Well said, Mirko. Your article summarises succinctly most of my own thoughts concerning the "mad mufti" and the over the top response by some elements of the Australian media and commentariat to his latest silly gaffe.

Bagaric's article is also a refreshing counter to the quite inane comments to be found over at the "General" forum about this issue.

It is a refreshing take on a beaten topic dominated by agenda driven bigots.

Yes the likes of al-Hilali ought to be able to spew their nonsense around the globe because "we" understand that it's nonsense. And anyone with a contrary view ought to keep their mouths shut. The world may tolerate nonsense but accordingly can not abide sense. Thank you CJ Morgan and SIG. Bus driver. Stop the world. I'd like to get off now.

Mr. Bagaric. Free speech is free speech. Limiting the free speech of one, while allowing for the free speech of the other is not freedom of speech. It's managed speech.

I return your quote to you untarnished by my right to free speech.

19th century English philosopher J.S.Mill, who stated, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race … If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

The majority of people have no animosity towards Muslims. We saw that the Muslim community leadership made all necessary for al-Hilali to use Islam and the mosque to spread such filth about Australians and women amongst the Australian Muslim community and called them out.
I say rightly so. Even free speech has consequences. Free speech isn't just a right. It's a privilege and presumes responsibility.

I think the author's symathy is misplaced. This man is harming people who were not brought here in shackles.
I believe it safe to say that Taj el-Din Al Hilali has lost touch with reality. Can he name a single person who was brought here in shackles? No? How odd. That's right. There is not a single person in Australia who was brought here in shackles. There are only descendants. Here I must declare an interest. I am a 6th generation descendant from a 1st Fleet Marine and a 2nd Fleet Convict. My grandchildren are 8th generation.
Is this man saying that none of us have a right to be here? That we should be transported back to ...where? As there are now infusions from almost every nationality represented in the several thousand descendants from this couple, on whose shore should we be dumped? We now consider ourselves indiginous.
I think it time this man's own culture deal with him. He is becoming a danger to himself and others of his culture. He cannot continue to claim he is being taken out of context every time he displays his ignorance. He is certainly old enough to accept responsibility for his own actions.
Arcticdog

"I believe it safe to say that Taj el-Din Al Hilali has lost touch with reality."

And that was our weekly 'State the Obvious' time with arcticdog!

Excellent article.

Eminently sensible piece, Mirko.

Of course, the right to free speech also means people are free to make wild, inflammatory, disproportionate statements in response to the Sheik’s wild, inflammatory, disproportionate statements, and for you to then point out that you think their response is wild, inflammatory and disproportionate and for me to agree with you, and…

...perhaps the real “splendour of free speech” as you put it, is that it obliges none of us to listen to it!!

Here comes in C.J.Morgan's view another inane comment and in the view of that other champion of free speech StG an agenda driven bigot.
Be wonderful is this dribbling clown of a self-appointed sheik only had these lying incredibly insane views but what of his easily led gullible flock? Not to mention other islamic leaders who have spewed viols of hate and abuse to Australia, Australians and our democratic system of Government.
And note every other time this idiot sheik has made, usually in a "free and Democratic?" islamic dictatorial nation, totally lying inappropriate comments he has ALWAYS been incorrectly? quoted. This bloke is a raving lying nut case. regards, numbat

Numbat... I'm trying to suss out your view there, but I'm having a little trouble. Nobody here is suggesting that the Sheik is anything other than the nutbag you so eloquently describe.
What is it exactly that infuriated you about CJ Morgan and StG's commentary - which basically was concurring with the article, so I can only assume your diatribe is against the piece itself, which leads me to wonder what your issue with it is.

Are you suggesting the Sheikh should be constrained in what he may say? Were he actually inciting violence directly (by that I mean, go forth and kill or maim non-muslims) then perhaps I would be more inclined to agree, but as it is, he is merely making stupid ill-informed statements.
Heck. Pauline Hanson does it all the time. We didn't jail her for that (the jailing was overturned anyway, and it was for electoral improprieties not stupid remarks).

Numbat, if I might ask, what are you proposing in relation to the Sheikh, and where do we draw a line in the sand as to what you can and can't say?

Bagaric says “It is also wrong to say things that incite violence.” The sheikh’s comments could have incited violence amongst non-Muslims, but they didn’t. However, were comments of a similar intent made about Muslims, or the inhabitants of a Muslim country, there would likely have been a violent reaction, not just here but elsewhere, as information these days travels the world swiftly. We’ve already witnessed several examples over the past year.

Bagaric also says about free speech: “Like all rights it must yield to the weight of producing good outcomes. There are many legitimate exceptions to the right to say whatever you want.”

Yes I agree, but when it comes to intolerant religions, does this mean a good outcome is to bottle up our critical thoughts rather than speak out? This does not sound like advancing the social and moral health of our community at all. On the contrary, Islam is gradually subverting freedoms and values that we previously held dear: for example, the anti-terror laws, or certain suburbs in our major cities you can’t walk around in free from harassment.

When it comes down to it, every relatively educated individual is aware of the value of free speech and the importance of protecting it. However with certain positions of privileged authority come responsibilities, and one must have certain personal freedoms restrained when an ambassador for others.

The sheikh is entitled to have his personal views, and as a human being and resident of Australia, he has the privilege to express them. However as mufti, as spokesperson for the entire Islamic community of Australia, his responsibility is to conform his views (to at least a degree) to reflect his constituents.

THAT is where any action should be directed. Not anti-muslim rhetoric agaist the sheikh and his ilk but at the muslim community responsible for accepting him as their spiritual leader and spokesperson. If this community wish to show that they respect the values and the freedoms which our lucky country promotes, then they should feel obligated to elect a mufti which reflects that instead of making excuses for an "underlying anti-muslim sentiment in Australia."

In the end, I am confident the majority of Australians

... are anti-anti-Australians, not anti-muslim. It just seems more convenient to portray it as such when the majority of the former are indeed the latter.

Mirko has certainly raised some valid points in regards to free speech, especially the importance of allowing ridiculously inflammatory comments such as the sheikh's to be contradicted etc. There is little doubt also that the media traded in an opportunity to open a serious public debate over the issue for the more sensationalised approach of melodrama.

However this "anti-muslim sentiment" must not disguise us from what has actually inspired this and the need for more platforms to openly discuss these issues being made readily available.

Freedom of speech IS a privilege. It can also be abused by those who don't truly value it. For comments such as the sheikh's to in the end be "tolerated" is a much more dangerous precedent than the forcing of such views underground (which would always occur anyway). The answer as often is the case is unlikely to be black and white but a form of compromise. On this issue, certainly it rests with the muslim community: how they choose to take responsibility for their own actions and how they wish to be portrayed to others....

"Muslims are more entitled to be in Australia than Anglo-Saxons, who came here as convicts."

He said that...?

How is that connected to free speech?

Someone tell me.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see Professor Fraser enjoy the right to free speech. We all landed on him with both feet and the galere applauded because it suited. We demanded his silence. Now it's a case of tolerating what the leader of a non-Christian group has to say.

For those of us who can establish a link with convicts and for those who wanted to improve the alleged contaminated gene pool here in Oz the disappointment must be manifest. The new arrivals haven't delivered the promised renascence. We can't demand a refund either.

I seem to remember justa few years ago yhe Sheik was being heralded by Miranda Devine and others as being a great proponent for moderate Muslims to emulate.

The Sheik knows exactly what he is doing.He is baiting us and doing his own version of a dog whistle to further divide our community.

Keyser Trad has said a lot worse things than this.Words to the effect that the sons of convicts are like sewer water that should not mix with the pure spring water of their Muslim Culture.Why wasn't he asked to leave also?It has taken a lot of prodding for Muslims to show their disapproval.

Imagine those same words were said of Muslims in one of their countries by a Christian sect.Your life would not be worth living.

People like the Sheik and Keyser have a lot of support,that is why they weren't deposed."We were miss quoted,or that was taken out of context."

Mirko is trying to hose down the flames,whilst alluding to anglo racism as being a factor.

Looking at past track records,I see no happy resolutions to this conflict in our society.

As usual, Mirko presents an argument that in itself appears logically consistent. I suggest that there are some serious flaws in his article, grounded perhaps in youth and tolerance and lacking a sceptical approach, which accompanies age and experience. The problem is with the mufti, mad, bad or whatever, is that he commands plus a degree of support in the Lakemba area and especially among fundamentalist Muslims. His latest TV exposé, presumably defending the "unclean meat" statement of October 2006 has served only to reveal his ignorance and intolerance. Some fools in the press have been stupid enough to compare his words with those of Cardinal George Pell. That is a category error of the first magnitude.

The grand mufti saw fit to make his comments in Egypt, home of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the umbrella group behind the noted terrorist organizations Jamaat al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, both of which have ties to Al Qaeda. ?

This does not make the Sheik a terrorist, nor does it necessarily mean that he supports the objectives of some of these violent groups. However, with claims in other parts of the electronic media that there is to be a conference on the establishment of a Caliphate, presumably in the region, only the disingenuous would remain sanguine.

In your words he may be an “old stale man” - just like me - but that does not diminish his claims of moral and theological leadership within his community, something I lack. Overseas research shows that the young, socially disadvantaged and alienated are ready recruits for jihadists. You would be wise to read about the crazy mullahs of Finchley in the UK. Some are of the same generation as the Sheik and just as radical. Would it take a bomb to change your mind? I hope not.

Mirko has written a basically logical article of reasonable consistency. I guess the real point is, does he does peddle radical incitement “quietly to impressionable minds”? If he is in fact the “unrepresentative voice in the Muslim community”, let him, as John Heard in ‘The Australian’ says, “The best thing for Australia, and for al-Hilali, is to give him all the rope he needs.” For the sake of impressionable minds, however, the metaphor may need to transfer into something more literal (so not as to inflame another 'Cronulla').

I thought it was a good article. But it misses an important point. Some of the unease about what the Sheik was saying was due to its covert rather than open expression. There is a sense in which many of us are upset by the behind-the-back nature of these expressions of freedom of speech. All smiles up front, but being expressed in Arabic or on Egyptian TV are radical views that would invite rotten eggs on the Domain. Let the Sheik express his views, but let it be up front rather than covertly addressed to selected audiences in a subversive manner. We worry that secretly a section of our population is being coaxed into negative views of our society. Stand on your soapbox and say Australia is rubbish, but don't push it behind our backs to be revealed only by the snooping of journalists.

