A well-composed article. I see the authors point about uniting Muslims in this country as Australian Muslims and having leaders that have the ability to partake in public debate without seeking to be headline-grabbers. However, its hard to expect this united front of the muslim world, when Australian christians are not expected to do the same. Can you imagine the catholics, anglicans, methodists, 7th day adventists etc agreeing to have one representative? Huh!

That said, it appears (and correct me if I am wrong) that islam is a little different, in that it is very much a culture as well as a religion. I have no problem with the leaders of individual sectors of islam doing and saying their own thing to their congregation, but the islamic culture could well do with a united front in Australia. Someone who knows how to get a point across without inflaming public opinion (in any sort of public arena, those that are insensitive or inflammatory tend to get the boot eventually). I suspect the process will not be an easy one....

Oh; I just found another very well written article by Mr. Hassan and I happy that the author this time highlighted the problems within the Islamic community. I totally agree that the problems lay with the Islamic leaders not the people.

Country Gal, I appreciate your comments and positive thoughts. When people talk about Osama or Muqtada… these is no way the Islamic scholar, professor or Mufit…. These are political crap created by US agencies for their missions to serve. I am happy that the author has referred Muslims in Australia as ‘Australian Muslims’. In Australia every person including Muslims has to behave like one AUSTRALIAN.

It is laudable Syed says of the Muslim community (when living in a multicultural, multiethnic and multi-religious society), “they must know how to live with others and how to respect the others’ culture, faith and thoughts.” Syed adds,” Islam also teaches to respect the faith and beliefs of others. Prophet Mohammed denounced racism and sectarianism.” However, there is also a seemingly contradictory and basic denunciation of Western Secularism in his, “Minority religions and secular states" (Febuary 2006).

Syed clearly finds Western secularism acrimonious toward fundamental Islamic belief – the separation of Church and State, ideally, should not exist. “The theory of separation of state and religion makes several underlying assumptions that are hard to come by in the real world..” Secularism is a furphy - merely a front for the exercise of power for the political majority, “the states which claim themselves as secular states are actually the Christian, Hindu or Islamic states depending on who are in majority and in power.” After all, “The majority always dominate the minority: religiously, culturally and socially.” Echoed strongly here is the sentiment of Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris (Jumuah Magazine) where it’s stated, “Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God… Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is requires us to abandon God's decree for that of a man.”

In spirit, full integration into Australian society doesn’t appear viable, for “when rulers of the Muslim majority states tried to implement the secular philosophy of the West in their countries, they failed to develop a system which could avoid the conflict between Islamic laws and secular ideologies.” Whilst Muslims are in the minority I’d advocate Syed is suggesting an uneasy truce, with our pluralism and democracy used as leverage to destroy any secular ‘values’. So, let’s have our ‘big day out’ and fly the flag, symbolising our freedom ‘from religion’ and in defiance of any political appeasement.

'Islam also teaches to respect the faith and beliefs of others. Prophet Mohammed denounced racism and sectarianism.'

If you are going to promtote tolerance I don't think using a man like the prophet Mohammed is a good idea. He would have to be one of the worst examples in history. His exploits are and have been well documented a number of times before.

If Islam was respectful for the beliefs of others, Muslims would not be killing each other as well as infidels throughout the world. If Muslims were respectful of others belief they would respect Israels right to exist. If Islam was respectful of others you would would feel at ease visiting Moslem countries and they would allow other religions to be practiced without discrimination like we do in Aussie.

Islam does not respect democracy and even in moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia one can not freely convert from Islam without a great deal of pain.

The evidence points to Syed Atiq ul Hassan describing his own version of Islam rather than the one taught by Mohammad.

Runner, plenty of Christians (and even churches) preach their own versions of Christianity, not that of the Bible. Why is it bad for a muslim to do the same?

Look, I dont know if the Koran has come literally from the words of Mohammed, or whether it was written some time later and supposed to be based on what he said. Certainly the bible is supposed to be the word of God, but in fact it is written by man, with all the fallibilities of man, and with the writers interpretation and agenda. That's why I believe that the bible should be a guide and not a word for word instruction book. Perhaps someone could enlighten us with the creation of the Koran (BD, stay away, I'd prefer to hear it from a muslim).

“Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God… Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is requires us to abandon God's decree for that of a man.”

If that is true, as a non-Muslim I ask, can't individual Muslims just follow God's decrees and not expect others to? Christians are able to go to church, pay their tithes, submit to church authority, etc. without forcing the rest of society to (though they do try to influence everyone else, probably because they form the majority and because of the huge influence Christianity has had on Australia). Can't Muslims happily go to Mosque, have the women wear their hijabs, submit to mosque authority, etc. without trying to make the rest of society do so? In some part of England and I believe Canada, there are Sharia law sections- why? Is your god not big enough to accept individual worship, must you also force this worship on everybody else in a geographical location?

What runner said is correct. Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam; Egypt the head, right? In Saudi Arabia, Christianity is illegal. Baptism results in the death penalty. Even the possession of a Bible or private Christian worship in a person's house is considered an "act against the State" so is severely punished. In most Islamic countries, conversion to another religion, and evangelism (an important part of the Christian faith) to a Muslim is illegal and also results in the death penalty. These are the countries whose people daily read their Korans, not Westernised migrants who are more likely to be out of touch with their religious text. I think it is more than obvious that Islam is NOT a religion which teaches tolerance of others' practices and beliefs.

(I have heard the expression "some Muslims are peaceful, but Islam itself is definitely not peaceful". What do people on OLO think of that statement?)

Country Gal, I encourage you to find an English translation of the Koran and read it. I'm sure you will see the same "human fallabilities" you speak of in the Bible in there.

The Bible was written by dozens of people over 4000 years from a variety of geographical locations and lifestyles. It is one of the most reliable books of antiquity we have, with the most copies of it, closest to the dates of the originals. Remarkably, with all of the diversity that went into it, there is incredible agreement amongst the passages. Certainly, people argue over meaning here and there, but in 2007 AD it still stands as one of the most trusted book around the world.

This is what I know of the Koran: Mohammad was walking home one day, saw something he described as "gin" telling him to write down some words, so he did. He wasn't sure what to make of it, but his wife told him this "gin" must actually be God. Anyway the words he wrote down became the Koran. Written by one man with a lot of contradiction pertaining to the treatment of non-Muslims. Written centuries after the Bible, you can see a lot of the ideas are borrowed, but with an obvious pro-Islamic bent that of course, makes Mohammad the final prophet that abrogates/nullfies every religious book written before him and forbids any holy book written after.

