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.