http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21272685-5001031,00.html

If you want another perspective on Professor Israeli, read the article I've linked above. It also raises questions about the differences between Islamic fundamentalism and other religious fundamentalism.

There seems to be a complete unwillingness amongst many to explore the possibility that Islam condones or encourages violence or misogyny. I completely object to the special reverence all religions and their beliefs seem to enjoy. Everyone should be free to question and criticise these beliefs without being called racist and their questions characterised as hate speech.

If Waleed Aly is right in his claim that Islam is subject to more and harsher criticism than other religions, one certainly has to wonder why. When filmakers are murdered and cartoonists forced into hiding by fanatics demaning death for those who suggest Islam is violent, it is heartening to find people still willing to ask questions and criticise the dogma. In fact, the unwillingness to tolerate criticism amongst many Muslims helps explain and, to some extent, justify the greater questioning and criticism.

Finally, I agree with the author that there ought to be consistency in dealing with various religious minorities and there ought to be equal criticism of religious fanatics of all stripes. But if one group poses greater problems or one fanatics view's are more influential than another's, it is only proper that they are subject to greater and louder criticism.

As noted at the bottom of the article, this opinion piece was first published in The Canberra Times on February 21st (Wednesday). The following day Professor Raphael Israeli had an opinion piece published in The Australian in which he complained that the response to his interview published in the Australian Jewish News was "less than friendly". Today (Friday, February 23rd), The Australian has published a follow-up letter to Israeli's opinion piece in which Mark Leibler and Dr Colin Rubenstein from the AIJAC (Australia/Israeli & Jewish Affairs Council) write that they have "told Professor Israeli AIJAC cannot be further associated with his unacceptable comments, or with his visit". Indeed the AIJAC issued a press release dated February 16th in which the organisation "rejected comments made by visiting Israeli Professor Raphael Israeli in today's Australian Jewish News and Fairfax newspapers which appear to single out the growth of Muslim minorities as inherently dangerous".

However what Irfan fails to recognise is that Sheik Taj Al-Din Hilali's remarks were widely condemned not because it helped to bolster a "monoculturalist agenda" but because they were deeply offensive to all women and to all sensitive men, i.e. the great majority of the Australian population. They were also a throwback to the misogynist rubbish that contemporary society has largely buried several decades ago.

Irfan also fails to realise that there is no valid comparison between the position of Jews in Germany in the 1930s and that of Muslims in Australia (or elsewhere in the world) in the 21st Century. As Christopher Hitchens noted at slate.com earlier this week, with a self-generated Islamic civil war currently raging in Iraq, the use of the term Islamophobia is in his words "stupid".

European Jews in the 1930s were a small minority who had suffered centuries of discrimination and violence directed against them. Today's Muslims constitute about one-fifth of the world's population and enjoy rights in the West which their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia (the cradle of Islam) deny to all other faiths.

Hi Irfan, I would agree that there does appear to be a bit of a double standard in the way Prof Israel's comments were received. Possibly it had at least a little to do with the numbers involved - Sheik Hilaly's comments were possibly insulting to over half the population (ie women, plus those men who didn't like being compared with cats), whereas Prof Israel's were directed at a far smaller segment of Australian society. So this is just my feeling, but the response may have been partly related to the number of people who felt themselves affronted.

As for the politicians, votes are what counts. They will always play to the majority (or at least what they think is the majority).

The last observation in your article, about haw people say things publicly about Islam that they would not about other religions, is an interesting one. I'll have to think a bit about that one. Its a subject I find difficult to be objective about, because many of my prejudices have been firmly implanted by a strict Christian upbringing. Combined with my vast ignorance of Islam (I wouldn't know a pillar of faith if tripped over one), I am probably not the sort of person who should make comments about Islam. However - I will anyway, because I don't think my view is unique.

Islam is seen as fair game because of the behaviour of a large number of its adherents worldwide, who seem to accept violence as a legitimate form of religious expression. Furthermore, Muslim-majority nations around the world seem to have very poor track records on tolerance and religious freedom, not to mention other human rights. Until this situation changes, criticism is inevitable.

The main difference between Hilali and Israeli as far as I am concerned is that one is a nut case who lives in Australia, while the other is a nut case who doesn't!

Oh Irfan: How bloody terrible that moslems are allegedly targeted and by a Jew as well. Do I need to remind you that it is not the Jews nor the YMCA/YWCA the Methodist Ladies guild, the Salvation Army nor even members of a Baptist choir that are engaged in mindless, insane, bloodthirsty acts of terrorism. Nor are hate sermons preached by C of E, Presbyterian, or United Churches condemning moslems even calling for their death as well as likening them to monkeys and pigs. The Bible does not call believers to strap bombs on too themselves and cruelly murder unarmed men, women, children and babies. But ALL of the above are committed by the adherents of the religion of "peace?" - got it in one mate yes the bloody minded pagan moslems. And you wonder why some who want to continue living in a democratic freedom loving fair Australia and in every other western country sometimes are critical of the bloody minded islamic butchers - do you really wonder that mate? Regards, numbat

numbat, I take it then that George W Bush has converted from Southern Baptist Christianity to Islam. When did that occur?

I think it was around the time he choked on that pretzel while watching a grid-iron game on TV...

The comparison with Hilaly and Israeli is laughable, tendentious in the extreme. Here are just a few glaring differences.

1. Hilaly is the grand Mufti of Australia, a figurehead for all Muslims, who stays in that position to this day with the approval of major Muslim representative bodies. Israeli is just an academic who speaks for no one but himself.

2. Despite the media and people like the author constantly playing down and deliberately fudging what Hilaly actually said, his remarks are far worse than anything Israeli uttered. Hilaly implied uncovered women were PRIMARILY responsible if they were raped. He did not say, as is often claimed, that unclad women were partly responsible (which would be bad enough).

3. Hilaly has a long history of even more despicable remarks. Including praising suicide bombers and the September 11 attacks. Yet still this man stays in his position with the approval of Muslim bodies.

And quit with the bogus Nazi comparisons. The Germans INVENTED the Jewish "problem". Is anyone seriously suggesting Islamic extremism is not a legitimate problem?

They were both 'taken out of context'.
They both tried to portray their religion as victim

And both are bound to get one-eyed support from people who think similarly

The muslim community in Australia need to remember that in this world there is something called guilt by association, and that the longer they remain associated with Hilali (in particular, maintaining him in his current position), the more they will be tainted by his actions.

Irfan, I’d like to defend Professor Israeli using a very popular defence. Mr Israeli was misquoted.

Numbat,

Please cease and desist in calling moslems "pagan moslems". A pagan is follower of a totally different belief system than is a moslem. The two belief systems have virtually nothing in common - other than a belief in a non-existant god or gods! Paganism was the main belief system of northern Europe in Roman times until displaced by Christianity. Christmas and Easter are both mapped onto pre-existing pagan festivals.

I'm an agnostic, but if I wasn't I'd be a pagan - they have more fun!

Irfan,

You're absolutely right. If the boot were on the other foot the Jewish lobby would go into overdrive. A letter campaign would bombard local politicians will hysterical cries of antisemitism. Prominent members of the Jewish community would contact labor party donors and demand action. Politicians would come out demanding to know how this man obtained a visa. Articles would be printed in all major newspapers about the threat of the rise of antisemitism. Australia, it would seem, was in peril of a neonazi takeover. Donors and sponsors at UNSW would be contacted. Some, fearing the impact of a negative public relations campaign, would cancel deals. Any university facilities would suddenly become 'engaged' or 'unfortunately double booked'.

My advice to the Muslim community (apart from dobbing in extremists) would be to follow the Jewish lead: become organised, get MAINSTREAM politicians in parliament; employ native English speakers as spokespeople, study public relations, form lobby groups and DONATE to political parties. Employ PR firms if necessary.

There is no group better at manipulating public opinion; if you are to improve the lot of Muslims, you need to learn from them.

Poor Irfan, he can't help himself! Once again he exposes himself, despite all his guile and not playing it straight with his readers on this forum, as being a wolf (read true Muslim believer) in sheep's clothing.

Comparing Hilali with Israeli! The former expressing his TRUE FANATICISM and Muslim duplicity in all his statements, the latter giving a hearing to the TRUE FACTS.

What next Irfan?

See NEMESIS-http://www.con.observationdeck.org

Reynard: Calling moslems pagan is what they are, they worship hudna (I think that is this false god's name) the moon god of mecca they even have the moon on their flag. Hindus/buddhists etc are also pagan meaning they also worship a false god. In the same vane I describe other people as European, Asiatic or African calling islamists pagan is not really an insult it is just what they are in my eyes. And again they are an insane brutal misogynistic death-loving hate filled totally anti-democratic pagan religion - don't believe me then read the newspapers. Not all islamics are terrorists but 99.9% of all stinking cowardly terrorists are islamics. Yes there are supposed to be islamic moderates but they are so bloody quiet that they are seen as one with the gutless killers of unarmed men.women.children and babies. Regards, numbat

Hilali must ache for the day when Muslims reach the critical mass in Australia, as they seem to have done in France. France has a problem that will eventually smother French culture as Muslim numbers are increasing at a much greater rate than that of the French. There are supposed to be some five million now and by 2070 they will comprise the majority of France’s population. Australia needs to wake up before we reach this critical mass.

MUSLIM REFUGEES MUST GO TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES, WHEN ACCEPTED INTO AREAS OF WESTERN CULTURE THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY THEIR FAITH TO EITHER CHANGE THE POLITITICAL AND LEGAL SYSTEM TO THEIR MODEL OR DESTROY IT. I AM SURE IF HILALI COULD PUT OUR WOMEN UNDER BLACK SHEETS AND REMODEL OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM TO WHERE THE SYLLABUS INCLUDES RECITING THE KORAN IN ARABIC HE WOULD.

Just incidentally, before the sheik's cat-and-meat speech how many Australian judges made similar comments during rape trials? I seem to remember it occurring a number of times in the seventies, eighties and nineties. The name Callinan springs to mind.

Eet's post is excellent

I remember that during the first Gulf War, Israel used to trott out old Bibi Netanyahu who was at that stage Tourism Minister or something lame. But why did they get him out? Because he spoke excellent English with an American accent, and wore a suit, and spoke in crisp sound bites.

Not like Saddam, or Arafat, or a million other Arabs in their teatowels, their broken English and inability to say speak directly into American TV viewers loungerooms.

They didn't realise that their own presentation might have played to Arab sensitivities, but not to Western.

And don't forget, this is where war and politics is won or lost these days, as it was in 1991 or in Vietnam.

Yes, the Arabs need all of what the Jews have - Saudi money funnelled into Beltway lobbies and thinktanks, sympathetic filmakers, a whole entertainment industry, an ability to diversify its 'role models' and 'archetypes' away from the middle eastern desert and into the leafy US suburbs and European cities.

And dozens and dozens of congressmen and other parliamentarians worldwide, not banging the drum loudly but playing the pipe softly and luring the ordinary people away from their prejudices on middle eastern affairs.

If recent history is anything to to by, Israeli was 'right', not miscontrued.
If the Quran and hadith are anything to go by, Israeli was 'right' not misunderstood.
If the actions of Mohammed founder of Islam as recorded in the hadith and Sunnah are anything to go by, then Israeli was right on the money.

The lack of reaction to Israeli's speech is attributable to it's correctness. When Muslim communities reach a certain critical mass, (I would consider this the point where they can raise a few thousand for a rowdy and violent demo, or can embarras political parties with their political clout.) then.. at this point they will begin to ask for social concessions..

-A MUSLIM PARLIAMENT will be established (UK) in parallel to the main one.
-"Sharia law"... will be called for.
-Widespread violent demonstrations will occur against those who 'insult' the prophet of Islam.
-"Immigration Restrictions loosened"
-"UK will be dominated by Islam whether you like it or not" ! (Abu Izzadeen)
-Financial laws will be changed to cater for 'Islamic financial products'
-Butcher shops in Cronulla will be selling only HALAL meat (refer Jolanda)
-Fringe groups like Hizb Ut Tahrir will run a seminar on bringing in a World Islamic Caliphate and will be cheered on by hundreds in Sydney
-Sheikh Faiz will influence 4000 young people with his obscene DVDs about martydom and jihad.
-Hume Council will remove ham sandwiches from the council menu for 13% of the residents who are Muslim.
-11 men in Sydney are alledged to have planned terror attacks.
-13 men in Melbourne are likewise charged.
-Burial laws will be changed to allow 'Islamic Burial'.
-Thuggish Muslims will make videos suggesting Australia is under new Management.

Hilali's remarks simply confirm Israeli's allegations.

In isolation, they would not seem like much, but taken together there is quite an impact.

Maybe Irfan should revert and consider becoming a Christian again.

How is it "the arm chair Nazis" talk of freedom of speech while Muslims preach murder for the infidels who dare question the Koran?

It all boils down to a numbers game.We are constantly told of the few extremists in the Muslim Faith yet proportionally they have more in this catagory than all the other religions put together.

Irfan walks both sides of the fence and I don't trust him.In true lawyer fashion he uses selected facts and equivocation to push his barrow of a harmless,victimised Islam.We won't buy it Irfan because Islam is poison to our cherished democracies.

"Raphael Israeli: Muslim apologist, thy name is coward"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21264602-7583,00.html

Irfan, I think the above article is directed towards Muslim apologists like you. Oh, and you mistranslated your last quote, it should read:

"It is clearly visible in the current environment to see things about Muslims that you simply cannot see about anyone else".

Irfan's display of feminine victimhood is just a distraction. Here is the real problem ...

"Western and Muslim concepts of honor create an unbridgeable cultural divide:
http://aussiethule.blogspot.com/2006/05/western-and-muslim-concepts-of-honor.html

In addition to honor and shame ... comes the Muslim sense of manhood or manliness, which involves being capable of great violence and mayhem in defense of the family name or his religion. Our own concepts of tolerance seem hopelessly weak and pathetic to a culture such as this, and in no way makes us palatable to the Muslim male, who sees only weakness ... We would be wise to take into account these cultural characteristics, and not make the mistake that the compassionate liberal makes -- which is that given enough understanding and tolerance, the other fellow will see your point of view, and come in the end, to be as tolerant as you. In a sense, this is the illogic of tolerance, it assumes that tolerance is the logical endpoint of all understanding and culture. It is not."

Stop Muslim immigration, and ban the hijab and burqa.

SMH this morning.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/thais-sense-of-self-threatened-by-insurgency/2007/02/23/1171734017522.html

[BEHEADINGS, mutilated Buddhist monks, assassinations of secular teachers, mass-casualty attacks - the Islamist insurgency raging in Thailand's south is getting more barbaric and effective with each passing month.]

Lets look at these one by one.

1/ BEHEADINGS. Quran 8:12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

2/ MUTILATIONS Hadith Muslim Book 16 number 4131
He (mohammed) commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.

3/ ASSASINATIONS. (of enemies of Islam) Ka'b Bin Al Ashraf. Jewish chief(just one among many)
Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger.

4/ MASS CASUALTY ATTACKS. Khaiber. (notice how the people were just going about their business, though they had an alliance with another tribe not allied to Mohammed.. just like Australia has the Anzus treaty.. in our security interests !)