So yeah I suggest reading it to get a taste of what its really about. The Bible as well, particularly the NT, if it has been a long time since you read it.

Also, do not get all of your Islamic commentary from Muslim leaders, or all of your Christian commentary from Christian leaders, as you can imagine, there's an obvious bias from each.

P.S. I saw this on the web and thought it was fascinating. A nominal Jewish guy reading through the Bible for the first time of his life (apart from the passages he read for his Bah Mitzvah) and blogging his thoughts. http://www.slate.com/id/2150150/

I actually disagree with even the title of this piece, because of the contradictions involved in it. However I am not going to talk about Islam, but of the concept of leadership in the Australian context.

The term 'leadership' implies an amorphous mass of humanity needing guidance from above. This may be necessary in certain circumstances, that is on the sporting field, in the armed forces and in the military. Even then the word itself gives away a definition: leadership is exercised by someone who leads, mostly by example.

Australian society is not one where leadership is required, except in limited ways in terms of examples. Our so-called leaders are our representatives: politicians are elected to represent us, not to lead us, they reflect our views, not the other way around. They are spokespeople, not the speakers of any God's word that must be obeyed.

We, in Australia, are essentially all individuals who should fit into the matrix of society. Individuals should not have leaders, they should be lead by their own consciences and intellects. This does not mean that they cannot be influenced, but the idea of leadership is at odds with that of democracy.

Any cultural group that claims that it requires leaders when it forms a part of a western liberal democracy must look into itself and ask what is wrong with the individuals who form that cultural group. If they cannot reconcile the concept of the autonomy of the individual with their culture, no matter where that culture originates, then the question has to be asked about the possibility of conciliation between that culture and liberal democracy.

As you may be able to tell I am against the idea of non-elected represenatives or people who claim a right to power from what could be considered having greater knowledge or understanding than others.

I sympathise with the problem the author is trying to address, but I think the solution he proposes is potentially counter-productive. Rather than looking for a single leader who can unite Muslims behind a common agenda and worship, perhaps Muslim should be learning to celebrate their differences and make up their own minds about the key issues affecting them individually and as a community. Any group that seeks to adopt a unitary approach in the public square by placing itself under the authority of a single leader is vulnerable to abuse. Maybe the lesson of Hilali is to look for less leadership, not more.

What the author really wants us to believe is that Islam is just another "main-stream" religion, like Christianity, Buddhism, etc.. that needs to be promoted and made acceptable as a “religion”... if only a good leader is appointed.

The danger with Islam is that it will never stop at "co-existance". Islam cannot exist unless it reigns supreme, i.e. in an Islamic State with full-blown Shari'a law.

Islam is a Political movement disguised as a real religion. It is at best a very dangerous cult for misguiding its followers and a direct threst to all non-muslims as well.

A unified leader would be a nice dream that will only remain a dream. Look at the Middle East for example, many tried to rise to the helm for a while only to be assassinated or toppled by a revolution.

On the above question of Bible versus Qur'an:

The Bible is the inspired word of God written by God appointed men (prophets, kings, disciples of Jesus, historians, etc…) over many centuries. It contains proven historical accounts, and spells out God’s plan for humanity.

The Qur'an is the words of an alleged prophet receiving an exact copy of a text supposedly existing in heaven and dictated by Allah (God) through an angel… some 600 years after the Bible has been written, sealed and canonised as the complete reliable document that exists today.

The problem with the Qur'an (apart from its unconvincing authenticity and authorship) is that it contradicts so many biblical accounts that make Judeo-Christianity false or worse God must be a liar and a traitor.

For example why would God ask an Arab "prophet" to eliminate His chosen and cherished people: "The Jews"

or even better to completely deny the (historical) crucifixion of Jesus Christ??

Just thought I'd try an experiment here Coach...

The Qu'ran is the inspired word of god, written by a god appointed man (Mohammed). It contains historical accounts and sets down god's plan for humanity.

The bible is words of alleged prophets, receiving supposed word from a god, and is 600 words older and therefore harder to verify, than the Qu'ran.

It's an issue of perspective.

I don't believe either book contains more than hugely distorted historical references which have been translated through a chinese whispers merry-go-round of biblical proportions. Both have been written by ancient people of cultures that no longer exist in any practical sense.
How people can set such stock in the writings of people that either condoned stoning or believed in witches is beyond me.

As an example... I can recall seeing a documentary a while back, which compared the bible's tale of Noah's Ark, to a babylonian tale of a sumerian merchant.

These two instances occurred at time that was historically similar.

The sumerians told of how a merchant had constructed one of the largest barges yet seen, and of a flood that occurred. In this particular year, the seasonal deluge occurred at a similar time to when the melting frosts from nearby mountains were feeding into the river, creating a massive flood.
The sumerian was in a great storm and washed out to sea, and thus, couldn't see land anywhere.

All pretty practical stuff, and quite frankly, a more believable historical notion than the whole world flooding and having someone collect two of every animal.

Turnrightthenleft, the Koran came to M in the form of 'prophecies' spanning over many years. The fact that most of these 'prophecies' were conconcted simply to justify his own desires seems to be lost on you. The notion that over 1 bil people on this Earth do not see the Koran for what it makes me shudder.

The problem with Australian Muslims lies with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. They hold the power over Muslim society in Australia and give the nod to trash like our Mufti Taj El Din Hilaly.
Everything said and done in every mosque in Australia is done with the authority of the A.F.I.C.

I have no idea as to Islam as a religion. It can not be any worse than Judaism or Christianity, of which it competes for dominion as THE voice of God. There is no doubt in my mind that Islam is the most repressive and oppressive form of government of all dictatorships. It must be such a slap in the face for any Muslim coming to Australia in the hopes of freedom and liberty to find that for him or her nothing will have changed. The likes of the A.F.I.C. will make sure of that.