If a white Australian made similar comments about Muslims, that person would no doubt be labelled as a 'racist', hounded to give an abject public apology and charged under the Racial Hatred Act. Al-Hilaly has clearly vilified Australia and Australians - especially those of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Nobody I know is even faintly amused (as John Howard advises us to be) at these grotesque and ignorant insults. What kind of buffoon would 'laugh off' such comments about his/her country and its people? Especially from an individual who should not be in the country in the first place.

al-Hilaly should be charged with racial vilification. So should Keysar Trad.

As I posted in "the Mad Mufti", I have in previous postings expressed my opinion to protect the rights of Islamic residents.

The fact is, however, in Australia, freedom of speech is an idea. We don't have freedom of speech. Ask John Laws. He was sued for making homophobic comments by one man in the gay community who claimed to be offended. The law suit was of a substantial amount of money.

You cannot make vilified statements or make defamatory statement unfairly under Australian law if this negatively effects our welfare.

Many of us are decendents from the convicts. My ancestors, as my other postings pointed out, were Quakers. There was also an African, Jewish people, and even an Arabic convict in the first fleet.

Our family was since pardoned by the old Baily in London for an "overzealous" sentence. There was no particular crime, just the boy, 12 years of age was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as a Quaker, had to be charged and transported. Why? It made sense at the time.

Australians with older ancestry lines should have every right to sue for defamation and vilification. The statements were offensive to our ancestors.

So the writer of this article, a newer Australian, failed to understand how offensive this sentiment is.

The Australian convicts were, in a sense, victims of their time.

I cringe at playing the victim. Lets face it, however, some of them were legitimate convicts, but some were not. It doesn't really matter either way. They more than did their time. 200 years is a long time ago.

Just leave the dead to rest in peace and don't cross their graves.

I have nothing against Islam.

Just leave our good families out of this.

I will speak to my lawyer. Who would like to join me?

Saintfletcher - "Australians with older ancestry lines should have every right to sue for defamation and vilification."

Not only Australians with older ancestry lines. Al-hilaly has a case to answer to every Australian, no matter their ancestry.

The ancestors of many Anglo-Saxon Australians came here as free settlers. They paid their own way and arrived here with sufficient resources to help them get started. Al-Hilaly's comments are not only lies ("Australians arrived in shackles), they constitute racial vilification.

Al-Hilaly has selected a certain group of Australians - those of Anglo-Saxon descent - so perhaps the Australians in question should bring a class action against him. These comments have gone past a joke that can be laughed off, they were given in a foreign country to people who know nothing about Australia.

If we treat these insults as a joke, outsiders could be forgiven for thinking that Australians have no pride and are willing to allow alien blow-ins to denigrate them at will.

Perhaps John Howard's idea of Australian History as a required subject for Australian citizenship is right on the money after all. I believe al-Hilali knows exactly the effect his silly statements have on most Australians and the press love it. After all, isn't it the sqeaky wheel that gets the oil?

Babushka

I have convicts on both sides of my family.From my mother's side,who came out in 1798 under the name of Colless and my father's side who came out in 1820,a stone mason who caved his own gravestone at Little Hartley in NSW.I don't feel special or think that I have special entitlements because of my ancestory.

Many who were deported,were victims of poverty who stole just to survive.There was no safety net,they did not have the opportunity to rort a social security system that many today in the Muslim community make a career of .

The Sheik's comments and Keyser's are like water off a duck's back,they wouldn't know integrety,honesty,and perserverence even if
they were destroyed by Mohammad's murderous bile.

The Muslims and the West are world's apart,and it is only the tenuous connection of the oil,that makes for this union of Mutual Assured Distrust.MAD.

Actually, Shaykh Taj is a moderate within the Islamic ulama and generally well liked by Sydney Muslims. He also has a proven ability to bring Sunni and Shia factions together as a successful mediator.

In balance we all might be better off with the devil we know. If Shaykh Taj is forced to resign we could end up with a conservative replacement who really does hate Australian society.

He is a joke and so are all the people who support or defend him.

Here is part of his speach - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIJPaOt79T8

Watch Trad stumble around trying to defend him LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_fFyZ7j3M

The Sheikh Al-Hilaly knows his own religion more than those who say he is misguided and unrepresentative.
A beautiful rendition of The Koran is at http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Koran5.html , and I recommend that those who don't recognise its main themes in most of the Sheikh's reported utterances ought to open both eyes.
Use a search engine for such phrases as "strike off the heads" and "do not befriend" and "garments of fire".

To the last post, his own people are calling the MUFTI HITLER like.
That is they are comparing him to a bloke whom gassed millions of people. Not a good thing from your own. Misrepresented I dont think so.

Still he should be allowed to say whatever he wants, its awakening the she'll be right Aussies or skips to the infiltrators intentions.

We now need to set the Sheik up with a chat show on SBS, they could call it "Up late with the MUFTI" or "MUFTI on Monday" perhaps.
Let him go, there will be plenty of people to watch it Keysar Trad can tell us all when hes out of context they could even film it at Lakemba Mosque.
Remember last time this stooge had foot in mouth disease 10,000 people showed up outside the mosque to support him before his swan dive. Ill bet there was more than a few fundamentalests in attendance, hes a very influential man and as such with his comments, will he be charged if and when a terrorist attack happens here.

GO MUFTI GO YOU GOOD THING !

While in no way wanting to justify the comments of the sheikh, I feel this vague sense of disquiet in regard of the reporting of his latest comments which were delivered in arabic. The Australian public seems only to have been fed one translation (please correct me if this is wrong), and possibly from a translator who is not unbiassed. As a native English speaker with some limited ability in Spanish and French (both romance languages, so somewhat easier) I know at first hand how difficult is is to get accurate translations, particularly of thoughts or abstractions.

I will reserve any judgment on this latest issue until I see something that is clearly an unbiassed translation of the sheikh's comments, bearing in mind that a word-for-word translation rarely translates the intended meaning. Perhaps this is a good argument for the sheikh to learn English, that he may impart his wisdom to us with no risk of its being lost in translation.

I love the Mufti. He is not a coward like "so-called" moderate muslims who dont reveal their thoughts.

A few points.

(1) A few of the Australians have convict ancestry. There's no dount about it. That's true. Does that make the descendants immoral?

(2) Some sad buffoons loath about the colonialism. They say we stole the aborigines land blah.. Perhaps they have to read the history at that time. Almost each and every country was stolen by various tribes, people.

Note: These buffoons never point to the land stolen/invaded by Islamic invaders or Hindu kings. But they got a problem with specific people like Anglo-saxons etc.

(3) The Mufti is correct in saying that few of the Australians have convict heritage. But, the mufti fails to realise that all muslims adore a Paedophile and a mass-murderer and hail him as the "Most Perfect" man on the planet earth

"He is not a coward like "so-called" moderate muslims who dont reveal their thoughts."

Oooh, this is a new one. So if a Muslim is radical, thats normal Muslim behaviour, and if they are moderate they must be lying?

In effect, that translates to 'all Muslims are radical and have a hidden agenda', which in turn must translate to: 'I'm a complete nutcase!'

Hello spendocrat,

"Moderate muslim - good muslim" is a myth.

A Radical muslim is one who follows Quran word for word like the suicide bomber who slits the throats of infidels like me.

A Moderate muslim is one who wishes to be like a Radical but he never expresses it in open as he/she is a coward and fears the (western) society in which he lives.

There may be very very few good muslims. I have yet to meet one. I have met some muslims (of pakistani origin) during Australia-Pakistan cricket match. They are really a bunch of bloody animals (as Gibbs rightly said). They were shouting " Shoiab, Kill Aussie.. " "Allah ..." even on a cricket stadium.

spendocrat, do you think "paedophile" and a "mass-murderer" Mohammed (pbuh) is/was the perfect man on earth/ I am eager to read your reply

I thought a spendocrat was a person with unlimited discretionary spending - ah well. On a more serious note, there are some Muslims who are prepared to live and let live but many "moderates" know instinctively that eventually they will out-breed the host culture. Holland, France and to a lesser extent Germany are increasingly worried about losing their country's heritage and way of life. Don't rely on my word - cruise the 'net.

Do I think Mohammed was the perfect man on Earth? Aside from struggling with the grammar of that question, I'm also confused as to how I'm supposed to answer. Are you under the impression I am a Muslim?

I know as little about Islam as I do about Christianity. But I know enough the understand that both have been used to justify great atrocities throughout history. By your logic I should be fearful of just about every person on the planet.

You believe there are 'very very few' good Muslims. Firstly - I've been to sporting events, and the people you've encountered, well, I'd put them into the category of 'idiot sports fans' rather than their religious category. I've experienced many offensive drunk noisy human beings, and one thing I've learned: it don't matter where they come from, drunken idiots are pretty much universal.

Secondly, it's a shame you haven't met any Muslims you get along with. I would suggest (a) being a little more open to the possibility, your own attitudes may have stunted your chances of this encounter, and (b) perhaps not making a judgement of millions of people based on your own extremely limited personal experience.

You're right about them being a bunch of animals though. Being part of the human race, we in fact all are. Scary, huh? You share 99.9999% of exactly the same genetics as these people!

Wouldn't it make more sense to rally against bad people of all denominations, and stand proud with good people of all denominations, rather than grouping and categorizing people in such an arrogant and generalised manner? Maybe? Judge people on their own individual merits, perhaps?

People have the perfect right to be stupid. They do not have the right to be criminal. Too bad al-Hilali and his apologist like Keysar Trad, our Mirko Bagaric and others don't want to see this. Too afraid to come out against their own, so favour slagging Ausies. Forget the niceties of cultural respect. Australian Muslims through their leadership have made it clear to Aussies where Australians can get off. It comes through loud and clear. "We're Muslims. We're Australians if it gets us something but, don't depend on us to hold National convictions. We are not as good as our word."

Can't say we don't know where we stand.

Mirko Bagaric : I agree with you. The Sheik may be misguided but he has every right to insult anyone. It's a wonderful right we have here in Australia.

Obozo: Mohammed was a paedophile. But if I use my right of Freedom of Speech and speak about Mohammed, I will get banned. It's sad.

perikles: That's true.

spendocrat: I think you should read both books and make an opinion. That may clear your doubts.