Hadith Muslim Book 19 Number 4437

The people of the town had just come out from (their houses) to go about their jobs. They said (in surprise): Muhammad has come. We captured Khaibar by force.

CLEAR, UNMISTAKABLE, UNAMBIGUIOUS, IN CONTEXT, FAITHFUL TO HISTORY.

"All-" also reports large numbers of Turks applying for gun licences.

Kevin Andrews... are you reading ? I hope to God you are.

"I ask Roosevelt, I ask the American people: Are you prepared to receive in your midst these well-poisoners of the German people and the universal spirit of Christianity? "
Hitler Interview in the New York Staatszeitung, 1933.

DB the bible is full of killing in the name of god, including women and kids and you know it.The Quran is just as hateful and loving as the bible. It always strikes me christian are such a diverse group not even beening able to agree on such things as whether JC was god or not. Yet for some reason they thing Islam a monoculture? It realy is case of ignorance and sometimes outright lies. People should be judge on how they act not what they say they believe in.

Great insight Irfan. First, You've certainly hit the nail on the head. You have also reminded the arrogant boot lickers and tailwaggers like government leaders who dak for cover when a jew pops ups their dirty mouths towards muslims. And you have certainly explored the reality of arrogant jews like the so called prof who? who thinks jews will get where Muslims have been thousands of years ago while they were living as parasites in other people's lands. By far not all jews are as arrogant as those who commented on your article with fury and barrage of filth and gabbage but as well those that instigate indicent remarks and racism as many jews are.

Second, the truth is that if a parasite feels threatened because you have tried to share the broth, that parasite will definitely be rattled and fight with venomous words of war and even insitigate other primitives to do the dirty business for them! The reality is that the world today is unsafe because of such parasites who call every other person's land as the so called promised land.

Thirdly, condemned are the politicians who are full of arrogance and racism towards muslims.

Finally, my messege to them is, wash your faces and then look in the mirror, straight.
Mahmood

One thing, I don't respond to dirty lies like those of DAVID BOAZ here, BUT THERE ARE NO SUCH CHAPTERS, BOOKS OR HADITHS YOU HAVE QUOTED.

The truth, your blood boils just the way many jews are! We know that.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU DAVID SPOIL THE NAMES OF MANY JEWS!

galty: The Jews parasites? - what a load of tosh - sounds like anti-Semitic dribbling from you sport. Israel is a democracy other than Malaysia and Indonesia which are both sort-of-democracies what other islamic nation is free and democratic?
By the way I have not heard about Israeli suicide bombers lately, nor even Christian suicide bombers either. But I have heard about many gutless islamic suicide bombers who even stoop in their total insanity to blowing up fellow islamics yes men, women,children and babies, a pack of demented psychopaths. Regards, numbat

There was a letter in a daily paper recently ,written by a devout Muslim who considered the wishes of those wanting to bring in Sharia as almost ridiculous.
He/she stated that Australian laws contained all that was good in sharia,respect for each other,freedom of speech and religion,the equality of women ect ect. That there was no need to bring in any change whatever.
Now if only all the Muslims were so sensible,there would be need for forums like this. And we in this blessed country could live in peace as one people.

I have always maintained that (all) religion is no more than a game akin to Dungeons and Dragons. The difference is becoming clear, religion is a game of Dungeons and Dragons with the added dimension of team loyalty. Religion is a game of Dungeons and Dragons played with the mentality of soccer or sports hooligans.

Like sports hooligans, god believers take their game into public and bother everybody else who have no interest in their childish games.

Like sports hooligans, god believers pose a real threat to civilised society. Unlike the problem of sports hooligans the problem of religion is not controlled by governments. The religious seem to be left to create anarchy and disruption on the premise of their strong belief in their own delusion and the tenacity of superstitious beliefs.

It appears the religious are protected by the infiltration of corruption the same way a legal officer may turn a blind eye to a sports hooligan because they support the same club.

One thing is for sure , all governments must do something about this growing problem we are having with religion running amuck in public.

Dear Galty
if you’re head is going to explode, please don’t do it here, the ‘shrapnel’ of brain tissue will splatter all over the rest of us.

Now.. in the spirit of grace, I’ll overlook that you called me a LIAR and described my most accurate quotes as “dirty lies”.

But you get yourself into real trouble by claiming that the chapters etc don’t exist.. when they do.
see links below. (Islamic sources)

Please note, the structure of my post was as follows: I took the News article, picked out the specific items listed, then I showed how those things were either done by Mohammed himself, or, are encouraged in the Quran.

1/ Beheadings.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

2/ Mutilation of prisoners.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/016.smt.html#016.4131

3/ Assasinations.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436

4/ Mass Casualty attacks.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4437

(I could have mentioned the much more serious genocide of the Banu Qurayza in this connection so I’ll add that now.)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.026 (refers to Qurayza Jews)

Hadith on same subject: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html
(Scroll to Number 362) Concerning the Jewish Qurayza tribe.

Narrated Ibn Umar:
[....He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims]

Discussion:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5195
"The massacre of the Banu Qurayza was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity…the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty…" (Muir)

According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost.

KENNY.. please, for once look at context of the Biblical accounts of judgments and wars. there is NO....repeat NO general command or example suggesting Christians should attack anyone. If you believe there IS, then quote it, and show by full context that it is valid as specifically "Christian" practice for today. There is no Biblical concept of “Christian” war, only ‘war’ by the State.
In Islam, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, Sharia LAW is based on Mohammeds example and the Quran and Hadith.. today in 2007

Pfwhooo Irfan is this Intellectual dialectical jihad on Linguistics or is it a dialogue reinvention reverse inference, or are you on medication.
Professor Israeli is in town (Sydney) Irfan, be careful of what you say;

I had to read it twice, it sounds more like a Trad Machiavellian tragic moment that it often slumbers into.

Numbat Islam aside. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist, The IRA - Christian Terrorists, Serbian Death Squads - Christian Terrorists, Rawandan Death squads - Christian Terrorists, The Sandanistas Christian Terrorists. The KKK - Christian terrorists. Fascist Germany, Spain and Italy effectively Catholic terrorist states. Stalin a Russian Orthadox preist who entered politics. The lesson is it doesnt matter what team somebody supports , it is certainly the belief in a god that leads to terrorism.

West: Answer your first then the other. D&Dragons the bloodthirsty pagans are the dragons no doubt. Real believers pose no threat to you petal none at all, the worst that will happen is that you will have jws or mormons call on you. Neither of these groups will abuse you liken you to pigs and monkeys, neither will be armed nor will they have a bomb up their shirts. VERY different in a moslem country as you well know and even irfan knows this. As I have said previously it's not the Methodist/ Presbyterian/ Anglican women's guilds that become gutless insane murderous suicide bombers. It's not the Christian Church that delivers sermons calling for the death of pigs and monkeys and the destruction of our democracy - it's the others. Nor will Christians attempt to convert you by threat of execution, Christians are not like that. Though some that have claimed to be followers have done so but that is not Christian at all. These death-loving misogynistic pagan worshippers of hudna the moon god of mecca they are the ones to be very wary of. Christian Churches are more likely to pray for moslems while the same moslems abuse them.
Your 2nd-Timothy was not Christian nor were any of the others you list, they may claim to be but they can very easily be shown as no better than pagans. And unlike "moderate?" p/mossies the vast majority of Christians disowned them completely as you well know. Other Christians fought against them and defeated them.
A belief in a false god whether this god is called christian or pagan can lead to terrorism but a belief in the one true God of the Bible will NEVER lead a true believer to commit cowardly terrorist acts. Regards, numbat

West. Once again in your rush to attack a belief in God you freely misconstrue the facts. The IRA were not Christian terrorist. They were the Irish Republican Army. They were/are fighting for a free Ireland and the finish of British rule. They did nothing in the name of god nor Christianity. The Serbs you refer to were Serbian nationalist and any acts they committed were certainly not done in the name of God or Christianity. I don't want to bore you with the details of the RPF invasion of Rawanda, Interahamwe militia groups, tribe on tribe violence or the U.N.s refusal to support their own mission, the UNAMIR.
The Sandanistas; Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) is a Nicaraguan communist political party. Not God, not religion. The KKK, Fascist Germany, Spain, Italy and Stalin. None of their activities or wars or simple atrocities were committed in the name of God or Christianity.
However, al-Qeada, OBL, the Taliban, and some 200 plus Islamic terrorist cadres do commit murder and destruction in the name of Allah and for the sake of Islam. Get your shoes on the right feet.

Irfan,
The reason Professor Israeli's remarks did not raise much contraversy in the community was because most people agreed with him and did not find the remarks offensive.

Muslims all over the world have a poor reputation and the reasons are obvious to those that read the news. The only ones critical of Israeli were the PC and MC Jewish groups were no doubt fearfull of a Muslim backlash if they supported him.

Here our main problem is with Leb Muslims, with their antisocial behaviour. Do not forget there were 70 girls gang raped in S/W Sydney, on the basis they were Anglos. Not all the rapists were Leb as the conviction of 3 or 4 Pakistanies shows and the rampwge in Auburn,following the close of the polling place for the first Iraqi election was by Iraqis. They beat up people, vandalized shops and cars, and 2 people were shot. Not to mention the intimidation of voters attending the polling place.

Overseas, the antisocial beehaviour has been nuch worse. Gang rapes of Anglo or white girls in France, Spain, Holland, Belgum, Sweden, Germany and Austria by Muslims of many nationalities. What about the ruckus about the Danish cartoons.

Then we have all the terrorist attrocities carried out by muslims. There is too many to mention.

No one should be surprized that many people believe Israli's warning of having a large muslim population in any country.

We have welcomed many thousands of migrants and it is sad to see at least one group that have no respect for us, our laws or social standards.

I hope our government takes a serious look at who we allow into Australia and stop those who do not wish to be part of our community.

Arjay, I remember when Irfan 'suggested'a little bit of sharia. According to the Muslim letter writer,I quote,"It must be understood that Sharia laws in some Muslim countries violate Koranic edicts. Also the Koranic edict[4:59] instructs Muslims to embrace the laws of lands they live in."
Now I think many Australians would suggest that any Muslim who is so unhappy with our laws go to some country where sharia is the only law. Our laws, while not perfect, are the outcome of hundreds of years of struggle, war , history and the deep thinking of many people who never ceased wanting justice and freedom for all.
We will not give that precious standard of law up in exchange for an out dated oppressive system that has not changed in centuries.

Well if you look at it from a historical perspective, the
old prof made some valid points. Look around you in a
global sense. Wherever Islam goes, violence seems to
eventually follow. Various people of various religious
backgrounds have come to Australia. Most live here
without fuss, but Muslims want a special deal, like
Sharia law in Perth etc.

Thats all the more reason for a secular state and the
acceptance that whichever way you look at it, violence
is part of Islam. But then the Arabs were violent people,
moreso then anything, amongst themselves. They still are,
just look at Iraq and who is killing whom.

Obfuscation, Moral-equivalence, Misdirection, Taqiyya .....
Here we have a perfect example of Muslim double-think (e.g. Mossad were responsible for 9/11, and anyway, serve Amerikkka right for oppressing Muslims). Jihadists and bile-projecting Imams/Muftis etc quote the Qur'an and Sunnah, the Muslim Brotherhood Project (it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West, calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism) quotes the Qur'an and Sunnah. Yet when an Infidel (a hated Jew, no less) quotes the very same texts and sinister ideological statements as these Muslims, lo and behold -- he's a 'bigot', 'racist' and an 'Islamophobe' (Note that Irfan Yusef, true to form, deals with none of the substance of what Israeli said, and demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of his position by offering no arguments against the questions Prof. Israeli raised. Just sneers and denial).
He mentions Germany in the 1930s and phrases like "the final solution to the Muslim question" in an attempt to garner sympathy from uninformed Infidels and useful idiots (hi, Kenny), and of course, playing the 'victim' card.
He also mentions the genocide of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, carefully omitting the ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Muslims that started the whole thing off in the first place. He makes no mention of Germans taking over Albania and annexing Kosovo to create “Greater Albania,” Albanians volunteered to form the SS Skanderbeg Division, which committed atrocities against Serbs and Jews in Kosovo and helped round up Jews who were later sent to Bergen-Belsen. In more recent history, Albanians pushed the Jews out with the rest of the non-Albanians after NATO occupied Kosovo in 1999.
He doesn't mention that Bosnian President Izetbegovic (a Muslim) let thousands of foreign 'mujahadeen' from Islamic countries into Bosnia to fight on the side of local Muslims in the 1992-1995 civil war. This was partly financed under the cover of 'humanitarian' organisations from Islamic countries.Many mujahadeen remained in Bosnia after the war, and some have been operating terrorist training camps and indoctrinating local youths with 'radical' Islam. CONTINUED

The predictable response that always follows any discussion of the elements of Islam that give rise to violence, supremacism, fanaticism is: Instead of dealing with those elements of Islam and working to formulate some positive way to mitigate their destructive force, Islamic apologists routinely shift the focus to the one raising the questions, accusing him of hatemongering, bigotry, etc. And there is always the accusation that the questioner is worse than, or equivalent to, the terrorists.
This is a very effective tactic, which is why they keep doing it. It makes naive and uninformed people turn away from the alleged bigot without considering what he is saying, and it deflects attention away from the Islamic roots of jihadist violence, so as to allow the jihadists to continue their work without harsh scrutiny.
All of this underscores the need today for people to be informed about Islam and Mohammed, not from material intended for non-Muslims, but from material written by Muslims and intended for other Muslims. Only then can non-Muslims get a clear picture of how Muslims really regard the elements of Islam and Mohammed's words and example that jihadists use to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, and thereby get a clear picture of the magnitude of the problem we face today.
One day perhaps such Muslim writers will awaken to the fact that Islamic supremacism has won them a considerably larger spectrum of opponents than they care to imagine.
In the Comments for this article, we find 'galty', an unashamed Muslim, telling it how he sees it. He hates Jews and denies that the texts that BOAZ mentions exist. From the seething hatred 'galty' exudes I have the distinct feeling that 'galty' is probably ignorant and has not studied the Qur'an, ahadith and Sira as much as BOAZ, myself and other kafirs have. Yet such denial.
Yusef (and Waleed Aly, Keysar Trad etc), on the other hand, probably HAS studied them, and by his silence, one deduces that he is far more deceptive and dangerous to Infidels than transparent old 'galty'.

West ;; Timothy McVeigh Was a Christian:?

O no, here we go again; No he was not West ; Propaganda works wonders in Leftitude and Jihad;
Now for some Enlightenment; http://democracyfrontline.org/articles/?p=20

Ooo no , not again; Irfan had this deleted years ago, because there are Moslems involved ; Can’t say anyone should be surprised.

Nore the Myth that it was a Christian Conspiracy.It tells you why.

Well Islam seems to be a very confused belief system with no central structure.Seemingly you can be all things to everyone,believe in peace,violence,murder,rape,war depending upon which verse from the Koran you happen to prefer.