Syed Atiq ul Hassan's article "Australian Muslims need leadership" is just another puff-piece designed to gloss over the facts. By the way, would this new "leader" be Shi'ite, Sunni, Sufi.......what? Remembering, of course, the 1350 year old Sunni/Shi'ite conflict.
After a few paragraphs of how diverse and tolerant Muslims are he comes up with: "Islam also teaches to respect the faith and beliefs of others. Prophet Mohammed denounced racism and sectarianism."
This is an outright lie.
There is too much observable behavior of Muslims, in The Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Sudan, Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Nigeria, Somalia, France, UK, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Russia and everywhere that Muslims have shown that they do indeed divide the universe between Believer and Infidel, do indeed think that they have no need in the countries where Islam dominates to treat non-Muslims as equals but can deal with them as they see fit, discriminating against them, persecuting them, driving them out, even mass-murdering them. When you gaze at conflicts around the globe today, the one constant is Islam. Muslims are fighting, or have recently fought, Jews in the Mideast, Hindus in Kashmir, Christians in Nigeria, Atheists in Russia, Buddhists in Thailand and Burma, Catholics in the Philippines, and Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.
Christianity was eradicated from most Gulf Arab states within a few centuries of the arrival of Islam.
Jews and Christians are under Allah's curse (9:30) and unbelievers are the "vilest of creatures" (98:6)
Hindu victims -- 60-70 million of them -- were murdered by Muslims, and the murdering only stopped, as did the forced conversions, when it was realized that if every Hindu disappeared, then so too would those who could pay the Jizyah.
Continued.....

What about the murder of the peaceful Buddhists of southern Thailand by Muslims? What about the strange outward flow of non-Muslims, observable everywhere that Muslims now rule where they once did not -- as in the lands that were once part of the Raj now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the Hindu percentage of the population is now 10% of what it was in 1947 in Pakistan, and a quarter of what it was in Bangladesh in 1947? And what about the steady diminution in the numbers of Christians in Arab lands? And never mind the disappearance of a million Jews who, experiencing pogroms in Cairo and Tripoli and Baghdad, were not about to remain to enjoy the famed "tolerance" of Islam? Jews, who had in 1920 constituted one-third of the population of Baghdad, had disappeared unlamented from Iraq, having left in a hurry, harried out, sent packing, after the pogrom of 1941, or the little pogroms of 1948-1950, or the public hanging of innocent Jews as "Zionist spies" in January 1969, before a Baghdad crowd of a half-million howling with hysteria and rapturous hate, who made sure that any who remained would not remain for long.
So far the taqiyya-and-kitman "moderates" only attempt to retain their own position in Australia, and to deflect Infidel attention. For they know, or suspect, that the Muslims are not yet strong enough, the time is not right, and it was very silly of al Hilali, Feiz Mohammed and others to talk in such a way so soon -- for things were going so swimmingly without the need for any honesty and Qur'an quoting whatsoever.

Why is it that Muslims are hell bent on getting out of where they? Are they trying to escape the repressive regimes or is it to escape the medieval cultural values that their religion promotes in these countries such as honour killings and Sharia law.
I have a feeling that it is some sort of Mullah engineered process for the Islamization of the west. I think this process is quite advanced in Western Europe where it is often stated that because of low birth rates among Europeans that France, Holland and Belgium will be predominantly Moslem by 2070. In England, Germany and Italy this may take a little longer but it is certainly in train.

As Turkish people comprise a large part of the Moslem population and probably the single largest group shouldn’t any leader be chosen from their group. The Turkish people are more compatible with the Australian way of life and not as fanatical and anti-western as some of the crazed current leaders and teachers we see running around in their white pyjamas and crocheted caps promoting their twisted doctrines.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Qur'an-versus-Bible (cont.}

To believe the Qur'an one has to test the author first. Obviously it cannot be the same God of the Bible who came as a man to die on a cross to save us. That fact is clearly denied in Islam.

So it must be Mohammad's interpretation of the Bible, distorting events to suit his political career.

Was Mohammad a prophet? My answer is another question: what did he prophesy? Did he perform any miracles? Did he bring an additional notions that we can't find in the Bible already?

No. no, and no.

The Jews of time didn’t think so either. They scoffed at his ridiculous claim of prophethood and that was the genesis of Islamic Judeo-phobia. One evidence is Mohammad’s decision to change the direction for prayer “Kibla” from Jerusalem to Mecca.

Example: the Qur'an never mentions the Passover (celebrated by Jews even in Mohammad’s time) - a crucial moment in the scheme of Judeo-Christian events leading to a redeemer Messiah (Jesus). Very clever move MO…

Mohammad's understanding of God is very primitive - based on fear of an “unknowable” judge in the sky - when the real God of the Bible made Himself known in the flesh (Jesus) as a merciful saviour. All Mohammad needed to do is ask a Christian.

Jesus is the fulfilment of all prophesies past and to come. As I said before Mohammad was never announced in the Bible (as claimed by Muslims) - there was no need for further (non-Jewish) prophetic revelations after God Himself appeared and lived among us.

One other crucial point: most original biblical text still exist today. When the Qur’an was edited (by men) all originals where burnt. (bad move)

Conclusion: The Bible has been proven to be at least historically and archeologically correct – But according to Islam, no evidence for the Qur’anic text are necessary, the tales of one Arab man over 22 years span is plenty evidence for trusting him as the ultimate human being that ever lived, he is to be emulated with their daily rituals (including killings) without questioning.

Skid Marx and Coach, well done I agree with your views. Is about time people woke up to the threat these people present, which is already evident in Europe, and increasingly so here in Australia

It wouldnt be so bad if Islam was a reasonable theology, that had been subjected to a wholesome and open debate in public, without any threat of violence, but it isnt, and it hasnt.

Fortunately, we have the Internet and can do our own researches in private, and frankly it is disturbing, as follows:

1. It is claimed by many Muslims, that the Koran is the immutable word of god, when this is a provable nonsense. It just cannot be the word of any sort of coherent mind, being confusing, contradictory and factually wrong.

2. It is claimed that the Koran is written in the purest arabic. This is utter rubbish,it is written in the languages of the time and contains a mix of Syriac and Aramaic etc. There was/is no such thing as a pure form of arabic any more than there is a pure form of an aboriginal language today.

3.It is clearly practised by people who are very adept at using our tolerance, to project their own intolerance, and dont care how they divide families or communities.

4.Their hypocrisy is astounding. They ban the mere presence of alcohol at mixed social gatherings and then get on a plane to Malaysia, flying Malaysian Airlines, of all things, which says it is proud of its "fine selection of wines". Dont believe me, look at their web site.

Unless they change their ways across all forms of the religion we are in for nothing but trouble.

Coach, the bible is a work of fiction just like the Koran. The bible\ Koran contain historical truths in the same way as a James bond novel does. It also contains a lot of mistakes falsehoods and down right silly things. It also contains a lot of hate just like the Koran and little bits of peace, love and tolerance just like the Koran. People of good faith will look at the goods bits and others will look at the bad. Many Muslim don’t believe in the separation of church and state and so do many Christians, if fact it’s a very new view in Christianity. I know one thing for sure there has never been a atheist suicide bomber.