Al-Hilalli is not "misinformed' or "misguided" - he is expressing the real sentiments of his fellow Muslims who will publicly deny it in front of a camera (like his monkey Trad).

Without these outbursts (and our media vigilance) the rest of us will never know what really goes on behind Mosques doors.

Islam is a supremacist ideology "misguided" by its own teachings (Qur'an, Hadiths, and Sunnas). They regard all of us Non-Muslims as inferior Kafir and idolaters. That is the message that is fed to their offsprings – straight from their Prophet’s Mouth via their Sheikhs and Ulamas.

The Sheikh's remarks - on a comedy panel show in Cairo - are non else but part of a string of media stunts to promote discussion, educating us on the virtues of Islam - the religion of Peace - and to keep Islam on the front page – as part of a progressive programme of infiltration into our society.

Muslims post 9/11 are hurting badly. Islam needs a miracle shot to regain it's once-upon-a-time lost empire and vitality.

The Australian Islamic PR machine needs to regroup. I don't think the Stooge at the helm and the many daily criminal activities (local terrorist plots) are helping them much at the moment.

Coach,

True they need to regroup n so forth, but also they need to be held accountable for Hilali.

The islamic community have let him stay along time, same with Trad. It has been in their hands to simply remove them for years, and they have not.

Trad and Hilali also needs to charged with racial vilification... It is only fair.

Tit we do not have a right to say anything we like in this country at all. You do not understand our legal system.

I thought he just offended us convict decendents but looking at his U Tube speech kindly provided above, it is far worse.

Firstly under the various Anti Discrimination acts in I think every state and territory, you cannot make discriminatory comments, particularly in public, against lesbians and gay men. He is not endorsed to speak in a religious organisation making public statements, so the Lesbian and Gay and Transgender community can file a class action for defamation and vilification. If they can sue John Laws, they can sue the Mufti.

Secondly the Aboriginal people can demand an apology for the Mufti claiming their land, most of which is now their's again in reconciliation land title agreements. If there is a challenge for land, there are special laws to protect Aboriginal land title claims.

Thirdly the whole thing was a lie:

"The best evidence of this is the hundreds of mosques in the center of Australia built by the Afghans. Some of them were destroyed, and others were turned into Australian archeological museums, and still others remained unharmed, and they bear a history that proves that Islam has roots and ancient connections to Australia. " the Mufti.

Don't persecute him as a matyr, sue him and those that support him to utter bankruptcy.

I wouldn't ignore him either in appeasement. This offense is from a man, and if anyone wants to support him, you can help pay his legal fees.

I must admit that I wasn't particularly offended by the Sheiks comments unlike some people in this thread. I vote that we give him all the 'free speech' he needs to air his views as he will continue to expose Islamic theologians for what they are - purile, petty, bigoted.

Well done the Aussie media for splashing the Sheik's bigotry all over the front-page and prime-time for everyone to see. Keep it up!

R-right coach, did you say the interview was on a Cairo Comedy show? So he was telling a joke?

Very funny Mufty.

We have a sense of humor too.

Spike Milligan was much funnier. I particularly like the spoof called "the Pakistani Dalek".

All you Dr Who fans will love this one.

Now, who does the Pakistan Dalek remind you of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5txdOL0GQ

Don't blame me, it's Spike Milligan's fault.

oops, sorry Mufty. I'll put some sticky tape on my mouth.

To everyone else, try not to laugh at the Spike Milligan tape. Its really not PC at all.

"Put him in the curry".

PART I

Dear Mirko Bagaric,

The only way I can digest your acticle is by acknowledging that you are a viscious anti-Anglo racist who can't see harm when done to an Anglo. The Sheikh is a leader of the largest Muslim community in Sydney, the Lebanese Muslims, he is not just some guy at the pub.

If I were to take just one of the many crimes these twits (Keysar Trad as well as the Sheikh) have committed over the years and somehow change the timeline and make a prominant person of Anglo heritage act out this crime, then their career would already be buried. If they were a religious or a political leader, they may have even been charged with such offences as "discrimination against gays" (Trad at UWS 2002), inciting rape (Hilaly with his "uncovered meat"), racism (Trad with his convict dregs remark 10 years ago and Hially's remark in Egypt), putting a hostage's life in mortal danger for political gain (Hilaly in Iraq when he lied about seeing Mr Wood "eye to eye", he
endangered Wood's life as the kidnappers demanded that no media know of the tape).

Imagine if Cardinal Pell said what the Sheikh said about rape and women? I wonder if the Bagarics of the world would be in a frenzy that time around? The sheer fact that they would be in a frenzy is evidence of extreme bias and racism.

Bagaric reminds us that the philosopher Mill once wrote about how important free speech is to a free society, but that there are certain limits. These are: don't shout
"fire" in a crowded hall; don't spread lies or defame others; don't incite violence.

Has not Hilaly incited rape already? Has he not defamed the Anglo-Australian people? Has he not incited violence, knowing that in his community there is a sizable portion of hotheads, as well as religious extremist, who revel in the Sheikh speaking about us "Westerners" as trash, "meat", and that he would never back down and apologise even when wrong, until the White House is removed from the Earth.

PART II

continued comment to Mr Bagaric......

It is well known that there is much tension between the Lebanese Muslim community and the wider Australian community, particularly the Anglos. For nearly two decades, the community of non-Muslim Australians who live in areas such as Bankstown and Lakemba have been trying to communicate a frustration that they have with a certain element of the Lebanese Muslim community that is highly antagonistic and downright racist towards Anglos. Hundreds of gang bashings, stabbings and shootings and even gang rapes are well documented, ALL being committed by the Lebanese Muslims onto the Anglo Australians.

But when the victims of these assualts and just the general intimidation try to speak out for help, they get shunned, silenced, and even turned from victim to racist perpetraor. It is this frustration that eventually led to Cronulla, and still the anti-Anglo racists and their Left-wing nihilist masters sweep it all under the rug.

Bagaric today with this article continues to sweep it away.

All Croatians are criminals and their women ask for rape by Serbian men when they wear their hair down.

Is this not race hate? Is this not defaming of a whole people for no reason? is this not even inciting race hate and discrimination if I were to say this as a leader of the Serbian community?

Of course it is.

Funny how everyone who comes here seems to think that only Anglos can be racist, but they don't stop to think that if that were so true then why do their parents' homelands consist of such vile race/ethnic divisions and even wars, and why do only Northern European countires, as well as their colonies, have societies where all races/religions are equal in law and in practice.

Australia has changed demographically from over 90% Anglo fifty years ago to under 50% today (see ABS). Considering that no other nation has without violence undergone such a change in history, I'd hardly call the Anglos of Australia racist, more like jesus like tolerant. So much it starts to be to their detriment.

Good day, racist anti-Anglo Bagaric.

SHEIKH HILALY IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO AUSTRALIA

Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali went on an Egyptian TV show to preview his new stand-up routine called "All Aussie are a convict", capitalising on the success of the "Kaysar and Mufti Show". The routine's best joke was about Aussie convicts in leg-irons. Standards must be pretty low in Egypt because EVEN A POM KNOWS that one's so old it won't raise a laugh. He then stole material from "All Aussies are a boofta", but his delivery was very poor: eg. "Australian law guarantees freedoms to the point of insanity". Akmal Saleh (who wrote the material) should sue.

Compare this to just one of the classic moments of the Kaysar and Mufti Show:
MUFTI "Aussie women are like uncovered meat"
KAYSAR "The Sheikh is trying to say how much he admires Australian women because he really loves meat, especially uncovered kebabs."

Hilaly needs to return to Australia and re-unite with his straight-man if he wants to revive his career. A spokesperson from the ABC said that they "had considered running the show" but opted for a repeat of "The Two Ronnies" instead.

EMBARRASSMENT FOR JOHNJ

How embarrassing, I mispelt embarrassment.

My apologies. Now I know how Kaysar Trad must feel.

Mirko said:

"At the same time, the hysterical over-reaction to his comments displays an underlying anti-Muslim sentiment in Australia."

Hmmmmm... 'anti muslim sentiment' ?

May I humbly mention the Anti CHRISTIAN sentiment which drives those statements by the Sheikh ?

Here is one:

Surah 9:30 (regarding Christians and Jews) "Allah's CURSE be on them, they are deluded, and away from the truth"

A similar statement is made by Mohammed on his death bed. RePEATedly.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "MAY ALLAH'S CURSE BE ON THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets."

Spendo mate.. if you don't know much about Christianity or Islam, it might be time to bone up on them. But don't repeat DON'T go to an Islamic site and expect to see balance or complete information.
Find it out yourself. Hate sites can be helpful, as long as you can filter the real sources and contexts, from the colorful adjectives.

This one is quite good, and gives a lot of the inner workings of the Muslim lobby groups as well.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
There is so much information in that site, basically well documented and sound, you will be a Professor :) This site is more an apologetic site than anything else. Note this section.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Jalal_Abualrub_Craig_Winn_Debate.Islam
for Muslim 'tactics'.
and
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Women.Islam

For Christianity.. try my own little introduction please..
http://truetruth.wikispaces.com/The+Truth+about+Christianity.

There is plenty of material out there, not all as helpful as it could be. Take the time to explore these please.. so next time you contribute it will be better informed and less 'reactionary' :)

What possible purpose is there to me learning more about christianity and islam, boaz? I'm an atheist. That means I have no interest in the finer points of your quaint superstitions, as I happen to live in the real world.

Besides, it doesnt matter whats written in the bible/koran/lord of the rings, its how people interpret the message thats important.

And you should know by now I never, ever bother with your weblinks.

So many of the responses to this article are completely misguided and fail to acknowledge the most serious aspects of the sheikhs comments- his influence over young and moderate Muslims.

While I sympathise (to an extent) with the alienation felt by much of the Muslim community since September 11, there must be a stronger condemnation of the sheikhs comments from his community. How can mainstream Muslims ever expect to allay the fears and suspicions of the greater (not just Anglo-Saxon) community if they are consistently prepared to defend the indefensible!? More importantly, how can the parents and teachers of Muslim youth prevent their children from growing up to become terrorists and gang rapists if they are not prepared to condemn and remove the head of their faith in this country!? His comments to date should shake us all- comparing women to meat in the context that he did, and rubber stamping jihadists in Iraq should shock no matter what one's political persuasion.