Seems to me a very dangerous and open ended philosophy.Just look at what the political religion of hate and chaos has produced in the various Muslim states around our planet.If you want to know which horse to back,just study it's track record.

Your essay Irfan is non-sensical.

Sheik Hilali's efforts to link womens' dress with rape was feckless, disturbing and just plain wrong. Therefore the attack on him by the Australian media was completely warranted.

However, Professor Raphael Israeli does have a legitimate point that can be defended by rational argument.

That is, while all three monotheistic faiths are by definition intolerant, Islam is significantly more intolerant. It is obvious that Islam has enormous trouble coming to terms with the cultural practices of non-Muslim 'kafir'. Here is a very recent example from Thailand;

"The brutality is amazing," said Zachary Abuza, a US terrorism expert who specialises in a conflict that has simmered for decades. "For the previous generation, these acts would have been considered unseemly. No one would have done things like hacking apart monks, blowing them up when they are collecting their alms, targeting women and children."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/thais-sense-of-self-threatened-by-insurgency/2007/02/23/1171734017522.html

By the way Irfan. Are you still banned from 'Muslim Village'? Arguably Australia's most prominent Islamic forum.

Because if you are still banned this undermines your argument that Islam is a tolerant and desirable element of Australian society.

Time and time again we see Muslim moderates like yourself being drowned out by the ultra-orthodox fundamentalists. Why? Because fundamentalism is the true heart of Islam. Not moderation and tolerance.

Maybe the Jewish Professor is right after all.

Galty, your aspersions against Jews are as offensive as Israeli's aspersions against Muslims.

Banjo, if I recall correctly, you are the fellow who used to ring up the Stan Zemanek Show. Unless I have the wrong person.

I also note that one of the armchair nazis here has accused me of writing an article calling for sharia to be introduced into Australia. I'd like to ask this person (and I use the term 'person' in its widest possible sense) to advise:

a. When I allegedly wrote this article.
b. Where this article was published.
c. Which aspect of sharia I asked to be introduced.
d. Why my taxes should continue to be used to pay this armchair nazi's Centrelink benefits.

B_D begs us: "please, for once look at context of the Biblical accounts of judgments and wars. there is NO....repeat NO general command or example suggesting Christians should attack anyone. If you believe there IS, then quote it, and show by full context that it is valid as specifically "Christian" practice for today."

B_D should perhaps talk to the many people from the Christian Right in the US who claim that the Iraq war and the slaughter of Muslims by "Christian" American troops is part of God's plan in the lead-up to Armageddn.

Or maybe B_D thinks they also have gotten the context wrong.

B_D, what do you make of Danny Nalliah's call for Christians to tear down Buddhist, Hindu and Masonic temples using Biblical references? What about the Dutch Reformed Church's support of apartheid using Biblical references? Or how about the widespread support for slavery among Protestant churches hardly 150 years ago using Biblical references?

What can I say? The dogs bark. The caravan keeps moving right along.

Aqvarivs you may make excuses for Christian terrorism but the fact remains. The IRA, Serbians, Sandinistas were all religiously mobilised. Serbian death squads were not cleansing their state of bad citizens who avoided paying taxes. The supremacy of their god was the backbone behind their idea of state. Christianity has not taken responsibility for its actions since the dark ages but from Northern Ireland to the killing cellars of Argentina it was the belief in god which justified such atrocities. The Vatican owes its very existence to Mussolini; it supported the Holocaust and allowed Hitler to install his own state Archbishop as a symbolic gesture of the Christian values that the Nazi party Championed. The Vatican bank rolled Franco. Protestants invented communism, to live in the community of Christ. Stalin an ex-clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church merely adopted the tried and tested principles of Calvinists, Quakers and assorted puritan communist communities. Stalin’s reign of terror was no more horrific than Cromwell’s. Without the belief in God there is no justification for most of the horrors of history. Without the ‘god given’ justification to crown Charlemagne emperor of Europe we would have no god given supremacy to stamp out indigenous communities and indigenous laws. If prostitution is the oldest profession, belief in god is the oldest motivation for crimes against humanity.

I don’t play dungeons and Dragons or worship deities or whatever you want to call it so to me there is no difference between Christians and Muslims.

To believe in a god a person has to be delusional, yes it’s their problem until they take it out into public and become a nuisance. It’s the belief in the end of days which makes them dangerous. I am confident in my life time there will again be Christian terrorism as there has been in the past on par with current ongoing Muslim terrorism. Where there is the belief in God there will always be violence, there always has been.

I cannot trust both Muslims and Christians , the lives of loved ones are not worth risking.

We are not talking about 150 yrs ago Irfan.Let's talk about postWW2.Look at the total body of evidence instead of being a selective petal plucker of facts who massages logic to suit your own rose coloured version of Islam.

Even George Pell is now trying to ride on the resurgence of Islamic facism by tring to dictate to us the sentiment and flavour of what is said at our funerals.Religious dictators are just simmering below the surface waiting for their day in the sun.The concept of god is a flawed human foible based on weakness and narcissism.We only cling to this concept when there is nothing left to fill the void.Poor ignorant people cling to notions of god while the wealthy get on with learning and enjoying life.

I have yet to hear of one mad Mullah commiting suicide in the name of Allah.Those in power use religion to enslave the masses.

Time to grow up Irf.

This is all related to multiculturalism. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be having this argument now. Australia doesn't need either of these two groups. Both cause more problems than their worth. They both come half way around the world from their own crappy countries to Australia, the best country in the world and cause nothing but problems. Honestly why can't they both just go home.
A country is a reflection of its people and their personalities. If we want Australia to be more like where these two groups come from, let them keep coming here. If we don't, and its my belief that the majority of Australians don't, we need to stop this mad idea of multiculturalism. Australians need to finally stand up and tell both these groups to shape or go home.
I'd prefer to see both groups sent home. There is absolutely no proof that either of them is of any net benefit to Australia. Please just go home.

West,

"Without the belief in God there is no justification for most of the horrors of history"

This is what I have been saying in my posts all along that religion is used as the excuse to justify a lot of the killing. You kill your evil enemies in Gods name then it is no longer murder but a holy act. But mankind is not that holy and kills for gain not holiness.

Some like the IRA are honest about why they kill because they feel they have a justified reason to kill. Because the British marched into Ireland in the 16 hundreds and set up British colonies the decendants of which still govern Ireland. The IRA have always said they kill to take back control of Ireland. Hence the name Irish Republican Army. They feel they have right on their side in doing this, and so they have no reason to use religious excuses.

West, You place religion as the reason and post blame for all peoples criminality. You've chosen religion as your personal nemesis. Sadly much of the reasoning and assertions regarding history in your last post isn't just wrong, I feel it is deliberately done. You do play at dungeons and dragons. You've created your own narrow dungeon and envision yourself as dragon slayer. In as much as BOAZ David refers to his religion, your post always seem to come around to religion.
An innocent from outer space may well deduce that all Earths problems could be the result of either the over zealous application of religious dogma or the very lack of religious adherence.
Balance or a state of homeostasis is the higher reward.

Hi Irf...
I'm hearing you... would you mind providing some documented reference to Danny Naliah's call ? Usually, in Christian-speak 'tearing down of strongholds' is in the spiritual sense. (it sure is in the New Testament)

[By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away! 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.] II Cor 10:1-4

Lets not forget that Hitler used the 'Jesus, cleansing of the temple of money changers' as justification for slaughtering the Jews. Did he interpret it correctly ? nope. (Jesus was a Jew not a member of the Aryan master race)

Irf.. please don't apply Islamic concepts of religious position to Christianity. A person can be 'born' a Muslim (culturally, politically) but one can only be born AGAIN to be Christian.

Not all are like Pat Robertson.
(who I have personally taken to task by email over some of his comments)

IRAQ.. part of Gods plan ? Don't you believe in the Sovereignty of the Almighty ? "If Allah wills".... but the meaning of the Right about that would be that "God is not mocked, He is still sovereign", rather than specifically reflecting Christian values. Mankind still has free will you know.

Dutch Reformed justification of Aparthied ? Show me the Biblical references and we can discuss it. Same basis..context and correct interpretation.

You would need to link any of those other examples you used to the New Testament mate. Without that its like me blaming the murderous actions of one pack of chimps against another on Christianity.

I've just been reading this thread and some of the comments are pretty abusive, particularly of Irfan. You can disagree with someone without calling them names. This should especially be the case with one of our authors. If it wasn't for their dedication to discussing ideas this forum wouldn't exist and they deserve to be respected for that at the very least.

I'll be keeping a watch on this thread and any further abuse will just be deleted.

So many people making emphatic statements about what Islam is! Surely Islam is whatever Muslims believe it to be, rather than what non-Muslims claim it is.

Knowledge and understanding are the keys to fighting fear and hatred, which is why I enjoy reading Irfan’s articles so much (even when I don't entirely agree). My opinions were once more in line with some of the more extreme negative views expressed here; and some of Irfan’s past articles were in no small way responsible for bringing me back to a more reasonable view of things. While I’m not about to don the rose-tinted spectacles of Islamophilia, at least I hope to avoid the worst mistakes of Islamophobia.

And speaking of mistakes, I’ve realized I managed to mis-spell the names of both Sheik Hilali and Professor Israeli in my previous post. Ack! I hate it when I do things like that. Still, at least my errors were even-handed.

I go quiet on the weekends, having better things to do. West, you pretty much said what I was going to say - thank you. I was also going to say that my father was a terrorist; his area of activity was Germany and France in 1944 and '45. Fortunately we won, so he immediately was transformed from terrorist to hero!

The Japanese considered their kamikaze pilots to be the bravest of the brave - sacrificing their own lives for their cause. A cause which was increasingly apparently lost. I don't see how the word coward can sensibly be applied to someone who willingly gives up his life for his cause. Misguided, certainly! Extreminst, yes! But coward, no! As much as we hate their actions it is quite unproductive to say suicide bombers are cowards (although I would not necessarily argue against this use for people who leave bombs to explode later, the King David Hotel for example). Until we recognise this it will be very difficult to defeat muslim extremism, because to defeat them (and I fully support defeating them) we must first understand them.

It's kind of sad, that when a moderate muslim writes a pretty reasonable argument he's still attacked... people say that extremism in western societies is caused by isolation and being surrounded by people with extremist views.
Of course, there is the element of choice in the matter - though it doesn't look like it's easy for a muslim to express a view even remotely critical of a christian or western viewpoint without being lumped in with extremist Islam - which in the view of a number of OLO posters, seems to be the same anyway.
Just goes to show... extremism does cut both ways, even if it doesn't necessarily manifest in physical violence.

So, in attacking and excluding muslims from mainstream discourse, aren't we tacitly encouraging extremism via exclusion?

Thoughts anyone?

The Jewish minority in Australia has no intention of introducing and imposing their set of religious laws on all Australians.

The Jewish minority in Australia has not introduced new bills insisting on special treatment for their women and men in hospitals, consultation rooms, and by the police.

The Jewish minority in Australia is not secretly and/or openly plotting against our national security and liberal democracy.

The Jewish minority in Australia does not rally people to coerce them to their way of life.

The Jewish minority in Australia does not teach their toddlers to hate all non-muslims and to call them kafirs.

The Jewish minority in Australia does not make requests for special praying rooms in our Public Hospitals, schools, universities, workplaces, ...etc. and the removals of all crosses or other religious emblems in such places.

The Jewish minority in Australia is not bringing thousands of migrants across the oceans and marrying Australians for the sole purpose of "populating the country to critical mass".

Irfan, just remember that no one consulted Islam when we wrote our Australian constitution.

However the Jewish minority in Australia played is an inseparable part of the Australian Christian social and moral value system on which our nation is built, having preserved the word of God over the centuries (long before Islam came to town).

To you Irfan hearing the truth is more offensive than accepting the lies. You prefer to find cradle in the soft esoteric part of your religion than in its intrusive political realities.

Irfan,if I was wrong in my post that suggested you had expressed a wish to have some attributes of Sharia become incorporated into Australian law, I apologise most sincerely.
You call people who question the ways of Islam, "armchair nazis", that is implying that such people should cease from stating their view, right or wrong in this country we are all free to speak our minds.
I hope it will always be so.And may our laws always protect that right.

Irfan,
No old son, I have never phoned a talkback radio show ever. You once asked me if I had a connection with a radio station and my answer was negative also. Perhaps it was someone who expressed his views in a similar manner. I do try to think before I type. I hope you don't class me as an armchair nazi, although I have put strong opposing views to yours on a few occasions.

Muslims do have a poor reputation and I think that, mainly, is because of the actions of Leb Muslims. They do not appear to even try to integrate, you know or bend a little to get along

I do not doubt the sincerity of yourself and Waheed Aly and a couple of those girls that write articles here, but you have the task ahead of you to improve most peoples opinions of Muslims. Events overseas do not help your cause either. Regards.

Sorry Graham Young,

Writers deserve respect based on what they write, not where they write. Or is is "respectable" to write for a Coalition site in Australia?

It is noted that you have already removed comments from this thread, understandably so. In fact most of the posts are what you would expect when anyone writes that the referred to comments are made publicly, clearly, recorded and repetetively are "misunderstood". They are not misunderstood at all. By either religion.

Like other posts here I have no doubt you will remove this one. Censorship is a necessary evil in the world of free speech isn't it Graham?

Since the topic of this thread has branched onto "respect", I have no respect for the moderators of a forum which permits an article using Sheik Hilali as the basis to cry double standards.

Hilali has ridiculed and offended most Australians. This forum has perpetuated this ridicule and offence by permitting Irfan's article which not only dismisses the public outrage but reframes it in a "reasoned" argument to the inevitable conclusion of all Muslim apologists - that they are the victims.

What reaction do the moderators expect when you ridicule and offend most of Australia?

Deeply offended by Hilali, Irfan and Online Opinion.

Now Irfan Usef has referred to myself and many others both past and present on this forum as" armchair nazis" which I take exception to ,yet when the discussion gets hot,Irfan appeals to the umpire crying foul.

If you cannot handle the heat of debate Irfan,perhaps you should not hurl abuse yourself.

Too much to read it all, but I take one line from the header article;

"It is clearly possible in the current environment to say things about
Muslims that you simply cannot say about anyone else."

I wonder why ?

I believe we made a mistake in bringing moslems into Australia.
Not their fault, ours !
If you want to see an example of incompatibility look no further than
Lebanon. They destroyed Beruit in a Christian/Moslem civil war.
The risk of something similar is too great and why should we bother ?
There is nothing in it for us. We would not miss anything if every
moslem dissapeared overnight.

In regards to Islamophobia, readers (and posters) at this forum might like to peruse Kenan Malik's essay "The Islamophobia Myth" at http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html

As Malik notes in the second paragraph of this article: "The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And in reality discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived ..."

Malik's words which are applied to the English situation could just as easily be applied here. It should also be noted that Malik was born in India (but raised in Manchester) and is currently the Senior Visting Fellow at the Department of Political, International and Policy Studies at the University of Surrrey.

... I see a great deal of pretty negative rhetoric on this thread. Funnily enough none of it is coming from muslims.
I'm not condoning the actions of Sheik Hilaly - from what I can tell, neither is Mr Yusuf.