Well, if I use this forum as a survey that at least it proves how many people have true knowledge on others’ culture and religion… the majority are very much impressed with the front page of daily telegraph…. Even some Idiots cannot write properly the world ‘Muslim’ and trying to explain what Islam is and what Muslims are …. But unfortunately ground realities for you of today are that… Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West including USA. The ratio of converting to Islam in America since 9/11 is the highest in the last century….. Your problem is that you hatred-minded people trying to explain with your racist words by looking the present political and repressive situation of Muslims around the world…. If today the people and the state are in turmoil in the Muslims world then the fact of the matter is that this is just because God Father America has been trying to control the world and you and wishfully supporting him if not physically but mentally why because he is your GOD FATHER…. How can you deny that these today’s most violent characters Osama, Saddam, Muqtada, Mullah Umer were the companions of CIA not long ago….

Who started the colonization of people in the World…. Are they Muslim or your forefathers…. Who dropped the atom bomb on Japan and killed millions… are they Muslims or your God Father USA…. Who killed millions of Jews…. Are the Muslims or your country fellow? Who has already killed around 10,000 Iraqi civilian … Saddam or the army of Your God Father….. list could go on and on but unfortunately this forum limited the length…

Kenny

There are up to 80000 murders of unborn children each year in Australia alone. They might not be suicide bombers but most claim not to believe in God.

Malik
Your driveling nonsense might have some credibility if it was supported by at least some facts.

If the USA wanted to control the world it had plenty of opportunity to do after the first and second world wars.

As for responsibility for the killing of the jews where better to look than at the exhortations in the Koran, and the involvement of the Mufti of Baghdad Husseini and his influence upon the Nazis, particularly Hitler himslef.

Pity about the ravings of that madman Ahmadienjad and his call to wipe Israel off the map... that sort of dents your argument a tad as well.

Pity also that the countries now dominated by Islam were not better models of enightenment and progress.How many are in the of 100 of Freedoms.

But back to the theme of this article we in Australia do need better leaders of the Islamic community than that demonstrated by the lunatics such as Al Hilali, and his obsequious mouth piece Keysar Trad.

Hamlet, don’t you think that’s an equation for anarchy? I agree, less authority figures is best, but just a little bit of it is quite necessary for the human condition, I think.

Rhian, maybe the Muslims could have a group of leaders, not just one single one. While diversity is important, I fear the Muslim community could go the way of multiculturalism without integration if they move not to have some sort of leader.

“Islam cannot exist unless it reigns supreme, i.e. in an Islamic State with full-blown Shari'a law.”
Yes I agree, whereas Christianity CAN live in a secular state- in fact a lot of the freedoms that we enjoy today in the West are as a result of Christian campaigners who wanted the freedom to worship God in their own (non-state-sanctioned) way. We see glimpses of this in modern society, with evangelical Christians and atheist civil liberties groups working together against religious vilification legislation (basically, blasphemy laws).

Coach, I think what TRTL was saying is that you can’t consider the Bible > Koran just because you say so. He wasn’t writing what he did to argue the Koran > Bible, he was just showing you how your arguments were coming across to him. I think its obvious he sees them both as equally false. Logically, they can’t both be true, either one must be false or both of them must be. He assumes both are, you assume Islam is.

“ancient people of cultures that no longer exist in any practical sense”
The Jews no longer exits?!?

“believed in witches”
You don’t believe in witches? Lol, perhaps you should ask Fiona Horne, amongst others, about that.

“sumerian merchant”
The fact that there are stories ALL OVER THE WORLD about a massive flooding, I think, would be in support of the Genesis account, not opposed to it.

Re: 2 of every “kind” (kind = closer to genus than species) look at AiG for their explanations, they’ve put a lot of work into trying to explain that.

“translated through a chinese whispers merry-go-round of biblical proportions”
Not true, you should really do some study of the Jewish scholars and Christian monks over the centuries who painstakingly devoted their lives to making more copies of the Bible, checking after every word, then every sentence, then every section. It was a long and drawn out process, but they believed it is the Word of God, and it would be worthy of no less. I’m yet to see a whole lot of proof of the “Chinese whisperers” theory of the Bible, and actually quite a lot of evidence against it, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (>99% accuracy, the <1% had to do with spelling of words and rearrangement of sentences).

“It can not be any worse than Judaism or Christianity”
Aqvarivs, I earnestly implore you to compare the two religions. “It cannot be worse…” according to who? Do some studies, ask Jews, Christians and Muslims, and if you have time, read the Bible and the Koran. Assuming that two religions are equal just because they both claim to speak for God is ludicrous- they have MANY differences.

Nice one skid marx.

“I know one thing for sure there has never been a atheist suicide bomber.”

TRTL you’re entitled to your opinion, and thank you for sharing it :) But do you honestly believe the Bible is that evil? Do you realise most Christians read the whole Bible, not just the Sermon on the Mount? There’s been about 2000+ years of scholarship on the issues of violence and if you haven’t read a lot about them, I encourage you to do so.

Re: your suicide bomber comments:

Yes, and there’s never been any utopian ideologies steeped in atheistic justification that has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million in the 20th Century by their own government… oh crap, wait, yes there was.

Religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people.

Coach, you can adequately retort my earlier statement by answering this simple question with a response devoid of dogma:

Why is the Qu'ran subject to corruption via interpretation, but the bible is not?

I hear your comments in regard to the original texts of the bible being in existence, but even if this is the case, what of the original authors?

Why are the christian writers hearing the direct voice of god, but not the muslim ones?

What possible way can you guarantee the accuracy of a text that is thousands of years old? A text that refers to witches, people being turned into pillars of salt, and miracles like walking on water.

Funny how all those things don't seem to happen anymore.

The article that started this was all about leadership, and that is all I wrote about in my first post.

It has since become an attack on both the Bible and the Qu'ran.

Since both are under attack it may be worth looking at both in the same way, that is, how does each 'book' stand up to textural analysis.

I will not repeat or rabbit on about it here, instead I would suggest that people interested in the truth go to

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/multiple.html

for a well structured and citationed analysis of the Qu'ran, that has as its conclusion:

“Through all this, it has been shown that the Qur'an is indeed given to repetition of whole passages of variant versions. Blatant contradictions have been shown. With this now before us, how can we conclude that this text is the word of an Almighty God, or even a single Arab nomad? It is quite clear that the Qur'an is, as Cook and Crone said at the outset, "the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions." There is simply no other possibility. Whenever the Qur'an was compiled, its compiler(s) took numerous variant traditions into consideration, and included many, or even all, of them into the official cannon. The result is the Qur'an we have today.”