The sheikhs comments do not reflect some misguided notion of freedom of speech. They are dangerous and inflammatory, and more specifically, designed to appease extremists. The only reason he ever attempts to back track is because between his sojourns to the Middle East, he realises just how good he's got it in Australia.

Hilali knows he can use racial vilification, lie his head off and condone rape of Australian women because the government is too spineless to stop him. He pushes and pushes because he knows he can.
There is more than "hysterical over reaction" if a muslim perceives some slight , then you get death threats and all the other hatreds espoused by Islam.
The convicts who came here worked , they at least were not a bunch of parasites. Their descendants have much to be proud of.

Not only this idiotic, inane, loud mouthed sheek(my spelling) but have you read what one of this clowns compatriots has spewed out? Of course I talk about the pagan death-loving (others deaths NOT HIS) sheek feiz mohamad maybe you haven't heard what this pagan clown has said. Quote: "Today many parents, they prevent their children from attending lessons. Why? They fear that they might create a place in the their hearts, the love, just a bit of the love, of sacrificing THEIR (NOT HIS-THE FLAMIN HYPOCRITE) lives (he is talking about CHILDREN here)for allah (that's the moon god of mecca-of course) continuing this idiots rant - "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending islam" end of this miserable quote. This death loving (others death naturally-not his)foul mouthed clown was born in Australia. great hopes for the future, great hopes of living in peace with these pagan death-loving pschopathic clowns oh yes??
Now let the moslem loving bleeding hearts have a go at me. Regards, numbat

'There may be very very few good muslims. I have yet to meet one.'

gee thanks obozo, because of course based on your population sample of, what, 3? you have surveyed a sizeable portion of the 1 billion muslims in the world and have come to a scientifically sound conclusion that they are all animals.

Its good to know your logic is based on credible evidence and not irrational fear and hate mongering.

For both the last 2 posters dead right these people should be kicked straight out with a no return card stamped to there forhead

What am i talking about you need up government to stand up and this should have been done before like i have said before.

Rudd has even got on the bandwagon, to late.

When you lot work out i am here for change and have already given my respect to you with regards my email, but alas nobody wants change until you do all that is said and that only , nothing but BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Actions are better than

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Real change , real solutions or just keep the cr#p you have now.
Look at NSW close to recession< labor getting into practice for the big one.

Also labor new that privitisation would mean jobs why else do they keep selling of state assets for privitisation, but dont you worry your not interested.
Liberal well there interest shareholders and big business

I am angree because i see all these problems and what are you doing debating about who did what and who is responsible, its about time you took a chance on a real change.

But remember you can always go BLAH BLAH BLAH

An interesting find in the Q'ran Boaz:

"MAY ALLAH'S CURSE BE ON THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets."

The Mufti claims that Afghans had "mosques" in central Australia before European settlement. The traditional Aboriginal people reclaimed most of these places with these imaginary "mosques" over the last 20 years.

I guess this cultural claim by the Mufti was a joke. A ponderous one.

These sacred sites are part of Aboriginal Australian prophecy. Some prophecy is in the land itself.

I'm not into the Christian Church, that is no secret. I do know that if you dabble in spiritual matters that you do not understand, well, good luck. Chances are, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. No human does. We just look for clues.

Cursing is not religion, it is witchcraft. At best a cult.

A word of apology first. In my last post I misspelt misspelt. Pathetic really.

Spendocrat, you should have looked at BOAZ_David's links. I certainly found them useful, though perhaps not in the way BD intended. For example, BD's real name appears in one, which enabled me to Google his posts on blogs by Andrew Bolt et al. Very interesting.

BOAZ_David, I have always enjoyed your posts and found them (sometimes) amusing and (occasionally) informative. Certainly they are far superior to the illiterate rants often found on OLO (several "good" examples on this thread). However I simply cannot fathom your argument that a "hate site" is a good source of information on Islam. That's like saying that a Satanist site is a good source of information on Christianity, or that a Nazi website is a good source of information on Jews.

More seriously, if your writing on http://10-teams.wikispaces.com/ or http://truetruth.wikispaces.com/ is what you actually believe, then I am rather sad for you. How can a good Christian be so full of condemnation? I must now give up any idea that you are a lovable (albeit eccentric) evangelical Christian.

For both Christians and Muslims I can only quote Abdu'l-Bahá, who said that the whole point of religion was to bring about understanding and fellowship amongst people. If, instead, religion was dividing people and causing bloodshed then it would be better to have no religion at all. No doubt the believers out there will disagree, but as an agnostic, I don't really care.

Quote: A robust right to free speech is a key to advancing the social and moral health of the community.

But for this to occur we have to be particularly tolerant to allowing loopy views to be aired and not seek to punish those who make unpopular comments. Quote.

Particulary how tolerant should Australians be for another islamic leader in Australia, Feiz Mohammed and his comments as he presided over a sermon to his eager listeners and even taped it for many more captive audiences:

"Today many parents, they prevent their children from attending lessons," he says in the video.

"Why? They fear that they might create a place in the their hearts, the love, just a bit of the love, of sacrificing their lives for Allah."

"We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam.

"Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior).

"Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."

Feiz Mohammed, is head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool. He was born and bred in Sydney, Australia.

He is currently living in Lebanon and left prior to the police detaining suspected terrorists who have allegedly planned to target the Nuclear Reactor at Lucus Heights in Sydney and cause great harm to the community.

It was reported that Feiz Mohammed had an association with them.

Johnj: couldn't have said it better myself. Very well articulated post.

Following on from my previous post, I'm a little alarmed that this blog has turned into a critique and indeed clash of religious views. In my view, Christian fundamentalists are just as threatening to mainstream culture as Muslim fundamentalists. Quoting passages from the Koran that are filled with hate, can easily be matched by doing the same from the bible etc.

The only difference between Christian fundamentalists and their Muslim counterparts is that the former lacks any credibility amongst more moderate Christians. While I am certainly not a 'bleeding heart lefty', it seems obvious to me that the reason radical sheikhs have such power over Muslim youth, is because much of that youth (especially outside Australia) has been neglected and exploited by the 1st world. For instance when Bin Laden says that America want's to steal arab oil, kill arab children and occupy arab nations, is it any wonder that the impressionable arab youth believe him?

Having said that, I firmly believe that military action is warranted in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. However this should only be sanctioned after the 1st world establishes effective aid programmes that benefit the population (not sanctions that punish it). The battle for hearts and minds isnt going to be won by converting muslims-its going to be won by appreciating the moderates and alienating the fundamentalists.

Interesting to read the 'debate' that's transpired while I've been off in the bush with the kids. Boazy and co are still the foaming at the textual mouth while a couple of brave adherents to reason persist in trying to introduce some rationality into the discussion.

I particularly like JohnJ's most recent contribution. How dumb would anybody be to establish a hate site with their own name on it - and then whine about feeling thretened?

As far as I'm concerned, one religious nutter's as bad as another.

I like JohnJ's post too. Blimey, am I the illiterate one? ;>

I don't use correct grammar online and I'm quite aware of it. How else do you compact words? What else can a 'saint' do? (lol)

I was just curious about BOAZ's quote. I don't think action should be based on religion but rather laws protecting us from the behavior of these men.

OK, the use of the word "witchcraft" to the describe coaching of children to their suicide for violence was a bad choice of words, but I think you get the drift. Criminal is a better word.

I have just posted a comment on "expanding" child protection laws in the general discussion section of OLO, re-terrorist influence over children. It will be interesting to see the responses.

For politicians or community leaders to reject punitive measures against any individual who abuses free speech is unpopular in a society that thrives on praising the just punishment of criminals. Punishing free speech abusers might win community approval but it does no justice to the privilege of free speech that any freedom loving society should be upholding and protecting. Free speech by definition means an acceptance of all ideas and opinions, even those that can be deemed reprehensible or an abuse of free speech itself. Seeking to have reprehensible views or ideologies suppressed by punishing their advocates does nothing to expose why they are reprehsible or should be condemned. Suppression of free speech drives dangerous ideologies out of public scrutiny and into private gatherings where they can grow unchallenged and followers can find justification in seeing their leaders' persecuted. Suppression is one step closer to oppression that characterises totalitarian states where freedom loving people are desperate to leave. Our politicians and community leaders should swallow their pride and stand up for free speech over and above public adoration and voter approval. They should not be seeking to imprison racists, bigots or those inciting violence, but to explain why these and other intolerant ideas are unacceptable in a freedom loving society.

Crusader

This is real.

The old phsycological trick of looking down and waving off the less moral will only promote more hatred and extremism for ignoring it.

The ability for common sense, is not understood and shared by every individual, as you would, rationally debate.

This started out as quite a reasonable blog -- an interesting point of view and a number of comments, which unfortunately have degenerated into cheap point-scoring. We have seen Sheik al-Hilaly at it again, with the usual dissembling from his defenders and more recently allegations concerning Sheik Feiz Mohammed Amir, also an Australian citizen, calling on his co-religionists to sacrifice their children in the sacred name of jihad. On this blog we have had the usual quota of atheists, agnostics (usually defined as an atheist who hedges his bets) rationalists (in their own view; irrational in the eyes of others) the odd Christian and "usual suspects."

I do not want to buy into a slanging match with anyone but we should look at the facts. The Islamic fundamentalists mentioned above are deadly serious in their statements. No allusions to the poetic nature of Arabic and difficulties with translation can mask jihadist teaching and preaching. While it is true that Christian fundamentalists in America have the same apocalyptic worldview as hard-line Muslims, their capacity to influence gullible and alienated youth is far less. I'm sure that we have some of these Christian weirdos in Australia but none come remotely close to the so-called Christian Zionists in America, who collect money to arm Israel in the belief that Armageddon is at hand. Presumably they believe they will be swept up in the rapture of the second coming, rather than become particles of fallout.

My view is that as our much-loved Prime Minister has said: we should have the right to determine who comes to this country and settles. We cannot sustain a hostile counterculture (of fundamentalist Muslims) in our midst. The government has a majority in both Houses and it is high time that a law was introduced to strip imported hate mongers of their citizenship, irrespective of their stripe, and in the case of the two Sheiks deport them to somewhere singularly unpleasant. It is amazing that the government has the power to deport convicted criminals from this country but not those who would tear it apart through religious madness.

perikles

The government has a majority in both Houses and it is high time that a law was introduced to strip imported hate mongers of their citizenship, irrespective of their stripe, and in the case of the two Sheiks deport them to somewhere singularly unpleasant. It is amazing that the government has the power to deport convicted criminals from this country but not those who would tear it apart through religious madness.