There has been very little discussion of what Mr Israeli has said, which I thought was the point of this article.

Okay. We've heard the anti muslim rhetoric from Coach before. Same goes for you Boaz. Can we try singing a few new lyrics for a change? can we perhaps analyse another aspect of religious politicking that isn't the great muslim menace?

Online_east. Come on. Deal with it. There's been plenty of people crying foul over Hilaly. If you can't even read a pretty tame article like this one without getting all hot, bothered and "offended" than I think you're in for a few rude awakenings.

Betty. For somebody who has made all of three posts (one of which was complaining about having a post removed), you seem awfully quick to judge the forum.

Read a few hotter threads. You'll find there is plenty robust debate, and more than a few posters with strong right wing, anti muslim views.
Yes, some of it is removed if need be, but that is to prevent the threads degenerating into a nasty, abusive slanging match.

To those who say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; I say, if you can't discuss things calmly and with consideration, get out of the gutter.

Read the title of the piece again, and stop for a moment. Perhaps these responses have been somewhat telling.

I'll second TurnRightThenLeft's recent post.

For those accusing OLO of biased censorship - put up or shut up.

Try phrasing the posts without abuse instead stating your case using logic and see what is removed.

As a long term contributer the only posts I've seen removed are the most extreme of abuse and or those which might place the site at legal risk.

I've never seen evidence of a post being removed because the views expressed did not suit Graham's political leanings.

R0bert

Flowergirl: Irfan, isn't he banned yet??

ThUnDa: He WAS banned. His nick was "irfyte". Now he is back.

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=21973&hl=

I found the above reference to you in the 'Islamic Sydney' forum.

Are you still 'back' Irfan? I doubt it. Not when the Islamic neocon's rule the roost. This idea of 'moderate Islam' is surely a joke.

I would suggest that one of the reasons that Islam goes down like a lead balloon in Western socities and causes all kinds of friction is that it is tries at every attempt to stifle meaningful debate. And even worse, this choking of debate is bought about by threat fueled by monumental arrogance and contempt toward anyone slightly different - like yourself.

Why don't you admit that you are wasting your time siding with an idealogy that is by definition totalitarian - and come over to the West?

It's amazing just how much some of you hate your fellow Australians. I simply cannot find any Judeo-Christian ethic which could justify this degree of venom.

I guess it is because many of you simply don't get to meet many Muslims. Or some of you have had bad relationships with Muslims. I know that neo-Con writers like Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter often refer to their former Muslim partners who ended up dumping them. I guess the pain must cut really deep.

Regardless of what I say or write, there will be some people here who will want to see me and anyone else deemed Muslim thrown out of Australia, if not killed. They are people whose information about me and what I believe comes from the most hostile sources. They could just as easily ask me what I believe, but that would require them getting out of their comfort zone. And it would require them using brain cells they may not have.

I know there are many people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere who hate Christians. I guess if I saw much of my family obliterated by a bomb dropped by a President who sends his troops to war after praying with Rev Franklin Graham, I would also hate Christians.

What stops me from hating people who tick "Christian" or "Jewish" on their census forms is that I know so many of them. I know them as decent hard-working people who respect me for who I am and who I feel no hesitation in respcting.

If anyone is interested in what I believe, they are welcome to e-mail me using the address on my blog. Otherwise I really have no interest in visiting these forums and reading the inbred nonsense that some of you write because you are still grieving over your Muslim partner who dumped you or because you forgot to take your medication.

TR, there is this amazing skill I learned at school. It's called reading. It involves recognising these strange things called 'letters' placed in unique combinations and then recognising these combinations signify sounds.

When you master this skill, you might like to check my biography. You might find that I arrived in Australia at age 5 months. Since I am now practising law and have not travelled overseas much since arriving here, and since English is my frst language, that probably means that I am culturally very very Western.

No, my ancestry is not Middle Eastern. Such a shameful ancestry could only belong to nasty people that so-called Judeo-Christian "we-grew-here" types love hating. Nasty people like Moses, Mary and Jesus.

Born with Jewish blood, raised as a Christian I found I was better of not to follow any religion. Take Sheik Taj Al-Din Hulali, who makes statements and has been vilified about it, regardless if most of it are simply expressions of his views, he is entitled upon as any other person is. Due to the ongoing criticism upon Hilali I have listened to some of his comments so widely reported and quite frankly it are the critics who rather by their vilification are causing more harm then good.
As Author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series, and a grandmaster “constitutionalist” I find that Hilali’s comments are in many ways not offensive at all as is portrayed.
Give the man a break!
Personally, I hope that my daughters and granddaughters never will be walking halfnaked around the streets, as while I accept it is one thing to walk in a bikini at the beach it is another thing to do so in normal shopping environment, etc.
Perhaps, if we were not oversensitive but took more notice of what Hilali is saying, that we should not half-undressed girls walking about, we might all benefit of less crimes being committed against women.
Perhaps, if the man had not been a Muslim but a Christian he would be admired for speaking up, but because Muslims are targeted upon anything they say is wrongly interpreted no matter how good the intentions may be.
I found no offence either about his statement about the lies in Australia as after all it is in Australia so much ingrained in politics that we disregard the harm caused to the victims of those lies. We had the barbaric conduct against refugees allegedly that terrorist were in their midst, etc.
My website www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH set this out extensively.

Lets sober up and listen to the man open minded and we may just learn something good out of it.
Don’t shoot the messenger for the bad tiding!
Sure, I may not agree with everything Hilali states, but then again neither does everybody with what I state

"Nasty people like Moses, Mary and Jesus".

Dear me Irfan, let's generalise shall we. Talk about venom. A virgin, a carpenter and a messiah, nasty people. Only if you don't agree with their religion and beliefs Irfan which you don't.

What do you prefer? The peaceful, tolerant preachings you started out stating were misunderstood, misconstrued, misheard and bloody mistakes. Come on Irfan, while you're condescending, or attempting to anyway, how about looking at the recorded statements of your misunderstood clergy. Self appointed I believe. Or was it divine right?

What a nasty (check spelling, OK) little minded man you are.

Your reference to background is about as relevant in this country as what John Howard tells us daily. BS. The only "pure" background Australians are the full blood inidigenous people(s) of which there are several hundreds of tribes. Not one people as so many are led to think.

Irfan,

There a lot of Muslims in Australia who want nothing more to do with Islam. They are here because they were abused and mistreated by Muslim fanatics in their home country.

I had the privilege to meet hundreds of African Muslims who are scared stiff from the Islamic influence on their children. They have suffered enough to never want to know or trust another Muslim and look for a peaceful life in Australia.

Many others are converting to Christianity having had the chance to read the Qur’an in their native tongue or the freedom to investigate other religions for the first time.

Also to refresh your historical knowledge, Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else don't need a US bomb to start hating Judeo-Christians. Hatred started in the seventh century with your prophet declaring all non-Muslims as fair game kafirs.

It is not our fault that Islam is intolerant to others and un-integratable anywhere it goes. Our government is bending backward to try to please the Muslim communities and meet all their demands. But it’s never enough. They want the whole cake not just a slice or two.

The professor was speaking about Muslims communities in Europe, mass emigration and the disastrous effect it is having on the cultural and social landscape there. Let alone the increased number of home-grown Islamic terrorists. He confirmed that Australia is heading the same way with our unchecked immigration.

Not everyone found his remarks offensive and an increased number of lectures have been scheduled and his tour extended. This tells me that many are still interested in hearing the truth about the gloomy predictions of Islam’s worldwide propagation.

To me, Hilali’s crude remarks were contemptuous to our society and not a bit constructive to Islam’s growing pains in Australia; but for Irfan to suggest any intellectual comparison between Hilali and Raphael Israeli is rather ironic

Speaking about being marginalised..here is a comment about Irfs post on Muslim Sydney from a character called 'Taqwa'..

Irfs post was a very heartwarming and inclusive treatment of Easter, but to me it was more of a humanistic one than theological.

"Sorry Irfan, but I think you have now completely lost the plot.."(Taqwa)

"I think ur anglican schooling has corrupted your ideas, really, even if this artcle is all metaphioricaly symbolic.
i like most of your artcles, but this was really quite pathetic" (Muslim Perth)

"hmm... irfan I usually enjoy reading your articles, but I dunno about this one" (Astral)

The sentiments reflected in those Muslims anti Irfan comments come from the ideas which I am constantly attacking. NOTE.. "Ideas".

Perhaps these criticisms of Irf from Muslims arise from Quran 9:30
"May Allah destroy them" (Christians and Jews) Perhaps he seems to open to Christian ideas.. maybe he was "infected" with a virus of anglicanis ? Such is the speculation by MUSLIMS about Irf.

I don't recall attacking Irf personally at any point.. and if any helpful poster can show that I have.. I'd appreciate it so I can address such a failing.

IRF.. please don't feel attacked personally ok ! Islam is not Irfan.
You are indeed an inclusive bloke, and clearly you want to be a part of things, and you are. Separate the clashes over ideas from personal attitudes toward people.

For me, every soul is one for whom Christ died. Anything which detracts from their opportunity to embrace Christ is difficult for me, and that includes ideologies such as Islam and even Buddhism and Hinduism etc.. all non Christian faiths. The one I openly expose and attack, is the one which seeks to set up a "State" in its own theological image.

The main thing is that when ever someone kills or destroys in the name of Islam we non-Muslims understand that they were misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood. That is the PC,MC, rights that every Muslim terrorist is attempting to bring about. I don't understand why Australians can't see how these people are victimized in every western culture. Certainly we owe them this much after thousands of years of oppression by the white man. It's only fair that we confer upon them all the rights and benefits of victim status and allow them to rewrite history in their favour. Islamaphobia will only be eradicated once every Muslim holds a position as school teacher. You know, like we did with cultural marxist and feminist. We had no idea how relevant the social sciences were until they became their purview and taught us how oppressive and unfair men and western society has been down through the ages. I'm equally, and let me use the word again, equally, sure Islam will be much more readily acceptable once our children are indoctrinated beginning in kindergarten.
And Irfan. with this latest article of yours, I expect your trying to instigate a little victim on victim violence. That I believe is not how the game is played. All victims must stand together arm in arm shoulder to shoulder against the machine of white oppression and world dominance. Marxist, Jews, fem-bots and Muslims must stand united against the great white-Christian machine. The giant must be toppled.

Hi again Irfan,

Now there's no need to get all nasty and sarcastic with me. I know exactly who you are and what your background is. I reckon that you are a delightful and intelligent man.

This is why I don't understand why you bother sticking up for the religion of Islam. It's a medieval venom spitting rant fest that is tailor made for the dull and the gullable.

Let's face reality. Monotheism really has had its day. The idea that angels can dictate books and virgins give birth to prophets is really no longer believed by anyone with an ounce of credibility or sense.

Irfan, you really are too intelligent for all that iron age stupidity. Wake up!

Reynard,
“Until we recognise this it will be very difficult to defeat Muslim extremism, because to defeat them (and I fully support defeating them) we must first understand them.”

Psychotherapists to Terrorist:
“Please come in & recline on the sofa”
“Would you like some herbal tea?”
“Now -tell me, when did you start disliking us?”

Actually, we may get more mileage from understanding ourselves.
Terrorists & their camp followers crave media publicity.
Why is it that ever night the lead story about Iraq is a bombing & little positive is ever touched on.

Terrorists play on their preys inability to make hard decisions.
While we dither about racial profiling & deportation issues- they are laughing all the way to the next target.

And they can always count on a western “academic” cheer squad to explain away their culpability & re-write history to their benefit.

I am deeply, deeply shocked by the majority of the posts in response to this article. Anyone at all who dares say that Australia is not a deeply racist country lives in cloud la-la land.

The author was right in questioning the different levels of prominence odious comments were given by 2 odious men. Why is Hilali given so much airtime? Because it stirs the unthinking masses.

Maybe Marx was right with his belief that Religion is the Opium of the people and should be banned in a modern society. Let's not stop with the Quran and the Hajib, but also the bible, celibate priests and nums who've done untold harm to tens of thousands of children all in the name of God , the Torah, wigs and bizarre curls and hats.

The Catholics raged for a couple of centuries in Europe, the Puritans did shocking things in the US. Bizarre interpretation of any religion is dangerous and has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or salvation, but is all about power and control. It keeps the silly masses obedient.

The Bible is a most violent and inconsistent book, this has given millions of Christians the excuse to slaughter others AND each other for 2000 years. The Quran is the same, so why should Muslims be any different in being idiotic and dangerous? Islam does not have a patent on horror and spreading horror.

A few Christians in the West are joyfully awaiting the end of the world and Armageddon while the rest of us are bleating around like idiotic sheep discussing the evils of ONE religion. Let's get rid of all religions and we'll live in a much saver world.

Except two of us yvonne my main point in this debate is the pot calling the kettle black no matter which side anybody is on.

Like a mate of mine always says, differences in opinion over religion nearly always turns into an argument over who's imaginary friend is best.

Dear Yvonne.. on the surface your view may seem to have merit.

Has there been massive evil perpretrated by Westerners in the name of Christendom ? yes.. Can you REALLY show how this is justified by Christs example and/or teaching and the general tone of the New Testament (as being the fulfillment of the old) ? If so, please try :)

Which leads to 2 points.

1/ The contrast between Islam as a violent and aggressive religious movement (I CAN and have repeatedly connected that violence directly to Mohammed in his life and teaching) and the inherrent peacefulness of Christianity as a faith.

2/ The violence in historic Christendom has been EXACTLY as Yvonne points out.. about power and wealth and in some cases about misguided ideas of doctrinal purity.(which, when closely examined, turn out to be about Church power)

Yvonne.. you need to do a birds eye survey the first 300 years of the history of the Church, then compare and contrast that, with the same period in Islam. Mohammed was fighting all his earthly life against 'unbelievers' and died early due to being poisoned by some Jewish woman who strangely resented the fact that Mohammed had KILLED ALL HER MALE RELATIVEs at Khaiber.

"I came not to be served, but to serve, and give my life as a ransom for many" (Jesus) is quite a contrast to "If any man changes his deen, KILL him"(Mohammed)

The reason Prof Israeli is controversial is because his spoke ugly and politically incorrect truth.
You doubt ?
see this ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4rMJVHyeg

Remember.. 'critical mass'......violence.

Irfan,

There is a deep irony with your essay. Here you are defending Sheik Hilaly with the freedom of speech allowed by On-Line Opinion - a secular site. Yet you would not be able to do the same thing on the Islamic Sydney Forum - a Muslim site. Why? Because you have been gagged by your fellow brothers who DO NOT value freedom of speech.

Australians are not stupid. We see Islamic hypocrisy clearly. The men of the Islamic political machine use Western values when it suits them but hide behind the same values like cowards when their ivory tower is threatened by rational argument and debate.

All the evidence is out there. Islamic ‘moderates’ like yourself are in a minority and are impotent in the face of bigoted and conservative fundamentalism - the real Islam.

By the way Yvonne - love your post!

Yvonne, get a grip dear. Keep those nickers unknotted please.