And from:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm

“while we can concede that the Qur'an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur'an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur'an's authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur'an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.”

TRTL,
The comparisons you pose are valid. I’d suggest however, very few people appreciate the historical backdrop of either book to care, or relate to how western civilisation and its basis for law have been framed. I think Hamlet comes somewhat closer to a distinguishing of the two books – minding that Biblical literalists will generally miss the whole point.

In a secular state - one that attempts to hold the balance between competing religious claims - it is clear that no one religion can be forced on people. Equality before God is seen in the ideal of equality before the law, however hard that is to achieve. Elements of procedural justice, which are still neglected the world over, appear already in ‘the trial of Adam and Eve’ (audz alteram partem: the accused should always be heard) and throughout the Old Testament: for example, in the need for two concurring witnesses. The list is endless.

The vexed question is undoubtedly that of Islam, the problem being compounded by the wide diversity of views within it, particularly the extremist. While many people can perhaps identify with the high moral standards enshrined in Islam, other features, such as the role of women etc., would be unacceptable. And since conversion to Islam is largely a matter of correct form, rather than correct relationship, it cannot share a commitment to religious toleration. Traces of Roman Catholicism certainly have, of recent time, borne similar sentiment. Undoubtedly, however, many of our statutes are largely a symbolic reminder of the Christian basis to our law.
Cont..

cont'd..
The Rushdie controversy in 1989, helped prompt the establishment of the so called Muslim Parliament of Great Britain in 1990-92 formed by Dr Siddiqui. He felt that British Muslims needed to be able to provide the Islamic education and other services they need to survive as Muslims in a hostile environment, separately from the main British State. Dr Siddiqui's activism took the form of supporting, promoting and assisting the first Islamic State of the modern era that was established by the Revolution in Iran. The concern is, radical voices that insist that loyalty to a global Islamic faith takes precedence over allegiance to the British state enjoy growing appeal. They depict the Anglo-American confrontation with Iraq over its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 along with current exploits and the interference made in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a Western assault on the Islamic world.

Our heritage, oft forgotten and with an obligation to be the salt of social justice, poses a question, can our secular state remain truly value free if it is to survive, or is there so much self-loathing we hate our freedom - in our expression and our speech?

TurnRightThenLeft,

The reason why I compared the two books is to make my point that it is not “a matter of perspective” or opinion. The two books have very serious differences, so one must be wrong or both – but they cannot both be right.

>> Why is the Qu'ran subject to corruption via interpretation, but the bible is not?<<

Both texts can be misinterpreted – but the Qur’an makes definite repeated attacks against Jews and Christians, these cannot be interpreted any other way.

>> I hear your comments in regard to the original texts of the bible being in existence, but even if this is the case, what of the original authors?<<

Although the bible has been written by mere men of different statures, in different styles, over many centuries, it is found to be cohesive and sequential. That order is a clear indication of one same source.

The author is God expressing and revealing himself through events ranging from the mundane to the miraculous.

God is the author of life and He created us as free willed people not puppets acting under His direction.

Although the authors are physically dead, their writings can be trusted as meaningful and trusworthy because of the many prophesies, historical events, archaeological discoveries, always favouring the Bible.

>> Why are the christian writers hearing the direct voice of god, but not the muslim ones?<<

A quick answer is “the Holy Spirit”.

>> What possible way can you guarantee the accuracy of a text that is thousands of years old? A text that refers to witches, people being turned into pillars of salt, and miracles like walking on water.

Funny how all those things don't seem to happen anymore. <<

I grant you there are a lot of weird stories in there. I believe they are all true because I trust the author of the book (God). He doesn’t lie nor does He change His mind.

Miracles still exist today. God uses natural and supernatural measures to reach people. Most conversions from Islam to Christianity are the result of dreams, vivions, and the unexplainable.

"TRTL you’re entitled to your opinion, and thank you for sharing it :) But do you honestly believe the Bible is that evil" - Yngnluvnit

I never said I believe the bible is evil.

I suppose my chief issue is with using books so many thousands of years old, to justify why some people are right, and some are wrong.

In order to do this, the followers of either book need to convince others that theirs is right - which often means criticising other ancient texts.

In regard to the bible being written over many years - I don't have all the facts at my disposal, though in any undertaking such as this, there has to be a fair amount of interpretation along the way.

As the bible has been assembled over many years with various authors adding their perspective of gods will, why has this practice stopped? Why aren't we accommodating what we have learned in the last few thousand years, and adding more sections?

Ancient religions are only acceptable today, because their practitioners have evolved with time. Witch hunting, or stoning is not acceptable today, and I think you'll find the muslims of the modern era that are causing problems are those who have not made this progress and adhere to ancient dogma.

So if the christians have evolved beyond the more bizarre sections of dogma present in the bible... I can't help but wonder why we can't add another testament.

Ultimately, it is this rigidity and stubbon insistence that one religion is right, and all the others that is wrong that bothers me.
(Note that buddhists don't do that, and how many historical atrocities are attributed to them as opposed to Muslims and Christians?).

I guess that's my longwinded way of saying I don't believe the bible or koran are evil. It is how you interpret them that makes problems.

A good article indicating the problems the Muslim community is facing & i think it should be mentioned here that some people & their ghastly comments are the reason why the Muslim community is facing a further crises in Australia at the moment...I think its about time that people learn not to discuss the difference in religion & rather talk on issues that could have practical outcomes...if the chauvinistic dogma continues in this forum,it truly shows the negative perception & clearly indicates that Fair Australia aint Fair at all...

...by the way some people on this forum dont need to personally project their false views...with false thoughts...& URLs....& false pathetic analysis...its no wonder some people are actually feeding on these thoughts - A reminder that a opnions cant be turned into facts...