You know i have said this several times now and you know what , it doesnt matter neither labor or liberal will do this because they would lose votes .

The Australian Peoples Party what are they going to do to me.
I well in favour off this and several other things but here is just talk nothing else.

swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Crusader raises a very interesting point- ie is the right of free speech absolute?

For instance I thought that the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria for 'Holocaust Denial' was wrong. I also note that Irving has been banned from travelling to Australia which I think is ridiculous. Of course, this is not say I agree with Mr Irving or even sympathise with his historical revisionism. However, imprisoning him achieved three things: (a) gave creedence to the idea that the holocaust would not stack up to challenge; (b) turned Irving into some kind of hero to the disenfranchised European far right and fundamentalist Iranians; (c) made us all look like hypocrites for attacking Muslims but defending Jews.

Furthermore I think parallels can also be drawn with the indefinite imprisonment of David Hicks when you ask the question of what it has achieved: (a) eroded the concept of innocent until proven guilty; (b) turned Hicks into a hero of the socialist left; (c) made us all look like hypocrites for denouncing the justice metered out by the Taleban while supporting Guantanomo Bay style detention.

In my view the comments from the muftis are far more damaging than those of Irving and the actions of David Hicks, yet we continue to tolerate them and take no action. Why?

JohnJ,

Excellent post, its always seemed to me that religion is a barrier to a common understanding amongst the peoples of this world, not a force.

BOAZ_David is indeed an intriguing character, he strikes me as an intelligent, eccentric yet likeable fellow. Which is why for the life of me i can not understand some of the illogical garbage that spews from his keyboard

Yes - the Sheikh is misguided. No - free speech isn’t alright. It must not be free from restraint and responsibility. Using the right to free speech to abuse others or to maliciously create misunderstanding, hatred or serious disharmony is plain wrong and, like the drunken street bully, if people haven't the self-restraint and respect of others' rights to fair treatment and sensible behaviour, then the law should be called on to constrain them.

I think a good leader's first priority must be to develop positive and helpful relations. The difference between a media-savvy (and media supported) western leaders is they only appear to do so; whereas some old warmongering sheiks (and pastors) haven't learnt how to scam the wider-community.

Heart-on -sleeve style politics is at least honest. I guess that is why Hanson gathered such a following. I think it is fair to compare Hanson with Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali - they both didn't respect the Australian way of getting to know individuals before forming an opinion or commenting about them.

The media do tend to beat-up the newsworthiness of comments that the likes of Hilali and Hanson make. I think that our concern needs to be with the real extremists. The hardcore utilitarian zealots who see the only way to peace and happiness is through killing innocents and constantly attacking other cultures and peoples.

The “christian) utilitarians who can't see that Christianity is supposed to be about holding firm to certain principles (thereby, preserving the value and authority of those Principles which in turn ensures long-term stability) have apparently chosen to go down the same path of the extremists and warmongers. There is nothing wrong with pointing out certain negative aspects of others’ cultures but to make a hobby of it is not sensible behaviour (Boaz, et al).

The media's job must be to inform us - not to create news for its own sake. And communities need to sack or refuse to support these groups and individuals whose main intent is to try to create disharmony and destroy positive aspects and relations in Australian society.

I said: "The hardcore utilitarian zealots who see the only way to peace and happiness is through killing innocents and constantly attacking other cultures and peoples."

Just a bit of self critique here. I realised that I am being very generous in assigning such worthy motivation as wanting peace and happiness to these people (hardcore zealots). To be honest I think that some people create strife because without that power they have nothing else in their character or lives of any merit. They are just like vandals who destroy things for the sake of it or to draw attention to themselves.

For every President, Mufti, Sheik, Pastor, Prime Minister there are millions of people who fill their lives with mostly constructive and helpful works.

Unfortunately they are the ones whose peace and happiness, as history records, the "leaders" seem determined to destroy. Maybe Marx was correct and we need to stop fighting each other and take a long hard look at who the real enemy is.

JohnJ.. thanx for the constructive criticism. Please always remember that here, its not so much about personality as digging for truth.
Information can be interpreted in various ways, as I'm frequently reminded here. But straight out factual info, without 'adjectives' of a hateful nature is still legitimate.

Lets take a court of law. The facts must be presented, even though they might be very unpalatable to the accused. The info I presented on the Web sites is quite factual, and not really open to much interpretation. A curse is a curse of course :) But seriously, when one third of humanity follows a religion which curses the other 2 thirds, which in turn 'blesses' its enemies.. we need to look closely.

Mohammed cursed Christians and Jews on his death bed.. repeatedly, that is simply a descriptive and factual assessment of an Islamic source. I haven't added any 'colorful' adjectives like 'The evil, moronic child molesting Mohammed......cursed Christians and Jews."

I truly hope you see the difference.
Fact alone=information
Fact+ adjectives=Hate site.

CARL.. you need a hug ! :) thanx for the kind words.

Tonight, I had pleasant conversations with the Muslim lady in my gym, previously I had very warm convo's with my Iranian taxi driver Muslim friend... There is more to me than the information I provide. Don't join the 2 please.

SPENDO.. if you like a good corporate war book.. http://inthecompanyofgoodandevil.com/ its a bladi beaudy.. could not put it down.
I wish you would look at some links from time to time, they fill in the gaps.

CJ. update on the Sudanese riot :) 2night at my gym.. yep.. one of the participants. Now I even know what it was about. all over a girl.
One tribes bloke loved her.. she wanted a bloke from the other tribe, and then the men fought, and the others joined in. Now ur up to speed :)

Boazy: "CJ. update on the Sudanese riot :) 2night at my gym.. yep.. one of the participants. Now I even know what it was about. all over a girl.
One tribes bloke loved her.. she wanted a bloke from the other tribe, and then the men fought, and the others joined in. Now ur up to speed :) "

Oh... so that was the 'not 7... not 70... but 700' Sudanese who supposedly engaged in a riot in some benighted Melbourne suburb, thus demonstrating the 'failure' of multiculturalism, but about which you haven't been able to provide documented evidence?

Like I've said before, the 'mad mufti' isn't the only misguided religious nutter spreading divisive propaganda based on bulldust. Probably unfortunately, it's the Muslim nutters who get the most media these days - it'd undoubtedly be quite amusing to unmask an 'anonymous' Brethren nutter like Boaz and give him a spread like Hilali's had lately. However, Hilali's someone who is apparently influential and important - at least for the time being - while Boaz is a nobody who isn't even game enough to identify himself with his own ideas.

CJ Morgan.The trouble is that Sheik Hilali and people like Wassim Durhiri have a lot of supporters.There is a deafening din of silence when comment is requested from the Muslim Community.What are they afraid of?The Muslim Community are playing both sides of the political agenda.They are using the power of victim status and cultural ignorance to gain advantage and we are falling for it.

How is it we have the smallest religious sect in Australia having the greatest influence,with prayer rooms,halal foods and fear from our Govts offending them,in case they might become violent?They are playing on our weak kneed fears, because we don't know how to cope with their violent nature and chaos.It is all about power politics and we have yet to grasp the reality.

It is interesting that while crusader bleats on with his bleeding heart of an armchair anthropologist, yahoo7 currently has an opinion poll.

At the moment: Friday night, over 90% of those polling in yahoo7 believe that the Sheik Feiz Mohammed Amir's tapes should be taken out of distribution.

Taking them off distribution is not exactly freedom of speech, is it? As I mentioned before, such a notion does not exist in this country and it never has.

Ramble on as you may, it seems that only 10% of Australians agree with you. Far better to be responsible than to pay the price in warfare.

Thanks to all those kind folk who said nice things about my last post.

To all those who would like Sheikh Hilaly and Feiz Mohammed deported, it would be well to remember that Hilaly is an Australian citizen (for good or ill) and Mohammed was born in Sydney. Where would you deport Mohammed to? Tasmania?

Wre raises an interesting issue regarding the banning of David Irving. The difference between Irving and the merry Islamic clerics is of course that Irving is not an Australian resident. Thus he had to apply for a visa, which was refused. Australian governments have a glorious tradition of banning unpopular overseas speakers, often spinelessly caving in to pressure groups. I can only agree with Crusader that "punishing free speech abusers might win community approval but it does no justice to the privilege of free speech". Is speech in Australia free, or not?

BOAZ_David, I am pleased you took my comments in the spirit that I made them. I am not sure however that I can agree with your formula of "Fact+ adjectives=Hate site". My own view is that it is more like "Truth+ Half/Truth+ Misrepresentations+ Exaggerations+ Lies=Hate Site". Best of luck straining the truth from a soup like that. Best to start from a reliable source, using dubious material only when you have to.

Yasser Soliman and Waleed Aly should think very carefully before they launch into victim mode and compare the Catch the Fire ministers with Muslim jihadists. Together with a reality-challenged Green spokeswoman, they smeared the 2 Dannys as "far-Right" fundamentalists and "groups which have a history of toxic-hate speech."
Why do newspapers, or the radio, or television, permit this propagandistic use of epithets for which not the slightest evidence is presented? The word "far right" or "right-wing" should not be used, as it has been used, to blacken the name and reputation of anyone at all who happens to grimly perceive the menace of Islam. What made Pim Fortuyn, the bemused libertine, "right-wing," as he was routinely called, so stupidly, in the European, American and Australian press? What? There was nothing. Was Bertrand Russell "right-wing" because of how he saw Islam? Churchill -- was he "right-wing" or "far right-wing"? Spinoza? Hume? John Quincy Adams? Mark Twain? Are they all "right-wing" because they grasped the essence of Islam?
During the war that the Muslims, the "Palestinians" and the locals unleashed on the Christians of Lebanon, a phrase appeared all over the Western world. It was always and everywhere "the right-wing Christians." In what did their "right-wingness" consist? Were they for a certain economic policy normally associated with the "right-wing"? Were they supporters of, or supported by, Fascists and unreconstructed Nazis all over the world? No, the Fascists and the Nazis, including known war criminals, had always been on the side of Muslims.
Toxic hate speech!?
So, quoting violent, racist, supremacist passages in the Qur'an and Sunnah and being alarmed at these hateful texts in the privacy of their own church is hate speech? Why shouldn't we non-Muslims examine the very real threat we face from Islam? Are Christians rioting over cartoons, plotting to mass-murder non-Christians, demanding endless apologies, causing trouble in nearly every country on Earth, calling Jews apes and pigs, calling non-Christians unbelievers and filth, torching mosques and marching through non-Christian areas with signs that say "Christianity will dominate"? No, Muslims are.