Try reading what is going on in this thread. It's not racism, it's religious intolerance. Amply displayed by Irfan's own venom poured out against Mary, Jesus and Joseph. Three more deserving people of the world's hatred? Surely not, except if you don't like their beliefs or life practices. Tolerance, acceptance and love. What nasty people they must have been. I suppose Irfan or other Islamic extremists would translate those practices as " Ignorance, hatred and free sex"..

It's not racist to despise religious zealots Yvonne. It's the intolerance of others beliefs that is the problem here, not racism. That's the easy media wise dog whistle so many use to try and change the point of attack. Keep whistling Yvonne. Your reliious beliefs by the way?

Hi Betty, I think Irfan's comment about Jesus Mary and Joseph was intended ironically, just like your own "what nasty people they must have been".

Cheers!

Betty I am not a Muslim , or a Christian infact I have no superstition at all or religion as the politically correct word for superstition is. I have no fear of Jesus, to me Jesus is no different than Harry Potter. I recognise the character of Jesus of the new testament is immoral as he spouts and preaches exclusionism. You cannot deny that , all non Christians go to hell as far as Christians are concerned. To say that the crimes of Christianity are only historic are defunct on a number of levels. Twenty year old Neo Nazis did not partake in the Holocaust or set up the vatican but they accept the philosophy which led to that. Besides Christians still call for witch burning and theocracies. As far as the crimes of the past they are not over. The lives of homosexuals have been attacked through banning gay marriage, Womens rights over their own bodies have been under attack by an anti abortion lobby. Children are exploited under brainwashing regimes such as teaching them the unproven existence of god and intelligent design.

Sure Islam is a bit of a demon but it is not alone , Christianity is a demon too. There is no difference between the two. Im certain if Sept 11 never occured those in the growing ranks of the bible belt of Timothy MC Veighs Ilke would have continued their program against democracy and against the U.S government. The U.S has probably unwittingly postponed the road to their own civil war with its Christian community by shipping off the war monger to Iraq.

There are no grounds on which a Christian can judge a Moslem and visa versa.

Dear Betty, Boaz and others like you,

There are tens of millions of ordinary practicing muslims on this Earth, as there are Christians. There are many people converting to Islam. Especially in the USA. What would attract these people to this religion? It is irrational to suggest the majority just want to have a justification to commit violence.

Unlike many of you I grew up where I, as a white Christian woman, was a minority member of society. Through childhood and teenage years to adulthood and dangerous tumultuous transistion to independence.

I can categorically assure you that a Muslim household is as unusual as say a Catholic one. Parents and children have the same arguments, in-laws can be as trying, husbands as sloppy, but less likely to chundering drunks, a new baby causes the same excitement and anxiety. People who happen to be muslim are not alien.

The rabid portrayal of Muslims and the religion of Islam I read here I do not recognize. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all capable of giving support to hideous violence. Violence is violence. You are going to be as dead whether it is caused by a Christian thug or a muslim thug.

It is not the religion of Islam that is the problem. It is the battle for power and domination, some use Islam, some Christianity, some use self-defence or historical claim for territory, some don't need an excuse at all and are powerful enough to wipe out tens of thousands of men, women and children. Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, recently come to mind.

So please, get of the easy band wagon of blaming a people or a religion and if we just annihilate that we'll be OK. That's the excuse the Nazi's used very successfully to galvanize an entire population, that's the excuse terrorists use. The terrorists are not the representatives of a people. They are self-appointed dangerous thugs. Like the Mafia or the Baader-Meinhof Group, or the IRA, or Pol Pot, the list is endless really.

West: There is NO ever-burning hideously torturous hell fire - it just doesn't exist, except in many "loving?" Christian Churches. NO ONE whether he/she at present is atheist, pagan, homosexual, murderer will be punished for all eternity absolutely NO-ONE! As I have said in another forum Christ Jesus, whether you like Him or believe in Him, is the Saviour of ALL mankind so if only one person does not make it then this title is a lie. Regards, numbat

West, numbat, and co.

When was the last time you read a non-fiction book?

Yvonne,

If you were a true Christian you would have recognised the counterfeit that is called Islam.

You sound like a well balanced philosophical person – but just know that there are good and bad religions in this world as well as people – and you cannot judge the religion by looking at its people but by its sources and dogmas.

Islam is the invention of one man whose lifestyle is not just inspiring his followers but practiced as law. This is why we have so much violence committed by good Muslims in the name of the prophet of Allah. To be a good Muslim is to kill and die a martyr for the cause of Allah (the Muslim god).

Compare that with the Christian God Jesus in the Bible and His teachings “Love your enemies”. To be a good disciple of Jesus is to be humble and tell the world about His saving grace.

Violence and injustices committed in the name of Christianity is not the norm and is not part of the teaching of Christ.

All religions are man-made. True Christianity stands alone as a relationship with God (YHWH). It is the only true God that loves His people so much that He died for them so they can live forever with Him in heaven.

All religious systems ask people to do things like prayer, fasting, giving to the poor, etc… to reach their gods. The Christian God is the only one who reaches down to His creation.

There are fundamentally irreconcilable differences between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. So please don’t lump Islam with Christianity. It is offensive.

Know what you believe and Why you believe it. Don’t simply follow hollow imitations

Isreali's comments are part of the public record, so I'll comment on them after I've found them.
Muhammad's comments, and actions, are also on the public record, and recorded by Muslims, so Muslims need not feel angry at those actions and statements being commented upon, should they?
By the Muslim record, Muhammad was a liar, thief, murderer (including mass murderer), rapist and pedophile. (I've read recently that Muhammad was asked by the father of his fourth wife Aisha to wait until Aisha was of age before marrying her. Muhammad refused, and married her when she was nine.)
Even to this day, Muslims are told that it is their highest duty to emulate the life of Muhammad. The displaced young Muslim men in the West seem to be taking this to heart, if the experience of France, Britain, the Netherlands and Australia is anything to go by.
Trying to restrict Muslim immigration is probably unrealistic, even if it was desirable. But perhaps Western countries to which Muslims are flocking could return the favour of (some) Muslim countries with regard to religious freedoms: not allow Muslims to build places of worship or gathering, and stamp out the horror of female genital mutilation, which in Western countries is practiced only by Muslims.
To their credit, most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be (most of the time). But Islam as a system of thought (and behaviour) has too many fascist tendencies to be regarded as anything except fascist.

Camo,

Since we are talking of matters of public records, Aisha was six when Mohammad married her but apparently consumated the marriage when she became nine.

Iran has passed a new law allowing men to marry girls when they turn nine or reach puberty. What's good for Mohammad must be good also for all Muslims.

As for immigration, unfortunately many Muslims have a real case of seeking refuge from some barbaric Islamic regimes. So closing the door at them would be inhumane. What I would consider is to restrict some of their activities once in the country.

Some of their teaching in schools and mosques has been going unchecked for too long. An attempt to revue some literartures sold in islamic centres did not stop this practice of printing and distributing anti-west hatred publications especially among the youth.

A lot of their sermons and books are not translated from Arabic or other foreign dialect, making it impossible for average Australian to comprehend the extent of damage being done.

I think that Professor Israeli would be as horrified as I am to read the slanging match between Christians and Muslims that is occurring on this site. The Professor is no hater of Islam he just is concerned about the way so many Muslims in European countries are trying to change the Judeo-Christian culture into an Islamic one.

I would agree. It is alright to have Islamic counties operating with Islamic traditions, it is not alright for Muslims (or others) to migrate and change our culture. Why are so many of them leaving Muslim countries anyway?

John Howard recently on Lateline said that the Third Reich was launched in a Catholic Church. The Vatican were in cahoots with Hitler, as were many Protestant church officials.

The Holocaust was hardly an exceptional event in European history. Pogroms against Jews had occurred throughout Europe at various times.

I have never heard of an event like the Holocaust being perpetrated against Jews by a nominally Muslim ruler. Apart from perhaps the Mufti of Jerusalem, I am not aware of any Muslim religious figure who promoted genocide.

Judeo-Christian culture is only a post-war phenomenon. Before the end of WWII, the main role of the "Judeo" in Western Christendom was target practice or weapons testing.

Western Christians have for more than 2,000 years been programmed to hate Jews. Today, many of those Christians have transferred their hatred from Jews to Muslims. Usually, the reasons for the hatred are exactly the same.

The words of people like coach or B_D are frequently mirror-images of Nazi-style anti-Semitic propaganda. As I read more and more about the Holocaust, I am convinced that the things said about Muslims today are almost exactly what has been said about Jews for some 2,000 years.

Hence, the term 'neo-Nazi' is an apt one when applied to coach an other contributors to these forums. I prefer the less offensive term "archchair nazi".

Why Yvonne dear, generalising again. "People like you". You don't have any idea who you are talking to so how would you know anything at all about me?

You don't but please don't stop that from your want to label people. It's a really good indicator of intolerance and ignorance. Keep at it
dear.

Religion is THE problem, not a help to anyone. Why? Because everyone feels this urgent need to "enlighten" everyone else. My God is THE ONE. People have been saying this since they stopped crawling on all fours. And continue to do so. Out of fear, that's all.

Should I have a go? OK There is no God. Just a thought you all have that you need to give you security in a world that has none. A false security but take it for what it's worth. How do I know there is no God? Just look around Yvonne, how many Gods are there worshipped today? How many are real? Only one. Money. Worshipped by all, including all religions. Watch at the airports and see who flies first class. Hari Krishna for one, all Christian religious leaders for 2.

If there was a God and He/She/It sent a messiah to earth would you know who it was? There's millions of them here right now Yvonne. Are they all correct? Are they all divine, or mentally ill?

Money is God Yvonne, worship it. It doesn't exist either but so what?

I look forward to your considered thoughts on these comments.

coach writes: "Iran has passed a new law allowing men to marry girls when they turn nine or reach puberty."

Please provide your source.

Coach I dont deny Islam is counterfeit , christianity is counterfiet too. Both cults are deciet dependent , you yourself claimed the Bible is not fiction. Of course the Bible is fiction. Are you to be trusted? What authority do you base your superiority over Muslims on? Your god? I defy you to prove the god you claim ? See how it is? You are in the same boat as your Islamic, Jewish , Hindu, Wiccan brothers.

I am capable of aknowledging the evil that is the Taliban or alqueida and I believe they must be stopped. I am also aware that the average first year university student is exposed to more information in one day than a member of the Taliban in their entire life time. What is the excuse for a western Christian lobbying to ban gay marriage or trying to brainwash innocent children in intelligent design?

This isn't a conversation on comparative religious dogma. The author is comparing a Muslim cleric, the representative of all Muslim of Australia, speaking the most ugly and racially abusive trash against his\their adopted society to his\their religious\cultural community. And trying through twist and turn to equate that to the language used by an individual to discuss the socially observable cultural challenges created by such people as Hilali and other like minded Muslims who do not want to integrate into their host societies.
Naturally Irfan is also misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood. It's a Muslim thing.

Dear Irfan

With regard to your post of 28 February 2007 at 10:32:33 PM, you do write the most utter twaddle don’t you mate??

To quote: “As I read more and more about the Holocaust, I am convinced that the things said about Muslims today are almost exactly what has been said about Jews for some 2,000 years”.

And … “Western Christians have for more than 2,000 years been programmed to hate Jews. Today, many of those Christians have transferred their hatred from Jews to Muslims. Usually, the reasons for the hatred are exactly the same”.

It may surprise you Irfan but a lot of us in the West view ourselves as secular rather than Christian. Also if you write that “Western Christians have for more than 2,000 years been programmed to hate Jews”, this just goes to show that your maths is abysmal. If we accept that Jesus Christ was an historical figure then his crucifixion happened less than 2,000 years ago. For several hundred years after his death Christians were a persecuted minority within the Roman Empire – were they participating in pogroms against Jews at this stage?? Please enlighten me. I sincerely doubt it by the way.

I recall a movie that I saw as a child that had been set in England in the late 1940s or early 1950s. One of the protagonists – a boy about my age at the time - said that his father didn’t like Jews, because the “Jews killed Christ”. Are you trying to suggest that warped Christians hate Muslims because the “Muslims killed Christ”?

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

As I noted in my previous post of 23 February 2007, “Irfan also fails to realise that there is no valid comparison between the position of Jews in Germany in the 1930s and that of Muslims in Australia (or elsewhere in the world) in the 21st Century. ... European Jews in the 1930s were a small minority who had suffered centuries of discrimination and violence directed against them. Today's Muslims constitute about one-fifth of the world's population and enjoy rights in the West which their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia (the cradle of Islam) deny to all other faiths”.

That’s right Irfan, Muslims constitute about one-fifth of the world’s population and they enjoy rights in the West which your fellow-believers in Saudi Arabia deny to all other faiths. As a non-Muslim I can’t even visit Mecca yet you can visit – as I can – the Vatican City or Canterbury Cathedral in England.

What you fail to realise Irfan is that people are heartily sick of Muslims bleating about how hard done by they are. Especially when nations that describe themselves as Islamic have such appalling records on human rights - such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, to name just a few. If you want to pursue a religious faith that is presided over by a god who would be best described as a cosmic megalomaniac then it is your problem, not ours.

Irfan

Please understand I am not against you and wish to debate with you. I am more than happy to receive your comments and corrections

Firstly, since Christianity is a version of Judaism Judeo-Christian culture has been around ever since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Only the term is new. Also Judeo-Christian culture is equally a product of science and the enlightenment. It has always had a strong Judaic element regardless of politics.

It is true that the holocaust was a Christian event but the Mufti started something new in Islam which is continuing in some areas, particularly Iran. Also the Jews continued to be dhimmis long after their acceptance in the west. Islam was much kinder than Christianity to Jews during the middle ages, but complete equality was still denied.

The Muslim world seems not to have reached the liberality of the modern West. I hope that I am wrong but this is the fear of people like Israeli and others that propels a concern about Muslim enclaves. Australians have largely accepted the Vietnamese but not yet the Muslims, the propensity of some to change the lands in which they have settled and the failure of so many Muslim states is a worry.

I do hope that Islam will accept the enlightenment in the same way that other countries (including Japan, Taiwan and India) have done. If that happens out troubles are over but until then the so-called Jihadists are a very negative influence.

PS I also have little respect for coach or B_D.

Betty - misreported is such an apt word for the title of this piece, because that's what your entire argument really is.

You have completely and utterly confused the point of Irfan's post. The irony of this is delightful. The title of this article can be thoroughly applied to you.

When Irfan stated, nasty people like moses, mary and jesus, you actually read it that way. How amusing.

Read the post again. Perhaps twice if you still don't get it.
The sarcasm is palpable, and in mentioning Mary,Joseph and Jesus, Irfan is pointing out that these people all hailed from the middle east.

Such "shameful ancestry." that the "we grew up here types" love hating. Nasty types like moses, mary and jesus.

I've read quite a few of Irfan's articles. All of them have been considered, and none of them have defended extremism - they have condemned the forms of extremism that others like to ignore. CTF being a fine example.

It is interesting you post that you dislike any god being foisted on you. As an agnostic I heartily agree - though I'm just saying, look before you leap. And perhaps there are targets out there that are more worthy of your ire.

