Well comrade,

With your own words, you stand condemned: "Muslims have helped establish, and participated in, voluntary organisations, anti-imperialist associations such as the Stop the War coalition, media monitoring and pressure groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and charitable bodies which help the needy at home and abroad."

And the charity has been extended to those who support terrorism, which is why the UK govt. has closed some down. Respect is a two-way street. You can demand but not get it. It is reciprocal. Did I miss any contrition for those who died in the Underground bombings? The UK has always been too tolerant a society for it's own good and now the chickens are coming home to roost. The events of the past year or so in England have convinced me that the English are never allowed to speak up because of a tide of PC and daren't show any patriotic fervour. That explains, in a nutshell, the rise of the BNP and other far-right groups. My country, I bleed for thee.

"Bomb not, lest ye be bombed."

If ever an act was inimical to social cohesion it must be muslim immigration to the West. Were/are migrants from Estonia similarly unable to integrate into life in a Western country? The author touches on overt racisim in the West which I find interesting given the record of muslim countries. If muslims have to tolerate so much unpleasantness why do they migrate to the West? Perhaps an agenda is at play.

If muslim youth is answering the clarion call of unfriendly imams why isn’t that being replicated by disaffected nurses, contractors, house-maids, servants and other Westerners who are now living and working in ME countries. Some are forced to live in compounds; others are wedded to the houses in which they serve as domestics. Why aren’t they being radicalized by some frothing-at-the-mouth Baptist minister who preaches at the Riyadh church? Surely he is stirring up Filipino maids imploring them to find their voices and maybe even holding a street demo. A question: are Filipino maids free to integrate into ME life or are they excluded because they lack Arab purity? Is that racism?

I suggest the author, along with Tariq Ramadan and Cat Stevens et al conduct a series of workshops extolling the virtues of freedom of speech, human rights, freedom of association, freedom of religious practice and other freedoms. They could take their message to all of the ME countries.

There are two Englands, two France's,two Hollands, two Australias. There is the original and there is the Muslim, neither compatable with the other.
The Muslim flood begged to be allowed in and now wants not only a say in how a country is run but wants dominance in that society.
And if it does not get it's way, it will turn violent as it did in Spain,Uk and Holland.
So the intolerant one is not the host country who has treated the guest kindly and with consideration but the guest who has accepted the kindness and spits in the host's face.
That is what we are seeing here with a Muslim cleric who can threaten Australian women unless they adopt Muslim style clothing.
Some guest!

In a self loathing victim social hierarchy, especially one that denigrates it's history and minimizes it's successes, deserves neither the past nor a future. Those communities, local governments and others that are moving towards the right are going to reclaim their countries. Their rights and freedoms and their nationalism. The socialist thought they had eliminated national identity and Muslims have tried to exploit what they saw as an entry point towards social domination and the acceptance of sharia rule. True British Liberalism unfortunately is going to pay for the socialist dismantling of a unified identity and all Muslims are going to suffer for the ignorance of their leaders. No one is going to accept that if having had more time Islam would prove it's reformation. Only the most self loathing anti-social hater will allow the end of democracy and the complete abdication of his/her national spirit. What you see in Britain today and in other smaller European countries is a people who have bent over backwards to accommodate Muslims and have been shown no gratitude nor a willingness to assimilate into the native society. Western societies will not allow themselves to be recreated into Muslim states of oppression.
Those who think that they will be saved from having to choose best study a map of the world and see where the wars are being fought and by whom. There are more than 20 wars being fought today in the name of Islam. Those countries that don't consider the broader picture of Islam will have to fight for their democracy and their existence from door to door.

P.S.
There is no "undiscovered" Australia, nor an "undiscovered" North America. There is no place to run. No safe haven. What you surrender today, or what right you compromise today in your society is lost to you forever.

Its funny how sometimes people speak a truism without actually realising how true it is.
Nasser Amin says “Under onerous conditions a community like a BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM can begin to see the outside as a source of dissolution and a threat to its survival.”

That is a very good description of a tribe-: A biological organism – people related by tribal intermarriage at the biological level. Translation-: The muslims in other words fear the dissolution of their bloodline (tribe). If they see intermarriage with the British people as a threat to their biology,(bloodline), then who are the true racists. The British are asking them intergrate that is to intermarry and become all one British people.

Nassar says that they are intergrating by becoming active in politics but this is more about the muslims taking control of the country. True intergration only takes place by intermarriage otherwise people still remain tribal and their allegiance will always be to their own tribe not to the other people in the country.

She blames Tony Blair and the British people for wanting the muslims to intergrate but it is the tribalism of the Muslims that is actually at fault.

Nasser Amin,

I have just challenged Saeed Khan (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4980) with this question:

--> In what way does the Islamic culture embrace multiculturism ?

I believe my question is relevant here as well. Please answer, if you will.