CONTINUED
Which brings me to the jihadists.
Sheikh Feiz Mohammed's ranting is simply reflecting the teaching of the Qur'an and the main recensions of the hadith, and the sira ......the Jews, whom Mohammed called “brothers of monkeys.” ( 2:62-65, 5:59-60 and 7:166 etc etc — where the Qur'an records that “Allah transformed the Sabbath-breaking Jews into pigs and monkeys.”). It is not surprising that Jihadists take delight in killing Jews considering the actions of their prophet
Hilali is doing exactly the same in everything he says - reflecting the teaching of the Qur'an and ahadith.
Ditto bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi (null), Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Hizb'allah, Hizb ut-Tahrir etc etc.
They all quote the Qur'an and the Traditions and no Muslim can refute them - how can they? They're only saying what the Qur'an teaches.
The CTF ministers and other alarmed non-Muslims quote EXACTLY the same verses and suddenly they're "far right-wing", bigots, racists and Islamophobes.
Mr Soliman...... said Mr Howard should think twice about addressing the group.
"It is a dangerous thing for a senior politician to do." Is that some kind of threat?
Waleed Aly described Catch the Fire as "spectacularly ignorant".
Well Waleed, smooth-talking taqiyya-merchant that you are, perhaps you can enlighten us - did they take the Qur'an quotes "out of context"? Are we infidels so spectacularly ignorant to think literally hundreds of verses of the Qur'an are violent, supremacist, misogynystic etc? What bit of "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve..... Jews and Christians are under Allah's curse......unbelievers are the "vilest of creatures".....they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off......Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other....etc" don't we understand?
Kevin Rudd called the Sheik's rant obscene and demanded action. What? Does this mean he's all for outlawing the Qur'an? After all, Sheikh Feiz Mohammed is merely the monkey, not the organ-grinder.
Good on you, Mr Howard, a leader of a Judeo-Christian country should never cave in to Muslim threats and whining.

There is a definite LINE between free speech and direct threats, with real malicious intent, affecting civilians and our national security.

If I called John Howard a coward and a liar in public, that would constitute freedom of speech. I would not be behind bars for saying it.

But if I said "publicly":

Australia would be better without that liar and coward Anglo John Howard, and it is my duty to kill him in the name of Allah.

Or,

"I hereby issue a fatwa for all Allah’s people living in Australia to get John Howard the next time he is seen power walking..."

I am sure that pronto I will become very acquainted with our friendly men in black.

Or will I?

It seams our dear Islamic leaders have been saying worse things for years - of course always denying it later - without any reprisals.

(We) are clearly allowing a religious sect with a core mandate from their god Allah to destroy the free world, civilization as we know it - taking us all back to the 7th century dark ages...

They are achieving this by using every form of jihad in their arsenal (media, terror, multiculturalism, interfaith, intermarriage, conversions, etc…) abusing our stupidity and tolerant naivety, programming their kids to hate all non-Muslims, and fight us in the name of Allah and his prophet.

Three options:

1. Submit to Islam
2. Reform Islam
3. Destroy Islam

Since Islam WILL NOT and CANNOT reform – because they cannot change, delete or even question a single letter from their alleged divine revealed text.

Islam WILL NOT and CANNOT stop until its objectives are realized. (convert all to Islam and live under Shari’a law)

To think otherwise, will be against Allah's WILL and the teachings of his prophet. It is therefore un-Islamic not to impose Islam on the rest of the world.

That leaves us with option 1 or 3.

What will it be Australia

coach

You have hit the nail on the head. The retentious atheista/rationalista (puffed up and self-righteous) cannot stand aloof from the conflict that is to come, courtesy of flawed migrant policies; misguided multiculturalism and a fear in government of the political consequences of standing up to those who would destroy Australia, be they mad mullahs, the extreme Christian Right or those who loftily defend their so-called 'civil rights' especially lawyers who benefit from notoriety and a bulging wallet.

To those who think there is no threat, we are living on borrowed time, purchased by exemplary police work. To reiterate what has become a hackneyed phrase: "We have to be lucky all the time - they (the Islamofascists) only have to get lucky once."

Take off the shades and read about what is happening in the UK, Holland, Germany, France and even the Nordic states. No-one is hiding this information - it's all across the net and we can't stand back and say we have been deceived about their objectives.

It's balls-to-the-wall time for us all, including whatever ther feminine equivalent might be.

Keeping swinging coach, and watch for the curve ball!

If you would like to read a short article about how easily one may loose rights assumed by a society. Read the following.

It can all happen while your kept busy just living a day to day life.

http://www.nowpublic.com/that_blissful_sleep

aqvarvis

you have helped restore sanity to this issue and thanks for the reference, which I have downloaded and commend to one and all. Remember too, the words of Pastor Neimoller:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

It's time for the politically correct to shut up.

Thank you aqvarivs, I followed your link and found it most interesting.

Were you referring to this bit "Islam is fascism. Fascism stands for a centralized, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Islam is the religious and social expression of fascism and Koranic law and sharia enforce it."

Ot this bit "This separation of government from people... took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised... as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance ... the crises and reforms so occupied the people that they did not see ... the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter....the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires."

Or this "Decent people [were kept] so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ WITHOUT AND WITHIN (my emphasis), that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. "

Tell me if that second or third bit reminds you of any place you live?

I'm not altogether sure that the possibility of Australia becoming an Islamic Republic is the biggest threat to our democratic institutions or way of life.

Johnj

When ever people are afraid to speak out or exercise their rights of citizenship because a minority can behave in a fashion that is excused or sought to be excused in the name of appeasement. That society becomes a little less. That was the message of those Germans who are able to talk about the insidiousness of toxic social disintegration.
Between you and I. I doubt Australia is any more immune than any other country.
We make every excuse for the Australian Muslim community for not speaking out against "their" leaders for spreading such filth. Excuses we would not make for any other culture. The word precedents come to mind. How do we respond when another culture takes up such behavior. And another will, eventually, because this has been a success. Victim and aggressor all in one. I get to strike out. I get to defame. I get to resort to violence. I get to because I am a victim. I am outside of your society while I live with in your nation. I get. You give.

The difficulty with Islam compared to any other political threats(other isms) is the veil of RELIGION that Islam hides so cleverly behind.

Every time a rock is unturned revealing yet another fault in Islam, we are quickly reminded by their propaganda machine (aka moderates) that it is a peaceful religion only wanting to worship their god… and our dear PC leftists will fall for that every time.

Freedom of religious expression should be preserved at all cost. My main problem with Islam is that its religious expression cannot be separated from the total state and social context.

For Islam to exist, it is forced to function separately from the state UNTIL it has the necessary power to impose an Islamic state onto that country.

The dissonance manifested in that separation of State from Mosque PLUS the lack of a unified global Islamic leadership is at the source of Islamic frustration globally.

Islam has been under many pressures – internally and externally since the collapse of the last Ottoman Empire in 1924. Like a wounded dragon “with many heads” it wiggles and squirms before it finally collapses…or regains more lethal strength…and becomes a bigger threat.

A good illustration is today’s scene in Iraq. Islam’s hunger for dominance and supremacy is preventing a peaceful resolution. Short term we will see more sectarian wars and more attacks on the freedom troops...until total anarchy and finally Islam.

Islam is not here to simply co-exist with us. How long can a hungry wolf behave itself in a pan of sheep?

To ronnie peters,

You compare a rape inciter, murderer supporter to a women (Hanson)who was concerned that her country was recieving too many migrants with racist views and attitudes.

"I think that our concern needs to be with the real extremists. The hardcore utilitarian zealots who see the only way to peace and happiness is through killing innocents and constantly attacking other cultures and peoples. " (you imply Hilaly is not this type of person)

"The “christian) utilitarians who can't see that Christianity is supposed to be about holding firm to certain principles (thereby, preserving the value and authority of those Principles which in turn ensures long-term stability) have apparently chosen to go down the same path of the extremists and warmongers"

What a nut. Where is there a group or even one person, who is a Christian extremist, trying to bring their philosophy to the world, and believing that mass murder and racism is an acceptable way to do his politics.

"And communities need to sack or refuse to support these groups and individuals whose main intent is to try to create disharmony and destroy positive aspects and relations in Australian society. "

You don't know just how right you are. The community needs to stand against these bigots and racists and rape & violence inciters, but they don't, as we painfully realized more fully when Hilaly's meat comment was not "actually" denounced by ANY of the Islamic leaders (Sheikhs and administrators). The best we got was "I realise these comments can seem offensive but only if taken out of context or misinterpeted". Others, such as Keysar Trad, actually tried to say that the Sheikh was saying that the Sheikh was saying that the rapists should have gotten a longer sentence, but as is clear from the Sheikhs recent comments in Egypt, he said what we all thought he said in the first place.
And in regards to the media creating news, I suppose they used the two Sheikhs (Feiz & Hilaly) as puppets and threw the vile hate words into their mouths.

Unable to come to terms with the violence of our own religious heritage, we have increasingly come to perceive the violence of other religious traditions as strange, alien, or even evil. In other words, Islam has become, as Judaism once was, a dark mirror in which we see and persecute the reflection of our own unacknowledged past.
We appear to have a reluctance or inability to acknowledge that our own culture is itself the product of a fundamentalist religious revolution of unprecedented rigour and severity.

Our revolution took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was carried through both by Puritan preachers and by leaders of the Counter Reformation with fanatical zeal and, at times, murderous cruelty. It has left deep scars upon our culture, and its heritage survives today in the rigour of the political and economic doctrines to which we are in thrall. If we but pause to even think or even ponder, Islam’s deep links with Judaism and with Christianity are still preserved in its religious calendar just as they are in the Koran. In its fierce monotheism, in its patriarchalism, and in its very choice of patriarchs, Islam is nothing other than the offspring of Judaism and Christianity.