Horus,

I didn't realise this thread was still running! What a can of worms has been stirred up here. Horus, you are absolutely correct; we must also understand ourselves. I certainly didn't want to suggest that understanding terrorists was a sufficient condition to defeating them, but it is a necessary condition. Understanding ourselves is also a necessary condition.

West,

I've been having a dream of starting an organisation called Atheists Against Bigotry; want to join?

Can agnostics join?

Actually it's more for agnostics than atheists, but too many people don't know the difference. Really I would have to say that anyone who claims to be an atheist is as deluded as anyone who claims to know there is a god. The bottom line is that no-one knows, and no-one can know. Not until they die, anyway; and I'm quite uncertain about post-death epistemology!

Perhaps there has been a name change - Agnostics Against Bigotry!

Islam is part of the whole Judeo-Christian thing. They all stem from the same source and desire the same outcome. To please One God in order to be admitted to Eternal life on Judgment Day. Actually, Islam is far more tolerant in their belief in that non-Muslims can also be allowed in, unlike the Christians. Muslims actually believe that Jews and Christians have a good chance in pleasing God.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have given our Western civilization the sciences as we know them today. The numbers we use in maths are Arabic numerals for instance.

Irfan pointed out that when Hilali says something offensive we get bombarded ad nauseam for days, from the morning breakfast show to all newspapers as to what was said and how offensive that was. He is given far too much airtime. My twelve year daughter knows what he has said. Why is that??

He made a very valid point considering all of you know what Hilali has said, but are pretty unclear about the remarks by Israeli. Remember, that the Jewish organisation hosting him were rather unhappy with him.
I know practically every utterance Hilali has made. It is inescapable, but to know what Israeli said I had to do research. I would say I'm not alone in having had to GOOGLE him, but not Hilali.

As for Nazism, read the history books. The number of the population is irrelevant, the modus operandi is the same: the isolation and demonization of a people. In fact, it is even easier to scare people with Muslims, after all there are so MANY of them. That makes them REALLY dangerous.

Betty, darling, may I suggest you read a post of mine from the 27th? Careful reading will give a hint what my opinion is of religion. And dearie, do tie your knickers in a knot, the added support will allow you to relax those shoulders of yours. Supercilliousness causes a stiff neck.

Dear Yvonne.. I'm concerned about you in 2 areas.

1/ You don't seem to connect the foundation doctrines and example of a religions founder to the attidues of its adherants. Mohammed is described as 'The best of creation'. So, what he 'DID' is regarded as the BEST behavior. Do you believe this ?

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/best.htm

2/ You appear to see an Islam which has no connection to its own foundations.

Note carefully 'ISLAM' (the faith.. not 'Muslims' the adherants)

We can compare 3 faiths. Buddhism, Christianity and Islam and clearly see differences and implications for the social behaviour of each.

You seem to be looking only at the social phenomenon of "Muslims as a minority in Western countries" and on that basis alone, you are evaluating the religion. Now.. forgive me but that is inadequate.
In that setting... Muslims realize they must be good citizens and cannot enforce Sharia law. Would you like a dose of it ? the real thing ? the real Islam ? i.e. how it IS in some countries where it is established as a majority ? Here is some reading for you.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

I'd like your feedback on this if you don't mind. Does this sound like the Islam you are presenting to us here ?
Please read this post of mine for further information.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5444#72163

This material is being taught today, not 1400 years ago.
So, it is incorrect to characterize the Muslim community in a homogenous manner. They must be viewed as having various degrees of belief and committment to Sharia so we need to identify those segments which follow the more dangerous (but Quranic) kind.

You seem to be missing totally that Islam is or seeks to establish .. a 'State'. Do you understand this ?

Reynard wrote: "Actually it's more for agnostics than atheists, but too many people don't know the difference. Really I would have to say that anyone who claims to be an atheist is as deluded as anyone who claims to know there is a god. The bottom line is that no-one knows, and no-one can know. Not until they die, anyway; and I'm quite uncertain about post-death epistemology!

Perhaps there has been a name change - Agnostics Against Bigotry! "

There are degrees of atheism though Reynard - Richard Dawkins uses a scale in "The God Delusion" (great read, throroughly recommend it) ranging from a 1 being an utterly devout religious adherent, to a 7 being someone who is utterly atheist and believes that there can be no god. I would class myself as a 6 - someone who does not believe because I have no evidence to do so, leaving me room to amend my position should the state of the evidence change... I am not holding my breath.

So anyway, long story short, count me in to the non-believers guild against bigotry, or how about the secular humanist guild of Australia?

Other than the occasional racist rant in here, there has been some interesting interfaith and intercultural dialogue. Irfan, you seem mainly to be responding to the extremist stuff, how about some feedback on some of the more constructive posts re: Islamic enclaves in non-Islamic countries?

Yvonne said: "Islam is part of the whole Judeo-Christian thing. They all stem from the same source and desire the same outcome. To please One God in order to be admitted to Eternal life on Judgment Day. Actually, Islam is far more tolerant in their belief in that non-Muslims can also be allowed in, unlike the Christians. Muslims actually believe that Jews and Christians have a good chance in pleasing God".

Hmmm. I was actually under the impression that Muslims believe that Jews and Christians only have a good chance in pleasing God if they convert to Islam. If Muslims are so tolerant Yvonne, why is it that even in 'moderate' Malaysia ethnic Malay people who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles? Indeed many Muslims who have converted to Christianity lead "double lives", hiding their new faith from friends and family. In April 2000, the state of Perlis also passed a sharia law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to one year of "rehabilitation". At the federal level the leaders of the PAS, the opposition Islamic party, have stated that the penalty for apostasy — after the apostates are given a period of time to repent and they do not repent — is death.

I suggest Yvonne that you also read up on the position of the severely repressed Christian minority in Pakistan. If you Google Pakistan + Christian you will find plenty of references to the appalling repression that they face. The BBC News article "Pakistan's Christian minority" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1625976.stm) is a good place to start.

Where would religious folk be without the NAZI's? Apologists for reckless and idiotic comments by Popes, Sheiks and Rabbis would be absolutely lost.

Let's stick to the main points of this thread. Namely, Sheik Hilali's 'catmeat' comments are completely wrong, unjustified and boof-headed. This fact has been dodged by most Muslim commentators in the usual cowardly fashion.

And Irfan is sticking to the typical Muslim script by deflecting blame and excusing the unexcusable by pointing the finger and yelling, "Look at that Jew, he's just as bad, or even worse than my Sheik!"

It's all smoke and mirrors Irfan. Your Sheik should hand in his badge and resign - but I have a feeling that arrogance will dictate otherwise. After all when you have god on your side it is very easy to delude oneself.

As I said before. The reason Prof Israli"s comments did not attract a lot of attention is that most people did not find them offensive, but thought the comments reasonable and probably correct.

End of story!

Why are atheists deluded Reynard?

An Atheist is somebody who thinks Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show.

An Antitheist knows Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show but is all aware that the purpose for the television series Star trek was to entertain a television viewing audience.

An agnostic is somebody who thinks we can never know if Leonard Nimoy is an actor and we can never know if Leonard Nimoy if he ever existed did play a fictitious species and we can never know if Vulcans are fictitious and we can never know if it was on a television series. Agnostics believe it is better to err on the side of caution incase vulcans are real and they will refuse to beam up non-believers.

Theists believe Leonard Nimoy never existed that it is a belief in science that misguided people come to the conclusion Mr Spock was a character played by an actor. Theists believe Mr Spock is a true Vulcan and we need to have faith in vulcans to be saved by vulcans. The proof is the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck. Theists assert that through the the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck faith in the series will literally lead us to an ever lasting space journey where we will go where no man has gone before.

A spiritualist (naturists, animists, positive thinkers ) believes there is no Vulcan or actor playing a vulcan but there is plenty of beaming up going on. A spiritualist believes we dont have to go where no man has gone before because we are already coming and going where no man has ever come or departed from before. A spiritualist believes vulcans are mearly symbolic.

aqvarius says I am comparing "a Muslim cleric, the representative of all Muslim of Australia, speaking the most ugly and racially abusive trash against his\their adopted society to his\their religious\cultural community".

1. Where is your proof Islam has a clerical class?
2. In what sense does Hilaly represent all Muslims? Have they elected him? If so, why do so many openly reject his authority on even the simplest matters such as moonsighting for determining religious festivals?
3. How can Hilaly represent Aussie Muslims when he doesn't speak the language (i.e. English) which the majority of them speak?
4. Do clergy represent even the most nominal followers of a religion?
5. Does it make sense to hold even luke-warm believers responsible for what clerics say? Do the Jensens speak for all Anglicans?

aqvarious also says Dr Israeli is "an individual ... discuss[ing] the socially observable cultural challenges created by such people as Hilali and other like minded Muslims who do not want to integrate into their host societies."

1. Israeli speaks about all Muslims, not just Hilaly or supporters of political Islamism.
2. Israeli has a history of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Muslims (and Christians) in the Occupied Territories. He also openly supported the war-mongerers in Bosnia.
3. The International Court of Justice recently ruled that the war in Bosnia was a genocide. Dr Israeli openly supported the Bosnian Serbs who perpetrated the genocide. That means he supports genocide.
4. Those who defend Israeli should also come out and declare whether they support the genocide in Bosnia and whether they want similar genocides to be repeated in other parts of Europe.

I therefore request that coach, B_D, dee and others of similar ilk place their cards on the table and declare whether they stand with Israeli in supporting genocide for those deemed Muslim.

The tendency of some contributors to draw on the southern Thailand conflict as indicative of the inherent violence of Islam seems to misunderstand the conflict, no matter how many links David Boaz attaches to his posts.

I feel that discussing this issue will leave me branded a Muslim apologist, however the insurgencies in Pattani and Mindanao and Sulu in the Southern Philippines is an area where I have a very good background and have actually interviewed many of the people involved, which I cannot say is the same for other contributors who have brought it up. The southern Thailand conflict has recently taken on an increasingly brutal nature but there has been unrest since the 1930's, and serious armed conflict since the 1970's emerging from Thailand's annexation of the formerly independent Malay region, discrimination and forced assimilation over most of the 20th century. The conflict has long been driven by local issues and is predominantly an ETHNIC conflict.
The fact it has been labelled Islamic reflects the current media climate and heightened concern about transnational terrorism, which views the Muslim Umma as some sort of centralized conspiratorial body but there is LITTLE EVIDENCE OF EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENT. In revolutionary independence movements such as this, it is inaccurate to label violence as religiously based - the Contras in Nicuragua were known to partake in particularly gruesome murders (right wing), as were the Philippine New Peoples Army (Maoist). Thai governments themselves have come under much criticism for brutal measures in dealing with the Pattani-Narithiwat conflict, such as the Krue Se Mosque siege which killed 31 and the Tak Bai incident where almost 80 men suffocated in the back of police trucks after being stacked five or six deep.

The deaths of Monks and Buddhist civilians in the South are horrible consequences of war and should not be excused AT ALL, but to suggest that they are caused by the insurgent's Islamic religion is sickening and racist when so many atrocities have been witnessed in these type of independence conflicts in the past, regardless of the ethnic or religious stripes of the perpetrators.

I have not heard Israeli speak and my internet search has not for me produced results in which he gives his views.

Until I get such an opportunity (which I soon will) I will reserve my judgment. I also know little about Hilali other than that which I read in the newspapers, but I do get the impression that he badly insulted the country which accepted him, which is very bad manners, while Israeli has not done that.

I still wish Muslim immigrants in this country success in their lives here. But don't try to convert me I am happy to be a lapsed agnostic Jewish Australian.

First of all do you have any sources to back up your claims against Professor Israeli? I'd like to see a reference of two.

In answer to your final question - well, der NO! This is a no brainer. Active genocide against the innocent is a crime against humanity. IF Professor Israeli backs the idea of ethnic cleansing then he should be condemned. Just as Sheik Hilali should be condemned for his sexist remarks.

Now,as a secular humanist I would say that the comments made by those two rampant Monotheists demonstrate yet again that Monotheism is an anti-human and violent idealology. Monotheism is not worthy of any peaceful and humane society

In response to Snappy Tom's points about the status of Muslims who convert to Christianity and that of minority Muslims in Pakistan, there are equally examples of the inverse in places such as the Northern Phillipines, where numerous instances of family disownment and job discrimination against Muslim converts and Muslims have emerged particularly since 9/11. Also many instances of police excesses in dealing with Muslims have been noted in recent years, and one police inspector has stated that "we are at war with Islam" ("Muslims identify with ‘terrorist’ ideals" Manila Times, November 19, 2003).
Religious or ethnic intolerance is not confined to Muslim societies- the predominantly Catholic Philippines has long been characterized by distrust of and conflict with Muslims, and the separation of Pakistan and India involved Hindu and Muslim atrocities in equally large scale measure.

I do not want to be seen to be defending religious intolerance in any form but it seems to be that many posters seem to view Muslims as the 'worst of the worst' - dictated by conduct that is exceedingly worse than any other religious group. Before we buy into conspiratorial ideas about the desire of Muslims to Islamize Europe to their own image, let us not forget that the large Muslim populations of England and France are legacies of long and bloody colonial endeavours, not simply a case of the third world exploiting European benevolence and tolerance.

Irfan, If you read my posts you will find I do not place Islam nor Muslims in any position less than Jews and Judaism or Christians and Christianity. I repeatedly refer to all Abrahamic religions as no better or no worse than each other. What I do state about Islam if you want a negative is that it is in my opinion the worst sort of government. That is not a religious or cultural attack but, a political observation. If you can't handle that, it's your problem not mine.
Tell us how Hilali comes to be in Australia? Tell us how Hilali makes his money? From where does his financial support come? Tell us how Hilali finds an audience at several large cosmopolitan mosques. Tell us of how it was several weeks of silence by the Muslim community when it comes to Hilali et al spouting trash but, you have an article ready for OLO before Isreali has finished speaking. (Yes I realize it's an exaggeration but, it isn't relative to time lines.) Tell us also of the different people and organizations that came out against Isreali's comments day one. Not as with the Muslim community after weeks of cajoling from the broader community and newspaper articles calling for an apology. Also please note that my comments on your article are related to your response, Professor Isreali's comments and Mufti Hilali's comments. Not on every word either has ever uttered. Not on their religious affiliations or their personal philosophies. I stayed with in the bounds of your article. It's an awful cheap exploit to broaden that scope now searching to defend a cheap association between language and behaviors. Don't come the victim with me Sir. I wont accept it in your writing and I wont accept it from you as a personal defence. I expect better from you.

Irf... I can only nail Mohammads colors to the mast.. where he comitted genocide against the Jewish Banu Qurayza. 600-900 males killed and women and children sold into slavery.

My own colors ? I refer you to my various posts on 'final solution' for Palestine, which suggests:

1/ Remove all Jews
OR
2/ Remove all Palestinians or at least those in the refugee camps, and provide them with land of equal productivity in different locations than Israel.

For Theological and historical reasons, I view the return of Jews to the land of their inheritance as inevitable. The day to day events which prop up or expand this process are under providential guidance.
Injustice has never been high on Yahweh's list of favorites. But given the choice of on-going massacres and rockets and squabbles over Jerusalem OR.. removing the source of the problem, I see removal(Ethnic Cleansing) as the most compassionate approach in the long run.

