doubt - as Ibn Warraq reveals in his excellent book, "Why I Am Not a Muslim", is that many Muslim leaders in the West talk about "tolerance" for the pacification of the general public, but sing quite a different tune in private to their own dedicated religious followers. Are we really supposed to believe pious Muslims when they proclaim a devotion to democratic pluralism, equality of women and political liberty . . . given the fact that the demands of their own "holy book" do not support such principles?