Islam appears in danger of becoming the most important of all the West’s modern apocalyptic enemies- it has filled the vacancy left by the recent conversion of the ‘evil empire’ of the Soviet Union. The drama of the Last Judgment, standing at the imaginative heart of the historical Christian faith, is now rarely alluded to by Christian preachers. The terms ‘hell’ and ‘sin’ are seldom used. The notion of God’s ‘wrath’, which once thundered through Paul’s letters, has, by a process of theologically rationalised mistranslation, mysteriously disappeared from the New English Bible.

Certainly, radical Islam poses a threat, but with sheer hypocrisy we’ll fan the flames of a prophesied and self-fulfilled apocalyptic vision.

It appears to be general belief that these radical, hate mongering muslims cannot be deported because they are "Australian"citizens. If they are guilty of encouraging evil among their followers by the terrible speeches they are making, surely they could be sent to "off shore" centres where they could be held indefinately until such times they either change their views OR give up that Australian citizenship they hold so cheaply.
And any 'view' changing should be taken with a proverbial grain of salt.
It is obvious they are filling the not so bright heads of the young muslim with stupidity, creating a danger. In the west, two taxi drivers of middle East descent are accused of raping or sexual assault on female passengers.
It is bad that women and girls can no longer catch a taxi safely, why is this filth being allowed to happen?

These hate intrenched people wont be deported due to the liberal and labor party being too pathetic and do not want to loss votes.

that is why our government wont get rid of them.

If anyone can say they agree with that

our women and daughters are just like meat

australia is more muslim due to aussies being chained

jihad let the children die

jews are pigs

now these people are racist, inciting violence and their allegion is to australia i very much douht so isnt it time we actually told and showed these people what being australian is.

email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au

if we dont stand and stop these types of acts even though we do believe in free speech what is being said is not speech but a call for war.
If i dont recieve emails you dont want real change and only interested in whining so will see who will stand and who will keep wingeing

I'm with you. Kick them out.

Sorry Relda – you are misguided too.

Religiously speaking, there is no link between Islam and Christianity or Judaism.

Mohammad (the alleged prophet) was never mentioned in the Bible. He does not bring any new revelation nor does he "prophesy" anything the bible hasn’t already mentioned.

The Qur’an is a poor interpretation of old folk nomadic and pseudo-Christian tales.

The core nature of Islam is Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish, as clearly seen in its actions today.

The apocalyptic role of Islam (if any at all) would probably be the bringing of the Anti-Christ to the final scene.

The only possible link of Arabs to Abraham is through Ishmael – who was NOT part of God’s plan for humanity and who was clearly NOT mentioned in the divine blessing that God had through Isaac and Jacob.

The only way to God is and has always been through the descendant of Isaac and Jacob: "Jesus". Not Mohammad or anyone else.

Unless you can prove that the Bible has been somehow changed – these facts remain true.

Well said coach. As I'm under seige elsewhere, my time on this blog is limited. Until the destructive power of these demagogues is curtailed and they are removed from this country, I foresee nothing but trouble and possibly death.

Coach, your slip is showing.

>>Mohammad (the alleged prophet) was never mentioned in the Bible.<<

This would suggest that the Bible wasn't written until at least the seventh century, since it would have been impossible to include a mention of a prophet who lived from 570 to 632.

Actually, your post is a string of very strange statements.

>>Religiously speaking, there is no link between Islam and Christianity or Judaism<<

So the God they refer to is different in each case? This is contrary to the assertions of a number of other posters - I personally couldn't tell the difference between them either, but possibly you can? Help us out here.

>>The Qur’an is a poor interpretation of old folk nomadic and pseudo-Christian tales<<

And the Bible is... what?

>>The core nature of Islam is Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish, as clearly seen in its actions today<<

From much that has been written here (hi Boaz!) it would seem to the casual observer that the core of Christianity is anti-Muslim.

>>The apocalyptic role of Islam (if any at all) would probably be the bringing of the Anti-Christ to the final scene.<<

Only if you believe in the concept of an "Anti-Christ". And if you do, the statement probably becomes self-defining. But meaningless to the rest of us.

>>The only possible link of Arabs to Abraham is through Ishmael – who was NOT part of God’s plan for humanity and who was clearly NOT mentioned in the divine blessing that God had through Isaac and Jacob. The only way to God is and has always been through the descendant of Isaac and Jacob: "Jesus". Not Mohammad or anyone else.<<

Pure mumbo-jumbo.

>>Unless you can prove that the Bible has been somehow changed – these facts remain true.<<

Which one - the one written after the seventh century, or another one?

Coach,
Not only is your slip showing, I fear your pants are falling.
Need I remind you of the basic link between the three Abrahamic religions. No doubt, as someone who professes biblical knowledge, you should comprehend Abraham as not only the legacy of peace and blessing, but also for violence. You can fight wars over God, you can run crusades, you can fly planes into buildings and you can kill yourself in the service of killing other people - violence in the service of faith begins with Abraham. The Jewish Torah and the Qur'an have parallel stories of Abraham. For the Jews and Christians, Isaac inherits God's blessing. For Muslims, Ishmael is the chosen son. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. All three religions revere Abraham's most spectacular test of faith.

Perhaps, after all, it was the collective mental figment of imagination of the Israelite tribe of Levi, who called their god Yahweh. Moses, the great unifier, a member of the tribe of Levi, naturally declared this ‘invented’ and tribal god as Yahweh, the official god of all of Israel – the same ‘warrior’ god as adopted by Islam. Islam – the youngest claimant to Abraham’s patrimony is pitted against the two older ones – Christianity and Judaism. In this centuries-old conflict, religious dogma, however, has always played the surrogate for very practical objectives, bluntly put – for territorial and political conquest and domination.

One can generally accept Western civilization as grounded on Judeo-Christian tradition. Secondly, if you see this primarily as being a conflict between Islam and the West, it is therefore also a conflict between Islam and the other two Abrahamic religions. Ralph Peters cogently observes in his ‘Beyond Terror’, “Unfortunately we are poorly prepared for this war. . . We are prepared to fight machines. But the enemy is belief (or simply hatred). Whether that belief lies in religion misinterpreted or in ethnic fanaticism, it commonly rejects our rules of warfare, as surely as it does the rule of law.

To Anti-bigot. You call yourself anti-bigot which implies that you are not a bigot. Well I think that you are a bigot. Your reading of my post suggests a prejudice based on your need to have people agree with you completely. Or was it that I mentioned Marx? Your reading of Mirko Bargaric’s article and the tone at which you address him and other posters suggest to me a deep hypocrisy (or perhaps contradiction) in your thinking. There is certainly an arrogance based, I think, on a subtle bigotry towards people who you apparently regard as inferior in their position and thinking.

I tend to think that if you and Boaz et al were born an Arab you would still behave like bigots. Except you would be quoting from the violent bits of the Old testament to stir up trouble with Christians and Jews and you would also be pointing out western atrocities and the excuses that are used to justify them.

Oh yes you’ve cottoned onto the idea of reverse racism or the tendency of multiculturalists to be more forgiving of others’ cultures (not bigotry -just being overly accommodating and being self-assured Chrisitians in the real sense at times). Just as you Anti-bigot and your lot accommodate willingly the terrorism of the West while railing against the likes of Hilaly.

Since when do Australians follow other cultural mores. Hanson would always point to faults in other cultures to excuse her flawed ideas. This is similar to the way you operate Anti-bigot. more

wow,

"Mohammad (the alleged prophet) was never mentioned in the Bible. He does not bring any new revelation nor does he "prophesy" anything the bible hasn’t already mentioned."

you know, some times i feel real sorry for Peter Sells, secular humaism and the sharp eye of Pericles (what a difference one letter makes) are the least of his problems when those who proffess to be of the same faith have so much trouble with basic comprehension.

To anti-bigot
Certain westerners are working towards convincing western terrorists (like USA administration) and expecting the likes of Hilaly, Israel, certain Islamic groups, Nazi groups etc. to develop a sophisticated approach to resolving conflict and overcoming their bigoted thinking - as the good Christians have done and try to do.

It is very much a bigoted and racist approach on your behalf to turn a blind eye to Bush administrations terrorist attacks on Iraq and its peoples while criticising Hilaly et al. Moreover, you do not seem outraged by the Stromfront and other racist western sites. But that is just your bigotry destroying your objectivity.

It is a bigoted response to suggest from my reading that Hilaly is comparable to the hardcore extremists. I don’t know if he is just appeasing other Islamic leaders or is a hardcore terrorist as you claim.

Any old soldier will tell you that there are hardcore men and women (terrorists) in this world who care nothing for ordinary people and only see the destruction of those lives and their peace and happiness as a means to achieve their own ends. I think a lot of western "christians" have the same mind set as Islamic terrorists. In the west they are constrained by the rule of law and that they have too much to lose by acting violently on their hatreds and ambitions. I think the west needs to hold firm to the high ground rather than behaving like propaganda-conned thugs.

My comparison with Hanson was in the way the media gave more credit to her waffling than was deserved – as is the case with Hilaly. Your bigotry prevented you from seeing this and led you to believe I was implying something else that was also based on your bigoted opinion of the persons concerned.

You also use perjorative labels - impies that you have a bigoted attitude.

Anti-bigot I think your response was misguided by your bigotry and exposure to propaganda rather than any real understanding of the problems discussed (nothing impied there I am sure you are a nice bigot).

relda,

>>The Jewish Torah and the Qur'an have parallel stories of Abraham. For the Jews and Christians, Isaac inherits God's blessing. For Muslims, Ishmael is the chosen son. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. All three religions revere Abraham's most spectacular test of faith.<<

Actually most of the Qur'an is riddled with parallel stories to the Bible. Islam will remain parallel to God's true revelations as long as it continues to deny God's ultimate sacrifice for humanity - dying on the cross.

(For Pericles) – Isaac was a miracle – as promised by God - to the infertile Sarah and Abraham when they were well in their 90’s.

By contrast Ishmael was the result of an impulse liaison between Abraham and an Egyptian servant – definitely not in God’s plan.

Islam is a tribal derivative of Ishmael.

Jesus is a descendant of Isaac.

The two clans are separate and as relda justly said: run parallel.

(Pericles – I know that meant absolutely nothing to you - but there…)

Back to relda –

What you failed to understand from the Abrahamic sacrificial experience is that God provides a substitute lamb who takes the place of the "chosen son": namely Isaac.

That substitute is Himself - God becoming man (Jesus) to save humanity.

Islam’s denial of Jesus' substitutional redemptive sacrifice places it therefore as a cult - and there are thousands of them around.