Bless this Forum & You All -
(hmm, now dont go argue on what God you do Worship)

Kenny, get your facts right. Do some research or STFU!
Are the texts of Judaism and Christianity just as bloodthirsty, just as likely to whip up hatreds and violence, as are the Qur'an and Hadith? We all know that in some of those texts (Old Testament) terrible things are written about the ancient Israelites and the Canaanites. But do Jews, have Jews, been going to synagogues and had rabbis whipping them up so that as they leave those temples they grab non-Jews yelling "kill the Canaanites"? Has that been a feature of Judaism for the past hundred years? Two thousand years? It is nonsense to compare the texts of either of the prior two monotheisms with those of Islam.
The Qur'an is riddled with hundreds of Jihad verses, and the softer suras are essentially cancelled and superseded by the harsher more violent verses. Ever heard about "naskh" or abrogation?
And dhimmitude, death to apostates, taqiyya and subjugation of women -- what are their Biblical equivalents?
What will it take? Must there be bombs in Jain temples, or at a Confucian altar, sufficiently publicized to make clear to all but the hopelessly stupid and those who are wedded to false symmetries and pat phrases? How much evidence had to be assembled before Copernicus could dare suggest that, after all, the earth really did travel around the sun? How much evidence needs to be accumulated about what is happening now, and what has been happening for 1350 years of Islam's aggression against all non-Muslims, for people to become their own little Copernicuses, and arrive at the unstoppable and ineluctable and unavoidable explanation of what is going on?

Malik splutters and seethes:
"Your problem is that you hatred-minded people trying to explain with your racist words…." EXCUSE ME! for not liking people who want me dead. What race is Islam again?
"Who started the colonization of people in the World...."
Muslims - North Africa, India, SE Asia, Spain, Balkans, Byzantium, Levant etc.
"Who dropped the atom bomb on Japan and killed millions…"
7/12/1941, America was attacked by Japan, a country governed by a militaristic, religious ideology, in pursuit of a divine empire, with indoctrinated soldiers who used suicide tactics. America chose the ruthless, offensive response. Three years eight months later, the Japanese surrendered, their country in ruins, their people starving.
Sixty years after the war, Japan remains free, productive, and friendly. Rather than seek America's destruction, Japan has become a staunch political ally, a robust free-market competitor, and an invaluable economic producer. Rather than build bombs and fighter planes with which to attack other countries, they build cars and computers.
"Who killed millions of Jews…."
The Nazis, aided and advised by Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Muslim Waffen SS units.
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers - already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! - then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so." [August 28, 1942, midday] p. 667 "Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944" translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books,1953). Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Arabian Peninsular of Jews.
"Who has already killed around 10,000 Iraqi civilian …"
Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds and 300,000 marsh Arabs and since the war 'insurgents' have killed 30,000. The Yanks went out of their way to minimise civilian casualties, sometimes risking of their own troops. The Ethiopians, however, didn't prosecute their war with Islamists in Somalia recently with such restraint. They're now ready to leave. Problem solved!

Your comments are the same as your chosen name 'Skid Max' just piece of disgust – you are so biased and prejudist that you are trying to satisfy the drop of Atomic bomb on Japan – shame - Go and see in Japan how people young girls are being raped by American soldiers….. Japan has the highest rate of suicide. If Saddam killed 180,000 who provided the WMD to him to kill Kurds and Iranian. Your blammings on Islam, Prophet Mohammad and Muslims have no authenticity … this is just the creation of your hatred mind…

TRTL,

I hope I've answered your questions - I'm happy to discuss it further if you wish.

Malik,

Two words: Grow Up.

It is exactly people like you who perpetuate the diabolic writings of your religion.

If intelligent and seemingly educated Muslims (Moslem) like you still don’t differentiate between good and evil – cause and effect – what hope do we all have with the rest of illiterate Muslim populace?

So ALL Islamic strive and violence is the West’s fault?

Would you maybe concede a little that it could have something to do with the origins of your religion – a tiny little bit perhaps?

As long as we have people like you not demanding a religious reformation, Islam is going to continue to be the evilness of humanity.

As long as you don’t expect the “Bushes” of this world to sit on their hands and watch the destruction of modernity by a bunch of immoral thugs – it will be war as usual – bring it on or go back to your desert tents, minding your camels and wives.

Sorry to be blunt but isn’t that what Islam actually wants? To go back to seven century nomadic living? Or do you want to play with the big boys and use the Islamic (nuclear) Bomb first?

Coach, Skid....

Little knowledge is dangerous….

And of course you will never accept your black history of treating human being like animals from Fiji to South Africa… these were your forefathers who displayed “Black and Dogs are not allowed” from South Africa to America… Women were treated like prisoners in USA not long ago they were not allowed to get education… the people from the land of your God Fathers (USA)carried innocent Black African from African countries and treated them like pet and slave in USA…. Who were those who brought the people from Indian continent as slave and dump them in Fiji…. It was your forefathers who colonalised and treated people Human being like animals from Fiji to South Africa not Muslims. Your grant grant parents in this country hunted and killed aborigines like animals .. How can you swallow these truth so what you do turn back to Muslim… but arguing with guys are useless because your job is to sit home and abuse Muslims and Islam to come over your guilt and regrets of the past.

Although most of us are tempted at times, personal attacks on OLO are generally a waste of time, merely bringing out the defensive in the other. However, the attack on, or spreading of ideas, can be quite constructive – even if some ‘unfortunate’ is to take offence.
In this light consider:

.The puritan trend in religion is uncompromising in its rejection of all forms of belief and ritual that do not qualify as the "true" religion of God (Consider the movement within 16th Century Christianity).

.As to the principles that should guide the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, the puritan trend cites the Qur'anic verse commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers, "until there is no more tumult or oppression, and until faith and all judgment belongs to God." Qur'an 8:39.

. Relying on such textual evidence, Muslim puritans assert that Muslims are the inheritors of an objectively ascertainable and realizable Divine Truth; while Jews and Christians may be tolerated, they cannot be befriended. (Christianity has its strong medieval parralell).

. The Qur'an itself refers to general moral imperatives such as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness. The Qur'an does not clearly define any of these categories, but presumes a certain amount of moral probity on part of the reader. For instance, the Qur'an persistently commands Muslims to enjoin the good (ma'ruf). Goodness, in the Qur'anic discourse, is part of what one may call a lived reality—it is the product of human experience and constructed normative understandings.

. The Qur'anic term for kindness is ihsan, which literally means to beautify and improve upon.

. The meaning of the religious text is not fixed simply by the literal meaning of its words, but depends, too, on the moral construction given to it by the reader. So if the reader approaches the text without moral commitments, it will almost inevitably yield nothing but discrete, legalistic, technical insights.
Cont’d...

Cont’d...

.As with the Bible, by emptying the Qur'an both of its historical and moral context, the puritan trend ends up transforming the text into a long list of morally non-committal legal commands.

. Holy war (in Arabic al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology, war is never holy; it is either justified or not, and if it is justified, those killed in battle are considered martyrs.

. The Qur'anic text does not recognize the idea of unlimited warfare, and does not consider the simple fact of the belligerent's Muslim identity to be sufficient to establish the justness of his cause. In other words, the Qur'an entertains the possibility that the Muslim combatant might be the unjust party in a conflict.