Unless you have a theological reason for disagreeing, there is no reason to disagree, as both you and I are living on 'stolen' land if we want to be morally pedantic.

BEN..welcome to OLO, I've not seen you b4. Thanx for your comments, even though they appear to view my posts as unseemly.
I believe your assessment of Sth Thailand is correct, "Ethnic" but I would hasten to add, that in Islam there is no difference between religion and state, so by this, it is also a religious struggle.
Please do some study on the concept of "Islamic Lands" and for this I refer you to a document of Hamas. Their founding charter,

Part III - Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
This document is very instructive in the theological aspects of "Muslim Lands"

This Muslim facism is just like the Japanese "bullshida" concept of WW2 that believed in the saving of face and family honour prevailed above all else.

The Kamakazie pilots of Japan and the suicide bombers of Islam have a lot in common.It is the obsessive compulsive disorder of an ideology based on irrational thought,bereft of scientific fact that will bring our civilisation asunder,not the notion of offending our perception of divinity.Heretics have spoken the truth and suffered the ultimate price right throughout history.

Religion is just pornagraphically tribal,with little reference to facts or be able to withstand the rigors of scientific analysis.

What scientific paper could be based on the heresay of hundreds of hand me down stories of what happened hundreds of years ago?No two people can agree upon what happened before them in a controlled situation,let alone what has happened hundreds of years past in a much more supersticious culture.

Humans have this basal urge for a father figure to protect them and we have to progress to our next stage of evolutionary consciousness so we don't murder each other in the name of our imaginery protectors.

Still watching, Graham Young, from the right hand of course. And cheering, never has a thread been so popular but no further cutting of comments. Why? Visitor numbers, the $.

Irfan will become the most popular writer here as he really plumbs the depths, opens wounds and exposes his own racial and religious confusion. Well done Irfan, keep up the offensive writing, it attracts the same.

Yvonne seems to have recovered from her shock and is managing to continue reading and writing on this thread, despite her shoulder problem(s). Must be that huge chip there , dahling.

Yvonne is confused also. She starts out inferring everyone on this thread is racist and then includes herself, justifiably. Just be your nasty little self Yvonne. Write what your heart tells you to.

Let’s analyze this West;

There is a certain trend on display here

Dungeons and Dragons= Nephilim.
Harry Potter = Jesus?
Lilly Put as the new Metaphysical realm.
Star Trek!

Using such examples seemingly exacerbate the argument , and transform it to become a subconscious state to antiquate Surreal Abstract concepts out side of a Metaphysical explanation represent a form that is acceptable in a certain packaged methodology for the purveyor . Quite a unique Concept.
Agreed?
Hmmmmmmmmm

Savage Pencil - what a great post -well said!.

TurnRightThenLeft, -“Can agnostics join?” No! -Turn right again & keep going!

BenM,
“I feel that discussing this issue will leave me branded a Muslim apologist”
Aye that you are!

“there is LITTLE EVIDENCE OF EXTERNAL INVOLVEMENT. In revolutionary independence movements such as this”
Crap!
There is much evidence that the “rebels” in Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand & areas of Indonesia have been receiving training, arms & funds from outside middle eastern groups. As with Kosovo, Bosnia & Iraq, it is likely that there are middle eastern elements in their ranks.

aqvarivs wrote;

'It's an awful cheap exploit to broaden that scope now searching to defend a cheap association between language and behaviors. Don't come the victim with me Sir. I wont accept it in your writing and I wont accept it from you as a personal defence. I expect better from you.'

I agree with aqvarivs. Quite frankly Irfan's attitude and dialogue has been childish and needlessly insulting. Rather than engage in logical debate he has engaged in personal attacks. Other religious writers on 'On Line Opinion' like Peter Sellick don't stoop to such stupidity.

Maybe this testosterone charged chest beating is a Muslim thing. I don't know. But Irfan is suddenly starting to sound like your typical myopic Islamic fundamentalist - incapable of cool impartial discussion.

BenM (Friday, 2 March 2007 8:02:30 PM) made the following point:
"Religious or ethnic intolerance is not confined to Muslim societies-the predominantly Catholic Philippines has long been characterized by distrust of and conflict with Muslims, and the separation of Pakistan and India involved Hindu and Muslim atrocities in equally large scale measure". He also pointed out that "in places such as the Northern Philippines, ... numerous instances of family disownment and job discrimination against Muslim converts and Muslims have emerged particularly since 9/11".

I hear all of that but I am not here to defend either Catholic intolerance or Hindu intolerance. My main point would be that just about every Muslim-dominated country on this globe practices some form of religious intolerance towards non-Muslim minorities within the boundaries of that country. There is often discrimination against the smaller sects of Islam within those countries as well.

Only last week an Egyptian court sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president, Hosni Mubarak. Most of the sentence was handed out for the crime of "insulting Islam". The blogger's main crime was that he wrote the following - "Muslims revealed their true ugly face and appeared to all the world that they are full of brutality, barbarism and inhumanity," after a Christian church was attacked by Muslim rioters in Alexandria in 2005. The blogger - Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman - is described by his fellow writers as a "vocal secularist".

And what about Iran? A 2003 report by the FIDH (Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme) describes Iran as a "clerical oligarchy" in which "the State itself is conceived as an institution and instrument of the divine will". Their report notes the "the alarming situation of religious minorities in Iran, who are victims of discrimination on a daily basis both in law and in practice". The report particularly notes the plight of members of the Bahá'í faith who "are not even granted the theoretical right to perform their religion and are subject to systematic discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs".

Betty,

Irfan has scored more centuries here than Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting, he may have even got a double century once or twice.

Politicians should take note, what issues are the most popular?
Irfan knows.

All what is the difference between the Bible and other fiction with lead characters? Specifically in the real world what is the difference?

Even childrens books could be quoted as having an epistemological value. Prove the Cat in the Hat does not exist. That Dr Zeuss was not inspired by the cat in the hat. Prove the cat in the hat is not god. Faith requires god is possible therefore it is possible for the cat in the hat to be god. Anything could be god, I could be god , you could be god, or god is not a god at least to the honest faithful everything has to be possible. Of course what we are talking about the prejudicial faithful , those that believe in the bible and discount that even god could be nothing other than what they choose god to be.

Star Trek was an illustration the difference between Atheists , antitheists , agnostics and theists. The two former are rational based and the two later are superstition based.

BenM great posts. Unfortunately speaking of personal experience does not hold much water with a number of posters. Generally muslims are seen as inherently violent and as one huge group of united people all waiting to take over the world and subject us to Sharia law. It will not matter even if you can state that you grew up in a predominantly muslim country and have personal experience of people who practice Islam. Fundamentalists could only wish that the world's muslim community was as united as perceived by some and are ready to force us all to embrace Islam.

Hamas, Hilaly and any other fundamentalist is the only face of Islam that fits in with the present popular perception. Any disagreement and you will be directed to addresses of violent Islamic web-sites. It matters not a jot that within the Muslim faith there are ethnic, racial and historical differences, and disagreements.

Just a reminder to some of you who are so eager to post the addresses of some of these web sites. The Terrorism Act 2005 actually gives ASIO the power to investigate you and hold you for 2 weeks without any charge and without notifying anyone of your arrest, just because you could be getting some information in order to commit a terrorist act. Or you could be recruiting. Your public life could just be a front. That's the level of hysteria that we are allowing in this Nation. It's a bit like car accidents, so many of us smug because we think it couldn't happen to us.

To anyone who is genuinely interested and concerned why Islamic terrorists are targetting us, start reading a bit wider (books, not web sites). European and Middle East History are good places to start.
Knowing about the Diggers at ANZAC cove will not be enough I'm afraid.

Yvonne are you really trying to suggest that somehow the Terrorism Act 2005 and the powers that it gives ASIO are worse than what goes on for minorities (and women) in Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc, etc, etc?? Oh, and by the way the short name of the legislation is actually the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

You also state that "Hamas, Hilaly and any other fundamentalist is [sic] the only face of Islam that fits in with the present popular perception". Are we supposed to ignore the actions of Islamic regimes in countries such as the Sudan just because they don't fit in with the notion of the "nice Muslim" that you attest to. And by the way I do know people who are practising Muslims - and some are very pleasant, helpful people. And some are decidedly unpleasant. But virtually every Islamic-majority nation on this globe is ruled by governments which have the most appalling human rights records. And their clergy generally gives full support to this state of affairs.

Lastly you suggest that we start reading a bit wider in order to understand why Islamic terrorists are targeting us. That's a good point but a reading of European history will tell you that the Islamic invasion of the 8th Century happened a long, long time BEFORE the Crusades.

Yvonne, some of us are well acquainted with Islamic and Middle Eastern history. Yes, we all know that religion is not always the sole cause of international conflict. There are numerous reasons why countries and civilisations go to war.

However, we can all agree that religion intensifies conflict. Religion is the petrol that gets thrown on the smouldering fire of cross-cultural discontent. Not only that, religion sometimes makes it impossible to conclude a conflict. Religion maintains, a cycle of violence that is trans-generational.

Therefore, the outcomes of American interference in Israel and Iraq will be positively worse than it needs to be because of the influence of Evangelical Christianity on American foreign policy AND the delusion of Fundamentalist Islam that has unfortunately gone global.

It is an obvious fact that if there were no Christians in the USA, and no Jews and Muslims in Levant/Middle East then harmony would be far more easier to obtain. There would be less chest-beating tribalism with which to deal with.

Finally, in the context of what I’ve just written I would like to draw the distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims on the whole just want to get on with their lives and fit in with everyone else without being bossed around.

However, the religious phenonomen of Islam begats Islamism. And Islamism really is totalitarian, wants to ’rule the world’, and detests diversity. It is Islamism (represented by Hilali and co.) that I find repulsive and feel morally bound to oppose.

Snappy Tom The Crusades are indeed a long way into history. Start with the 19th and 20th century. If you want to understand your enemy, it helps to know what their take is on why they see you as the enemy.

WWII to give you an example, on why it helps to know a bit of history, was not about the Jews, the rest of the world did not come to rescue them. That was just a little bonus with which the West could salve their sense of guilt on centuries of appalling anti-semitism. WWII happened because of events on the victory in WWI, which happened because of a terrorist attack on another nation and that nation's response. This is not related to Islam by the way, but hopefully a non angst inducing point about the importance of knowledge.It is arguable that WWII could have been prevented.

On the rise of Fundamentalism in Islam, read for instance the book by Tariq Ali (a muslim) "the Clash of Fundamentalisms" or Avi Shlaim (a Jew) "The Iron Wall". There is a wealth of information out there. Not as sexy and quick as web sites perhaps, but it's a lot easier to verify the weight of authority, or otherwise, of the author.

Betty, I don't think that OLO is a profit orientated organisation.There are not enough ads to pay the wages.Mostly it is donations.

Perhaps Graham should charge us 20 cents per comment and we could oblige through our mobile accounts or credit cards.After all if we are going to have a say,it has to be worth saying or OLO could eventually fold.

Snappy Tom you make a very good point:
“A reading of European history will tell you that the Islamic invasion of the 8th Century happened a long, long time BEFORE the crusades”
A point which Yvonne still has not taken on-board.

She is still pedalling the old apologists line that extreme Islam is a reaction to western imperialism & exploitation ( a second part of that apologists world view, also conveniently ignores the Islamic worlds role in such unpleasant issues as slavery).

Young radical Islamists sense of exploitation & injustice has more to do with the closed nature of their Islamic societies - their societies lack of robust self criticism -& alternatives - than any history of exploitation:
While it is common currency in the west to criticise the acts of the crusaders - few Muslims will ever critics the acts of their side.
While it is common currency in the west to criticise European settlement of Indian Or Aboriginal lands, few Muslims will consider the invasion & the stealing of lands from Turkmen’s, Assyrians African Sudanese & Copt minorities as anything but a civilising act .
Few Turks will accept the issue of the Armenian genocide -& an those brave authors that try to raise the issue are quickly ostracised.

And let us also not forget that radical Islam’s grievances do not just relate to the Israeli-Arab conflict & 18 & 18 century imperialism .
Their list includes the “unjust” expulsion of the Moors from Spain & the “unjust” expulsion of the Ottoman invaders from places such as Bulgaria & Rumania. The “unjust” expulsion of the Indonesians from of East Timor. Plus the call to expel all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula - not because they are exploiting the country -but because they are consider UNCLEAN.

I strongly disagree West;
This very article is testimonial to that, and it is invigorating to see the Australian Psych make such a strong presence after many years of being suppressed;

Kid’s books are a form of entertainment value, and not a substitute education text;
I have a son in year 8 and a daughter in year 5; I have to spend more time explaining the inequity and reverse the indoctrination that is forced upon them by the Idiots Curriculum. a simple library of Historical facts and books at home and proof read the junk passed off as educational books supplied by the department of Un-education.

Why not buy those books about and experimental sciences, and replace the pantheon of antithesis junk with a practical and fun way to develop your kids thinking and expand their ability by letting them experiment with basic science, and that dreaded ability these days, Make something and make it work.

Even the neighbor hood kids love it and they learn far more from their new found knowledge than from anywhere else.

The kids love it, and it is working wonders. That is what Australia was about; not Irfans jumbled Linguistic garble; and he considers him self a moderate; you should hear the labeled radicals; it is only the language difference; the meaning is the same.

Your other comparison goes back to Alexander the Great Idiot; He torched all the libraries he could find; So did the NAZI’s (Irfans Favorite Reverse inference) so define the intent and you will answer your own question.
That sounds cryptic enough. Ha.

BenM

I agree with you, but Islamic extremism is the current problem.

Probably Christian extremism was far worse but that was in the Middle Ages and that has been and gone and seems unlikely to return. We have to concentrate on the present and the predictable future.

There is a serious problem out there and we have to find an answer. We can only do this if we stop demonizing all Muslims. If we cannot establish a dialogue with the reasonable majority we will not be able to achieve what we all want. Do you think that the average Muslim likes what is happening?

On the question of religion, in Hindu India Jews were able to live for a thousand years in complete harmony and some still are, with equal status. The same tolerance is present in Japan. Perhaps some scholar could examine why that is so.

Betty: they cut posts, you accuse them of censorship. They don't cut posts you accuse them of greed. Tell me... is there any option that isn't selfish?
Besides. Despite being a pretty prominent Australian forum, I suspect it isn't all that profitable.

I note you keep haranguing Irfan for "offensive writing." What has he written that is so offensive? The only thing you've been able to point at was clearly sarcastic.
I honestly ask. What has been written by Irfan that you find offensive? Is it the fact he had the temerity to criticise something other than Islam?

Yvonne, it is just so true that "there is a wealth of information out there". For instance were you aware of the Barbary War of 1801–1805, which was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States? These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

Since the 17th century, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli had been largely independent Muslim states, run by military strongmen and financed by plunder, tribute, and ransom. The monarchy of Morocco was equally well known by the time of the Barbary Wars for supporting piracy.