Islam is just numerically large but it does not make it any truer religion.

I repeat: the only way to know God is through Jesus.

Others will always offer lies and “parallel stories”.

Coach,
The Abraham story appears to strongly suggest the imperative to submit totally to the will of YHWH (at all costs) – most pervasively a Muslim sentiment. It was fully Abraham’s intention to slaughter his son. Undoubtedly, the story teller, with greater objectivity in mind, perceived of a merciful and ‘kindlier’ God giving out this test for fidelity - albiet, a harsh one. The ‘Jesus story' parallels this, ironically as the faithful son.

Christianity at its inception hasn't the doctrines or formulas of substitutional atonement, resurrection of the body, the native depravity of man (original sin) and endless punishment. Basically, the earliest Christians taught that man is the image of God, and that the in-dwelling Deity will lead him to holiness. To the early Christians Christ was living - an agonized hour was lost in the thought of glory and triumph. The symbols of the Catacombs, like every other indication of early teaching, show the glad, bright, loving character of the Christian faith. It was a religion of joy and not of gloom, of life and not of death, of tenderness not of severity.

Christianity was almost from the first a Greek religion. Its primal records were all written in Greek language; it spread rapidly and successfully among nations either of Greek descent, or those, which had been Graecised by the conquest of Alexander. Christianity was a religion of "sweetness and light." The Greek fathers exemplified all these qualities - Clement and Origen were ideals of its perfect spirit. The early Greek art, literature and life showed a cheerful and sunny disposition until overtaken by the morose Latin characteristic of gloom. There followed an adherence to legal form and severe subordination to authority. The Roman Empire extended over Europe by a universal code, and by subordination to a spiritual Cæsar, as absolute as he was in civil obedience. Thus the original simplicity of the Christian polity was entirely subverted; its pure democracy became a spiritual autocracy. The morose spirit of Tertullian as reinforced by the "dark shadow of Augustine," transformed it. Much of this legacy remains

Interesting article. Disagreed vehemently on 1st reading. 2nd reading almost in total agreement. Just read some of Mirko's other stuff & to me he makes a lot of sense.

As for the posters above, think many (both for & against the article) have misunderstood his message & changed it to suit their own particular hobby-horses.

Not sure, though, that we should so easily dismiss Mr Mufty as the 'idiosyncratic mad mufty'. Think he feels free to say these things because this reflects what many in his flock think (or have been brainwashed into thinking). Therefore crucial that we continue to publicly laugh at & lampoon future mad comments from mad mufties (& anyone else for that matter). I think Aussies are better at doing this than most other countries, to our advantage. Looking forward to Mirko's next one.

relda,

I agree with your first paragraph re: Abraham complete faith, devotion and surrender (Islam 101) to God.

I don't quite follow your syncretistic reasoning in the following two paragraphs. It feels more of a Gnostic approach than actual early Christianity.

We are on a different page.

The fall of human kind (original sin) is the foundational theme Christianity. The redeeming sacrifice of Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophesies and laws.

The Abrahamic lesson is that God was never pleased with vegetal, animal and even human sacrifices - the only acceptable sacrifice will have to be from a sinless and perfectly holy being - His Son Jesus.

The only way to be reconciled and totally surrendered to God is through the perfect blood sacrifice offered by Jesus Himself on the cross. Nothing else would do.

Anyone who does not believe in this and does not accept Jesus' death and resurrection will never know God - let alone be saved.

Bringing us back to Islam and all other religious cults, they all believe that doing good deeds and sacrificing their sons might make them more acceptable to God. None of that works. Nothing will come close to the redeeming Lamb of God provided by God to save us - and NOT the other way around. Man cannot save himself.

God is interested in Relationship not Religion. He wants us to know Him intimately and not from a distance. The only way to know the Father is through His Son Jesus.

Coach: Not an argument just an observation as a result of our studies, private studies.
As in Adam ALL die even so as in Christ ALL shall be made alive.
Christ is the Saviour of mankind
Should just not one be saved then Christ Jesus would have failed in His role of Saviour
ALL includes ALL present pagans (even lunatic death loving muslims),non-believers, atheists, agnostic etc. ALL means ALL not just some nor just a favoured few God will save everybody who has ever lived. The Bible does say "As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God." God will not break their knees to force them to acknowledge Him though He could He will work with them you see God is love and a love that is totally unknown in us mortals. Regards, numbat

As you correctly observe, Coach, “We aren’t on the same page” – my approach is different and yet again a little different from Numbat’s Universalism. I find I can intersect with quite a few on this forum who have distinctive differences – but, hey, that’s the fun of entering into a dialogue whilst learning, but keeping one’s integrity (or belief) intact.

relda,

So your idea of dialogue is not to engage with the issues at hand?

How can you learn anything if you don't respond to the challenges?

Back on subject.

The Sheikh is signaling to his followers that: IT's TIME to take the next step in this land that Allah has ordained for all Muslims.

Allah’s instruction to his community of Muslims of the world is clear. The earth belongs to Him and it is the responsibility of the Muslims to keep fighting until the religion of Islam becomes the only religion on the earth.

Muslims must live by the commands of Allah as listed in the Qur'an. Else, Allah will burn them in hellfire for eternity.

There is no scope for Muslims to be selective in choosing the commands of Allah. There is no middle or partial path in Islam. For those, who attempt this, the "moderates", heavy punishment awaits them in next life as Allah says in the Qur'an:

".. (the moderates) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement." [Qur'an 4:150-51]

A persistent Allah repeats the warning: "… Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and will be consigned to the most grievous doom in the next." [Qur'an 2:85]

So, was Mufti Hilali wrong? Absolutely not! Instead, he is absolutely correct according to the precepts of Islam. The earth belongs to Allah and his community.

Not only in Australia, Muslims have greater rights over the non-Muslims at every corners of the earth. And they must take charge of the earth through ceaseless fighting and war according to the examples set by the Prophet. Else, Allah will cast them into the eternal fire of hell.

Coach,
Read my posts and you'll find I have engaged with various issues - a variance of opinion or belief (to yours or others) certainly shouldn't be construed as non-engagement.

To what challenges do you refer? I’ve endeavoured to respond to any direct questioning, from you or anyone else.

Your statement, “Not only in Australia, Muslims have greater rights over the non-Muslims at every corners of the earth” seems to reflect something akin to paranoia. The basis of our Western law does not give a Muslim any greater right over us – despite what some of them might aspire to. My last post in “Australian Muslims need leadership” should give good perspective as to where I believe some of the root cause of religious extremism and bigotry might lie.

relda,

“Not only in Australia, Muslims have greater rights over the non-Muslims at every corners of the earth” seems to reflect something akin to paranoia.

Paranoia – is an unfounded tendency toward excessive and irrational suspicion and distrust of others.

My understanding of the Islamic threat to the world is based on extensive research and study of the so called religion. It is based on documented historical events, facts distilled from their own texts and commentaries.

As any rational person would see, the forces of evil in Islam are obvious as black and white. Islam with all its good intentions for a better world is failing to recognise that it has been deceived by a greater spiritual force – rendering it irreversibly and eternally doomed and hell-bound.

“The basis of our Western law does not give a Muslim any greater right over us – “

That may be true only if you are NOT a Muslim. Muslims play with a different set of rules. As I said before they (true Muslims) exist outside our democratic set of laws, they can only respect Allah’s decrees – no compromises and no questions asked.

Muslims will behave like good citizens of a host country for a while. But long term they will never accept any other ruling beside Islam and will start pushing their political colour.

The biggest struggle Islamic leaders have on foreign (non-Islamic) territories is fighting the outside forces of secularism and liberal democracy. They tirelessly try to keep their flock under the tent of Islam – which not only confuses their new generations it alienates them to the point of rebellion – pushing some even to terrorism.

A vicious circle that can only be broken by the mighty hand of the true God of love. Until everyone submits to Jesus as the creator and Lord of this world – we will see wars and destructions to the day He will return in His full glory to judge the world.

Awaiting your comments.

Coach,
Your suspicion extends to the entire religion of Islam and in your view, is entirely ‘unredeemable’ - a staunch view, arguably quite opposite to the very spirit of Christianity. Conversely, I will not be so naïve as to ignore the cancerous growth feeding off the otherwise healthy tissue of ishan (kindness). The Muslim basis to “beautify and improve upon” is being eaten by Puritanism, asserting that they “are the inheritors of an objectively ascertainable and realizable Divine Truth; while Jews and Christians may be tolerated, they cannot be befriended.” This reasoning is no different from your own literal "submission to Jesus" – you each suffer the same extremity of belief. Fortunately, a ‘secularised Christianity’ is no longer predisposed to even the possibility of evangelism via the sword. The evolved separation of Church and State has not emasculated the basis for faith but given greater freedom for its expression. The rule of Western law (along with its basis) protects this expression. Both extremist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity fail to draw a subtle distinction between the operative of Church and State. Unfortunately, a ‘secularised Islam’ remains an oxymoron - contained therein is the medieval belief that it has no inherent detachment from politics.

As having myself being born, bred and raised within a branch of orthodox Christianity, I’m certainly aware of where you’re coming from. I’m also aware of how ‘faith’ should interact within a secularised society – not through physical or manipulative coercion, fear or political power but through the same love as demonstrated in the gospels, pre-existent in the O.T.

Perhaps the real threat to current Western ethos, as there can be no real threat to Christianity, comes from within itself. The so-called ‘cultural left’ comprises it own extremities of ideology and is active (even if through good-intention) in bringing down a society it perceives as unjust. “If a Muslim and a Marxist can agree that we must get rid of a system which breeds the divisions of racism, nationalism, patriarchy and exploitation, then the anti-war and indeed the anti-capitalist struggle is clearly one struggle.” (Chartist, ‘For democratic socialism’)

coach: "Until everyone submits to Jesus as the creator and Lord of this world – we will see wars and destructions to the day He will return in His full glory to judge the world."

Thanks for that. With those words, you render your opinions on this topic to exactly the same level of credibility as the 'mad mufti' - i.e. zilch - and about as worthy of serious consideration and response.

Which is, of course, the beauty of free speech: religious nutters can babble on as much as they like, but the rational majority tends to be really quite discerning in these matters, particularly when we are confronted with rants about how wicked and evil Islam is, on the basis that 'Jesus (is) the creator and Lord of this world'.

What twaddle.