. Islamic civilization produced a moral and humanistic tradition that preserved Greek philosophy, and generated much science, art, and socially benevolent thought. Unfortunately, however, the modern puritans are dissipating and wasting this inspiring moral tradition. They are increasingly shutting off the possibilities for a tolerant interpretation of the Islamic tradition.

. Ultimately and importantly, the Qur'an, or the Bible, speaks through its reader. This ability of human beings to interpret texts is both a blessing and a burden. It is a blessing because it provides us with the flexibility to adapt texts to changing circumstances. It is a burden because the reader must take responsibility for the normative values he or she brings to the text (as history has shown).

Malik,

I hope you have taken your tablets and feeling calmer now. Deep breath... that's better.

Now all the historical events that have been implanted in your sick mind are in the PAST TENSE. This is 2007.

So all your anger and violent behaviour is because someone was unkind to a black slave 200 years ago?

What was your prophet's excuse for allowing slavery as booty of his numerous massacres and pillage against his neighbours? Oh I forgot he was doing it under Allah's blessing, killing orphans, raping younf girls, boys, and widows, gouging old men's eyes and hearts. Nice man your prophet.

Have you forgotten that slavery really flourished with the Islamic conquest of North Africa? Islam was the catalyst to a vibrant slave trade to Europe. Nothing wrong with that either, it's all Bush's fault huh?

No I think the problem is that we have TOO MUCH knowledge of your violent religion that is making you so uncomfortable and angry. You can’t hide any longer behind your black veils and long beards, and Arabic texts. It’s all in the open now… and it’s ugly.

I invite you to accept Jesus (Isa) as your Lord and Saviour. He is the "right path" that you pray and ask Allah to show you about five times a day... then your anger may subside.

Ignorance is the lack of questioning.

I must agree with coach – Malik grow up.

I will never understand people who use terms like “innocent Black African from African countries and treated them like pet and slave in USA”

That was 200 years ago.

It is the same when Irishmen, of either denomination (protestant or catholic) go on and on about the battle of the Boyne.

What someones great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers might have done to their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather has no currency today.

White men of today do not need to apologise for the slave trade.

White men do of today not need to apologise for colonizing Australia (or Africa or America for that matter).

And Non-Whites, of any colour, can just get over it.

I am responsible of my actions, not my forefathers.

You are responsible for your actions and are not entitled to anything for supposed wrongs your ancestors might have suffered. I have never been in favour of affirmative actions and what seems to being asked for is a lot more than affirmative actions.

Muslims in Australia do need to understand that the tolerance of the majority is tested when some bearded scrote tells me my daughters dress sense is akin to uncovered meat and Immigrants like him have a greater right to be here than someone whose ancestors came out here in chains. If Muslims want to be Accepted in Australia, I would sincerely suggest, as the new-comer, the obligation is first for Muslims to Accept Australia.

@Malik

If you don't mind me asking,where are you from? And are you blaming every whites person for happened?

Malik Hits Bottom, Digs.
Had I been alive in the times of your somewhat inaccurate rant, I would have been just as critical about slavery then, as I am now of Islam. Perhaps you should also be critical of your own "grant grant parents".
"Little knowledge is dangerous…. " Is that a threat?
The Arab slave-trade in black African slaves began centuries earlier than the Western slave-trade, and lasted centuries later. Indeed, it lasts up to now, in Mauritania, Mali, and Sudan, and even in Arabia. It was suppressed by the British in the late 19th century, through force and the threat of arms.
There is no Muslim Anti-Slavery Society. Slavery is compatible with both Qur'an and Sunna. That is a problem for Muslims. It would be interesting to see just how they explain -- with the usual taqiyya and tu quoque -- this matter. Possibly the "tu quoque" (you do it too) line of defense will point to how recently, in Western history, slavery was abolished -- barely 150 years ago.
Slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia officially only in 1962, and only because of Western pressure.
Of course, the Muslims also raided Western Europe, Persia and India for slaves. Muslim slave raiders also ventured into Eastern Europe, including the territories of the Slavs (Slaves), seeking more slaves. Finally, women were seized from Georgia and Circassia to fill the harems as sex-slaves.
Why should one be surprised at the existence of slavery under Islam? Slavery is part of Islam. The Qur'an, Hadith and Sira refer to slaves and slavery. If it was part of 7th century Arabia, it is part of the Sunna, and is sanctioned by Allah and by Mohammed. What more do you want? In order to denounce it as an offense, one would be attacking Mohammed, or Islam. In order to denounce it, one would be suggesting that Mohammed was not, in what he encouraged, the perfect man for all time. One would be hinting that the Sunna is not the perfect way of life for all time.
Continued

The Muslim slave trade in East Africa:
That trade had supplied black slaves for many uses, but particularly sought were male children who were castrated on sight where they were seized. Those who survived the primitive operation (with of course no anaesthetic) were then taken by slave coffle from the interior and marched either all the way up to the Muslim slave-markets of Egypt and North Africa from Tripolitania to Mauritania, or taken by dhow to the coast, often to Muscat, and from there to the slave-markets of Arabia, Riyadh and Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, even as far as Constantinople and Smyrna. It has been calculated that the mortality rate due to the castration and subsequent forced marches, ended with barely 10% of those initially taken actually managing to reach those slave markets alive.
As the Mauritanian government itself acknowledges, the practice is still alive and well today. It is estimated that 200,000 men, women, and children are subject to being bought and sold like so many cattle in Mauritania, toiling as domestics, shepherds, and farmhands.
Today Muslims continue to show their contempt and hatred for blacks, not only in the enslavement of black Africans by Arabs in Mali and Mauritania, but by the Libyan mobs that attacked black African students and lynched a black diplomat a few years ago; by the Moroccans who have been known to deal with black African migrant workers by taking them and dropping them in the middle of the desert with no possible way of survival; and of course by the behavior of that member in good standing of the Arab League, the government of the Sudan, which over 20 years, killed or starved to death nearly 2 million black Africans in the southern Sudan. Now they have extended their genocidal campaign to fellow Muslims in Darfur -- fellow Muslims, but black Africans, and so dispensable. As the Egyptian Zaki Badawi recently said, "they were not real Muslims." And that was the end of his comment -- apparently that was enough for him to lose any interest in their being victims of mass murder.

Dear Amel;

Please don’t exploit my comments… I never used the word ‘White’ and I don’t believe on black, white, yellow or brown divisions… I am not racist nor anti-religion… I equally respect other religion including Christianity, Judaism, Budhism ….