Oh these poor immigrants, they chose to migrate and now, supposedly “Hindus in Britain don’t face the same level of hostility endured by Muslims on a daily basis, nor are their co-religionists subjected to the same ruinous costs of Western foreign policy that the Muslim world has had to endure”

The “ruinous costs of western foreign policy” – those migrants to UK of muslim origin and their children who are having problems with this should realize they are “western”, in the context of their freely adopted nationality and it is their “policy” of which they complain.

Such pleadings leaves me cold.

People are free to migrate to Australia these days. If you do not accept the processes of government and the policies you have two choices
1 work to change them by aligning with others with similar views and vote accordingly.
2 Standing for public office and lead the process.

If you cannot find resolution in those options, the best thing would be to leave, try to find some other place into which you will “fit” rather than remain a “misfit” here.

Another things which comes to mind when I read such drivel -

JFK Inaugural presidential speech (the rest is worth reading too) http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

“ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

-Muslims need to decide "which country"!

Col... I don't support your points about Muslims unhappy with our foreign policy standing for public office to change it...

I know you are stating the obvious in a democracy, but there is a hidden danger which was clearly shown by the Hilali controversy, where Keating and McLeigh lobbied to have him stay in order to gain support for Mcleigh's seat which included Lakemba.

Since then, this shoddy sheikh has supported homicide bombers and other things contrary to our national interest including his latest insult to male and females and his 'seditious' swipe at "cleansing the world of the white house". In Mohammed's day he would be EXECUTED for that little dabble in international politics. Why ? becaus we have an alliance/treaty with the USA and to criticise our allies is to condemn us also. (see treaty of Hudabaya and the outcome)

On a more positive note. I had an encounter with a very nice Muslim lady at gym yesterday. She passed the 'Aussie' test :) She is indian background, and I asked "Can you say 'G'day mate' ? " She did, and I declared her 'Aussie' with a cheeky smile. Outside in the car park, her car was parked next to mine. She asked my name and then put her hand forward to shake mine. Now thats what I call acceptable integration.

Sadly, for such integration to occur, moderate muslims such as she, have to deliberately NOT practice some aspects of their moral code in order to fit in. (shaking hands with and speaking to a non related male) This is more an indictment of their 'moral code' than anything else, which by nature is divisive and exclusionary at the day to day social interaction level.

David,
You may not agree with Col, but in a political democracy such as ours he is quite correct.

It may well be, there are those in politics to whom we are morally at odds with. The strength of our democratically run constitution, however, is the freedom we give to the traditional rigour of debate as applied within our parliament (our legislature). The process should allow any, who so desire, to stand as an elected representative within this process. If we are weak in the exercise of our democratic right we have only ourselves to blame. If weak or poorly elected senators should end up in our government chambers, a strong system will eventually rid us of them.

An apathetic majority may perhaps believe not all are well served by their politicians but s 128 in our constitution currently guarantees not much will change (unless we get off our butts). We weaken not only a valuable tradition but also, ironically, our stability through not allowing everyone a right to stand as a freely elected political representative.

The “shoddy sheikh” needs to be removed from our system through due process

Unfortunately our "democratic" system is exactly the system that could ultimately be our downfall.
By allowing people who are unsympathetic to the laws of our land to stand for election, we are running a risk of introducing a law system that is opposite to our own. Given the numbers of muslims in the future, this is a distinct possibility.

Just go to Malaysia and see who are the really intolerant ones.Anyone who is not a Muslim there,is a second class citizen.Sharia Law gives all rights to Muslims.Many have no choice to become Muslims and women almost have no rights at all.

Don't be deluded;this is the new facism of our times,dressed up in religion.It is all about the unfetted power of mortal men,who use illogical absolutes of their imaginary god for purposes of world domination.Adolph Hitler had the same vision.He blamed the Jews for all their problems and used the hate of other cultures to justify his actions.

We don't seem to have the stomach for a fight as those who fought in WW2.The enemy is within our walls,slowly chipping away at our democracies and we just want to placate them.

The "west", especially that which is expressed by democratic governance,is/was typically populated by Europeans who rebelled and who's societies underwent a revolution. Democracy is the compromise of citizen rule and the rights of the nobility. While much has changed since it's early beginnings the principles remain the core of our societies. In Islamic societies he who kills the most wins and he who has the biggest army keeps his reign. Tribalism is encouraged. Divide and conquer. Islam doesn't lift them up it subjugates, demands submissiveness to their leadership whether it's religious, judicial, or social. Muslims come from herd societies and self expression and voicing opinion is dealt with quite harshly. And yes there are some few Islamic states that are considered socially liberal but, those societies are also heavily monitored by state police and local Imams. "Allah knows best", and the state has shown that there are many ways to die for Allah.
Muslim societies need a revolution and Islam needs a reformation. Democracy can give neither to either.
Muslims have no history of general participation in society and have a fear of freedom and the empowerment of standing on ones own two feet and fully participating in their society. Free participation and having a voice in social management is so foreign a concept that they not only freely allow but, actively search out the Imams who will advocate non assimilation and the ghetto mentality. Most new immigrants do seek support and form local societies based on nationality and social practices but, they embrace freedom and generally dig in and participate to the benefit of all. Muslims are the first to migrate while fighting to remain oppressed and to not assimilate and to use the existing laws to impose their oppressive Koranic laws and dictates.
Naturally it leaves many stunned. It's like watching someone cut his fingers off one by one because his Dad lost a hand to a mining accident.
It's not reasonable.

Thanx Relda...

my 'disagreement' with Col was not very passionate I confess.. all I meant was I just resent the idea of this ideology using our freedom to create a far less tolerant society.

But you are right, having a bit of this 'in our faces' is probably the only thing which will wake us up to the dangers before us.

I recommend ALL CHECK THIS OUT please

"Obsession: the Threat of Radical Islam" its on Fox but may be available through other venues.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24568&catcode=13

It was produced by a Jew I think, but his being Jewish does not matter a scrap when you can see the actual radicals speaking in English and ranting about how they are going to take over:
-England/UK
-Europe
-USA
-THE WORLD

Speaking also of killing the Christians etc.. Hamza of England said "See the Jidad books.. its all there"...and he is RIGHT.
This leads to the sad conclusion that the 'radicals' are in fact the 'correct' ones based on the true expression of Islam in history.

I've recently made a very detailed study of this, and have to agree that the moderates are simply avoiding these ugly truths because they (like us) just want to get on with life.

The problem is, the Radicals can show them "chapter and verse" and "Historical example" to indicate they are 'backsliders' and need to re-committ to true Islam.

The only way to defeat Radical Islam is

a) Kill it 100% or..
b) Show how it is flawed spiritually.

I adopt the latter approach.

Relda “You may not agree with Col, but in a political democracy such as ours he is quite correct.”

Thanks for picking up the point relda

Hi David_B Don’t worry, you and I can disagree without acrimony.

The problem with democracy is its greatest weakness is also its greatest strength.

Democracy challenges people to participate. This Muslim tosser does not want to participate, he just wants to dictate.

I am guided by the old saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Whilst he is here he has the right to express his view.

Better he expresses it openly and we can all see him for the fool he is than he only murmurs in secret to a band of morons (which is where he crosses the line into sedition).

In Australia’s recent history several loons of different persuasions have been banned from speaking appointments. These bans have always disappointed me. I recall the nazi apologist and holocaust denier David Irving being banned. I believe he and the rest should be allowed to come and we can see them for the fools they are, rather than offer them any shroud of martyrdom and mystique by denying them entry.

At this point I will be more philosophical than normal simply because when we deal with the central tenants of democracy, we have to be philosophical.

A democracy is strong because it is open to its own shortcomings and the ruling party can be dispatched and replaced efficiently, without resorting to civil insurrection.

A democracy is embracing of all those who participate in it and not exclusive or sectarian.

The point with encouraging Muslims to exercise their rights to participate fully in the democratic process and to experience the possibility of entering politics for themselves is, it powerfully demonstrates the superiority of a secular democracy over some medieval feudalist system, which is all a lot of Muslims have ever experienced.

Only by experiencing the sweetness of democracy will they recognise the bitterness of their historically held prejudices.

.

Dear Bashir and other friends,

Your commitment to Truth, Compassion and Tolerance are to be admired.
The reality of your experience in Muslim 'abodes of peace' constrast with the dangerous fluency of the young Muslim apologists who use western logic effectively against the west (
see UK article on this site)
An intolerant creed - New Labour’s Islam policy
By Nasser Amin - posted Friday, 3 November 2006 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5088

We in the west and austalia do not appreciate that the local garden varieties of muslims differ significantly from their more vigorous cousins and uncles in far off exotic and unknown climes.

we are not even aware of the divisions and conflicts among the various sects and assume that their is one ummah.

in our ignorance of the ugly realities, we pretend that the 'religion' can be equated to our own beliefs and cultures and ignore history and current realities at our peril.

hisrotically Islam gloried in the gory days of conquest where it destroyed older and cultures and enslaved numerous countries till it was defeated by western expansions anger and jealous persists over time and is a convenient channel to target Islamic failings and blame anyone else other tham the Muslim countries themselves for the Muslim malaise.

we try and use platitudinous panaceas which, based on erroneous christian and western philosophical assumptions cannot be applied equally to an ideology whose underlying message can never coexist with infidel views in the 'abode of war'-the unconquered non-muslim lands which are viewed with greed and jealousy, ever since the time of the self proclaimed last prophet.

until we do so, we will have to be confused by the 'moderate'(?) muslims protest in self righteousness against any criticism, however well-based while ignoring the atrocities prevalent in their ancient, tribal fatherlands.

with trepidation.
Posted by Don Juan De Marco, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:20:24 AM
Find out more about this user