My reply using ‘Your forefathers’ or ‘your grant grant parents’ for only those who are posting anti-Islam, anti-Muslim comments here… if you notice honestly… does’n’t matter whatever the topic, whatever the debate… these few biased idiots turned the entire debate on Anti-Islam and Anit-Muslim ism…. They are real exploiters of this forum… I don’t understand how the management of this forum allows them to abuse Prophet and holy books of a global religion… basically these guys don’t have any faith… I never abuse the leaders, founders and prophets of any religion…. And I am not against any colour people… in fact I have friends from every colour, religion and race….

Whatever Skid wrote is just a piece of rubbish and his own mind creation… this guy is really fanatic and crazy….they are the real cancer of today’s society..

Malik “‘Your forefathers’ or ‘your grant grant parents’ for only those who are posting anti-Islam, anti-Muslim comments here . . .

these few biased idiots turned the entire debate on Anti-Islam and Anit-Muslim ism…. They are real exploiters of this forum . . .

I don’t understand how the management of this forum allows them to abuse Prophet and holy books of a global religion”

How subtle and pointed at me.

Firstly, I am not anti-Muslim, merely anti the rhetoric which small minded Muslim individuals both posting here or claiming to be and acclaimed as a leader by the Muslim community.

I said originally, “If Muslims want to be Accepted in Australia, I would sincerely suggest, as the new-comer, the obligation is first for Muslims to Accept Australia.”

I stand by that statement. It is not a racist and would apply equally to any other minority in any other country.

As for “abuse Prophet and holy book of a global religion”.

I would note the “management of this forum” make writers responsible for their posts by exercising a right to edit inflammatory posts and even suspending posters when they feel it appropriate.

But I guess the management of this forum place secular values of “tolerance” and “freedom of speech” above “religion”,

And rightly so. We do live in a secular society.

So do not bother to carry on like a pork chop about respecting Allah or Mohammed and I will not go on at you about Baptism or Mass on Sundays.

If you think I am abusing your mystic belief in a God, then tough. Get over it or suffer.

Your buddy, Halaly has abused the crap out of the majority of Australians with his “Uncovered Meat” and other comments. Better he stays in Egypt and becomes a TV celebrity, than he bothers to come back here.

Malik wrote:

"Please don’t exploit my comments… I never used the word ‘White’ and I don’t believe on black, white, yellow or brown divisions… I am not racist nor anti-religion… I equally respect other religion including Christianity, Judaism, Budhism."

I was just asking a question,not trying to exploit your comments.

Col;
Your conflicting comments prove that you are confuse person.. Does your secular values or freedom of speech means to abuse other religion and faith… who are you to suggest Muslims what they have to do to be Australian…. I believe majority of Muslims in this country love Australia more than you… you claim yourself as a secular minded person, I think you need basic education on secularism and you need to open your mind and sit with knowledgeable people who can teach you what respect is … you should go back and read what have you written against Prophet Mohammad, Islam and Muslim and see your secular face in the mirror before claiming anything further

Malik “I believe majority of Muslims in this country love Australia more than you”

I challenge you to prove that belief.

“you should go back and read what have you written against Prophet Mohammad, Islam and Muslim and see your secular face in the mirror before claiming anything further”

I know what I have written.

I hold no fealty to the religion which has mohammed as its prophet and since nothing I have heard from Muslims recently, least of all in this thread, is anything worth defending I really could not give a stuff what you think to my opinion other than to say, listening to the continual whining and criticism from a bunch of retarded religious zealots is not my idea of how best to spend a weekend or any other time.

Re” I think you need basic education on secularism and you need to open your mind and sit with knowledgeable people who can teach”

You have no idea about me, yet you preach I need “education” what hypocrisy.
I already “sit with knowledgeable people” strangely, no one knows your name.

If every Muslim were to vacate Australia tomorrow, we would be no worse off than we are today and likely since a few bigots would vacate with them, a lot better off.
Tolerating differences is morally correct.
It only works when it is universally accepted.
Muslims need to take “tolerance” on board immediately and give up the support of Gihad and other aspects of their religion which separates them from mainstream Australia or face the consequences of their elitism.

That you don’t get it or like it is your issue to deal with. As the Federal Treasurer said, Muslims should go and live somewhere which suits their values better if they are not prepared to accept and live by Australian values and under existing Australian Institutions.

Another article pleading for understanding. The action required is actually about 1000 years ago. Why doesn't the author take action instead of babbling on about someone else fixing things?

There is no correlation between the written word and the practice. Peace and tolerance have nothing to do with today's version of Islam. Women need to break the shackles and take charge of these crazy movements, men are screwing it up for all of you.

COUNTRY GAL... now you have to admit I've been a good boy :)

You want to hear about the Quran from Muslims ? Ok
here it is...

http://ibnalhyderabadee.wordpress.com/2006/04/11/legacy-of-abu-bakr-compilation-of-the-quraan/

Zayd Ibn Thabit (Radi Allahu Anhu) said, after AbuBakr (Radi Allahu Anhu) asked him to do this, “If Abu Bakr were to have placed a mountain on my shoulders it would be lighter in weight than the mission that he gave me”. Zayd Ibn Thabit (Radi Allahu Anhu) was a scholar of the Qur’an even though he was at a very young age at that time. So he said, “I had to go around collecting Qur’an from the hearts of men and I had to go around collecting all the manuscripts of the Quran, I used to collect the palm leaves, flat white rocks (tablets), shoulder bones of camels, and leather pieces that they used to write the Qur’an on.” In order to ensure that the Qur’an they compiled was authentic, they would ask all the Sahaaba who heard the Qur’an and memorized it with the Prophet (Sal Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) to recite it to Zayd Ibn Thabit (Radi Allahu Anhu) and they required that there be two people that know that same verse. The only exception that was made in this matter was that of Aboo Khuzaymah22 (Radi Allahu Anhu), who was the only one who knew the end of Surat At Tawbah because the Prophet (Sal Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) said about Aboo Khuzaymah (Radi Allahu Anhu) that his testimony is equal to two testimonies. And in following the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (Sal Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) they accepted Aboo Khuzaymah (Radi Allahu Anhu)’s testimony as double and included that part in the Qur’an.

END.

COMMENT on the TOPIC

Don't Muslims in Australia have leadership ? I thought it was the State and Federal government.

Amel and Malik...hang in boys.. very few Muslims here- call some from Muslim village, we don't censor uncomfortable views here like they do.