In 1785, the Dey (ruler) of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. The then-American ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks.

In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

"The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven".

Why do I bring this up? Because the answer of the Tripoli ambassador echoes much of the contemporary Islamist view of the West today. The Islamist hatred of the infidel West precedes any of the actions that the Americans (or others) might have undertaken in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Comprenez-vous?

All re- the Bon fire of the vanities. The catholic church taught the Nazis how to book burn.

The Bible is fiction All it cannot be anything else , are you seriously suggesting that Jesus wizards, parting oceans , inbreeding Ark animals , phoenixes , assortment of sprites , ogres and monsters and man gods exist? The cat in the hat is no less credible although not malicious to childrens minds as the bible is.

The Catholic Church to Hitler; West; was the equivalent to the Useless Idiots to Stalin.
The shear population and a need to control them is what was the agenda;
Hitler was a Luddite and a Greenie; Drug addict etc; The NAZI regime revolved around ancient theology and was for the most part were off with the Valkyries.

I have not mentioned anything anywhere about bible stories, and if you think they are repulsive, then read Islam’s hacked up versions of them; good for a giggle;

My reference above to publications worthy of ownership. And I did not mention Bible stories or anything remotely similar.
Shucks, sometimes I wonder why I bother.

SNAPPY TOM...I'm hereby promoting you to the house of OLO LORDS mate.. for that inCREDibly astute and wise post about the Barbary wars....

Yvonne.. I'd say Tom.."snapped" you in the rear end on that one mate.

And... rightly so. Now..I'm going to bite the other cheek... the SOURCE for the thinking of the Tripoli Ambassador..though I've done so REPEATEDLY in other threads..only to be met with scorn.

Here it is..A-GAIN..

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Here is the supporting Hadith, conFIRMing, that no matter how many times my critics bemoan my selection and emphasis and dodgy conclusions it is nevertheless THE mindset of the Muslim World (i.e. where Islamic governments exist)

Muslim Book 001, Number 0030:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah....

So..we have
a) Quran 600-ish
b) Hadith 700-ish
c) Ambassador of Tripoli in 1786 saying "It goes back to our prophet"

ALL singing the same tune ! and in harmony.
There are NUMerous supporting hadith in other books also.

Now.. YVONNE.. you need special treatment here.

Understanding your Enemy 101.

1/ Genesis 12 to end of book. (origins of Arabs/Jews)
2/ Fall of Jerusalem in AD70
3/ Quran+Hadith+Rise of Islam 634 onward, invasion and expansion.
4/ Invasion of Spain, and attempted of France 732, also Vienna 1600s
5/ Rise of West, Colonial Era.
6/ Return of Jews 1948
7/ Horus and Snappy Toms posts.
8/ Location Location Location "JERUSALEM"

That will give you an adequate overview. See u in a few months :)

B_D is doing exactly what Sheik Daniel Scott was doing in Canberra over the weekend - issuing fatwas based on citing verses of the texts out of all context.

Sheik Scott issued a fatwa that Muslims are required to engage in taqiyya. He translated this Arabic term as "lying" and "deception".

Ironically, Sheik Scott engaged in his own unique brand of taqiyya, claiming that he was sentenced to death for converting to Islam in Pakistan. After his presentation, I approached him and asked him (in his native Urdu) which sect of Pakistani Islam he belonged to. Sheik Scott told me that he had been Christian all his life.

In fact, Sheik Scott isn't really regarded as Christian. The two main Pakistani Christian denominations are Anglicanism and Catholicism. Ive never heard of any Assemblies of God denomination in Lahore, Karachi or any other large town or city with substantial Christian populations.

It reminded me of the taqiyya exercised by Mufti Danny Nalliah, who tried ducking for cover when asked what he thought of the Tamil Tigers.

Probably why Islam is attracting converts today is because it's wide open to interpretation. Since there is no "Head of the Church" anyone can decide the value given to any aspect of the Qu'ran, Hadiths, or Sunna. And if any one does question the intensity of your faith publicly label them an apostate and have them fear for their safety. I just read where Islam is number one choice of conversion for prisons around the world.
It wont take long for the mafias to be in full control of Islamic Community Councils. And by proxy Muslim life. Paying Jizya to the mafia for jobs, food, housing. I fear the years are going to be very hard on Muslims living in dhimmitude to the whim of the world mafias.
Not that words like dhimmi or jizya will be spoken outright. It will just be Muslims paying their dues.
I think I'd take up Animism. You can't get blood from a stone. :-)

TRTL,

Posts have been cut, Graham threatened it and it occurred. Accusation? Facts dear. Greed when not cutting posts? I don't follow you there? Where did you get that from please?

What's offensive is many of Irfan's statements. What about the Jesus, Mary and Joseph comment? Why does he choose to repeat the swill poured out by some of these foreigners? They surely don't have any interest in Australia other than to regrow what they escaped from.

Now they can be the big fish it's all worth recreating apparently. How is repeating that tripe non offensive? Why does Irfan choose to keep the ridiculous pointless and unresolvable arguments going? Simply to increase posts, nothing more, no real commitment to anything he has written , just for hits. I post to try and point out the pointlessness of this thread at all. Ypurself? Strong commitment to some principle or other? Or just bored?

OK, Arjay, then why do these people run this site? For you or me? I don't think so. It's to support particular points of political view, that's all. Ask where the money comes from to run it. I understand there are volunteers who do some of the work. What they get out of it is usually self satisfaction of helping others.

And yes, Irfan knows the Pavlov principle quite well. Centuries indeed but batting like Boycott I'm afraid.

Irfan, to your questions:
1) Islam has no clergy class? What are the Ayotollahs, Mullahs, Muftis and Imams? They are clergy de facto, acting that way themselves, and being regarded as such by their 'flock'. If they don't have the official title of clergy, then they are even more powerful, as there is no legitimate means of opposing them, or of getting rid of them
2) Does Hilaly speak for all Australian Muslims? The answer is yes, and no. He is a self-appointed spokesperson, who has not been effectively challenged by the Muslim community, so to that extent he is its spokesperson. Some (perhaps all) Australian Muslims will disagree with him at times, and he doesn't speak for those who do not agree. But until he can be held responsible for his statements (that is, until there is a body of Muslims the Muslim community respects which can sack him) Hilaiy will be the spokesperson for Muslims in Australia.
Hilaly was elected or appointed, and by whom? Islam likes to portray itself as being run by consensus, just as the successors of the Muhammad were decided upon by his closest supporters. The truth is that it was a real power struggle between different elements within that group, and the results were decided more by knife-work than talking. The elements were lined up according to tribal alliegence, and the results is more than they could have dreamed about - the permanent schism of the Muslim community into (eventually) Sunni and Shia who now permanently hate eachother. You would like this community to now hold an election? More knife-work is the likely response, which we have seen in Australia too.

To continue, Irfan.
How can Hilaly repersent Australian Muslims when he doesn't speak their language? Well, I've met Hilaly a few times, and his English is faulting, but not non-existent. (If he wanted to, I'm sure he could learn enough to remove the possibility of being misunderstood through being misquoted.)
But the real issue lies elsewhere - Hilaly speaks the Muslim divine language, Arabic, and as far as conservative Muslims are concerned, all other languages are optional.
Conservative Muslims want this state of affairs to continue, because it helps them keep their power. Arabic is the language of the Koran, and conservative Muslims want to assert that meaning is lost if any translation is made. Hence all conservative study of Islam is done in Arabic, and to hell (sorry for the pun) with anyone who can't keep up.
If only they (and a few others) can read Arabic, then they keep control of the interpretation of the Koran, to their benefit. Autralian Muslims, who wish to get on with their lives, have barely the time to learn a difficult language which they will only use in limited circumstances. So they have to rely on those who do know Arabic to tell them what's in their holy book. Great for the (non-existent) clergy!
This was the position of the Roman Catholic church before the reformation, and whilst it wasn't on Luther's agenda, it very quickly was on the agenda of those reformers who became the leaders of the protestant churches - the bible in the vernacular. This is one of the vital aspects of the reformation which Islam needs if it is not going to remain a prefeudal fascist organisation. But for those who would like it to stay that way...

Still the pot calling the kettle black.

Both Christianity and Islam pose threats to my way of life. Secularist, free and liberty based. Both Christianity and Islam have been fascist movements since Constantine and Mohommed. Both have been on this cycle of of sectarianism (it is sectarianism because both cults are Judeo theist constructs) since Mehmet II expoused war against the infidel as sport , not to minimise christianity's attitude that knocking off heathens was sport as far as Gregory III was concerned.

But here we are in the 21st century with the technology to feed the starving, to cure most ills we are better equipt than any god. We have found our roots in the oceans and we can literally watch the beginning of the universe. We have moved heaven out of the mountains of Africa to the sky and then blew it out of existence. We turned the world from flat to round and hell has desovled into an iron core. We have extinct the soul and found the pulse that makes our very thoughts. Meanwhile we live in our own garbage and we are killing off polar bears and we have to put an effort a thousand times greater to fix our environment than we did the last time we fought fascists.

On February 28th Irfan Yusuf posted the following:
"Western Christians have for more than 2,000 years been programmed to hate Jews. Today, many of those Christians have transferred their hatred from Jews to Muslims. Usually, the reasons for the hatred are exactly the same.

The words of people like coach or B_D are frequently mirror-images of Nazi-style anti-Semitic propaganda. As I read more and more about the Holocaust, I am convinced that the things said about Muslims today are almost exactly what has been said about Jews for some 2,000 years."

Today's Sydney Morning Herald has a small note about Kristallnacht (Page 2). It states the following:
"After a Polish Jew shot a Nazi diplomat in Paris in late 1938, a savage assault was unleashed on the Jews of Germany.

About 100 people were killed on the nights of November 9 and 10, nearly every synagogue in the nation was damaged or destroyed and about 30,000 Jewish men were taken to concentration camps.

The slang name Kristallnacht - roughly, the night of broken glass - came from the shattered shop windows that littered the streets of every German town and city."

Irfan, if there are so many parallels between the treatment of Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s and the treatment of Muslims by the West today, why weren't all of the mosques of America damaged or destroyed in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001 and many hundreds of American Muslims slain at the same time?

Perhaps because Islamic victimhood is just a vocal charade?

Betty - I asked you to come up with just one instance of Irfan being nasty - the only instance you can come up with, is the one I have repeatedly pointed out was sarcastic.
Either refute that it was sarcastic, accept you were wrong, or come up with another example of this supposed nastiness you allude to.
As it stands, all you are doing is repeating a post that quite clearly, was displaying the hypocrisy of people who fear middle easterners, but worship jesus. It was not accusing jesus, mary or joseph of being nasty.

Perhaps you just glanced over the post. Perhaps you were incapable of registering the clear sarcasm. I don't know or care, but your obstinate refusal to examine the flaws in your own argument is a little pathetic.
The jesus, mary and joseph comment was sarcastic. If this is what you are hinging your argument on, it is utterly baseless. You also appear unable to come up with any examples which actually support your claims, using only this one, which is quite clearly wrong.

My source for the greed post?:

Betty: "cheering, never has a thread been so popular but no further cutting of comments. Why? Visitor numbers, the $."

Never mind that it's a non profit organisation. Never mind that the posts may have been cut to prevent abusive posts in favour of intelligent debate.

You also say it is to support particular points of view - the large number of posters with right and left wing views who would defend the selection of materials on the site should be sufficient to prove this baseless. Or even a cursory inspection of past articles.
Again, you have nothing to back this up.

Cont'd

Camo said: "Islam has no clergy class? What are the Ayotollahs, Mullahs, Muftis and Imams? ... If they don't have the official title of clergy, then they are even more powerful, as there is no legitimate means of opposing them, or of getting rid of them"

camo, have you done any research on exactly how many Muslims (as in people who tick the box "Muslim" on their census forms) in Australia go to the mosque? And how frequently they go? And how much they listen to imams?

How many lukewarm Anglicans agree with the Jensens on female ordination? How many lukewarm Catholics agree with Pell on embryonic stemcell research? I'm not sure. I haven't done the research.

Without proper research and repeated polling, how can we jump to conclusions about any faith-group?

Cont'd

Betty:
Maybe you can find another sarcastic post and misreport, misconstrue, mistranslate and misunderstand it.

There is plenty of debate going on, though you have yet to put forth any constructive arguments.
Your paranoia regarding censorship is unfounded - yes posts have been cut, but the abusive free for all that would result from allowing all posts, regardless of them being defamatory or disgusting, would not be in any way constructive. I say this as a person with a very strong attitude toward free speech - the only comments which are removed are the blatantly offensive ones. If you phrase your argument in a proper manner and with arguments to back it up, then it will not be removed.

It is also hypocritical to first slam the forum for cutting posts, then slamming them for not cutting posts - supposedly, seeking the "$" It would appear they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The idea of an intelligent debate on these issues, is to look at the arguments put forth, and decide which have merit, which are merely rantings, and respond to each as they warrant.

I can see little merit in any of yours. If you want to join an abusive slanging match that allows all posts, regardless of content, then I'm sure you can find plenty on the internet.

If you'd like intelligent debate, then pick up your game.

I'm still posting on this thread because I enjoy analysing the various articles, and I have seen nothing from Irfan which I would regard as extremist or nasty, while I have seen in your posts a catalogue of errors and attempts at much more extreme dialogue.

So I say again - aside from the one sarcastic Jesus, Mary and Joseph post, which you have blatantly misinterpreted, is there anything else you can provide to back up your argument?

David Boaz, your post needs a minor correction .

Firstly, the Koran is thought to have been written during the 7th century. However, there is no practical reason why the Koran did not undergo a slow evolution that lasted well into the 8th century.

Secondly, the Hadith were not constructed ‘700-ish’. They were constructed during the 9th century - about 200 years after the Prophet‘s death. What’s more, these Hadith were taken from oral traditions and are therefore ‘hand-me-down’ stories stretching over generations. Imam Bukhari (died 870)is thought to have discovered about 600,000 oral traditions during his travels around the Middle East. Of these 600,000 he selected a mere 7,000 as being authentic. This means that 593,000 were fabricated lies or unverifiable. One wondered why he even bothered to create his Sahih at all!

David, you may have been thinking of Islam’s main biography written by Ibn Ishaq. This was composed about 120 years after the Prophet’s death - although I should add that the original copy has never been found. Ibn Ishaq’s work is cited second-hand.

So, where does all this dodgy Koranic history leave us? Well, it destroys the fundamentalist idea of Islam being beyond doubt. When the historical sources (nearly all Muslim) are assessed we simply cannot know with any certainty the true origins of the Koran.
Yet, from the viewpoint of objective certainty many Muslims will argue the merits of their Holy Book. The likes of Sheik Hilali will make his sordid pronouncements as if they are iron clad and inspired by God. Of course this is misleading and grossly deceitful - but thousands of gullible and brainwashed (from birth) Muslims will lap it up. They will actually believe that womens’ dress contributes in some way to rape.

And Irfan is defending this nonsense…..

(Note: The Torah, The Old Testament, and The New Testament are all just as unreliable as the Koran. I don’t want to be too one-sided here.)

David scared the hell out of me with his last post. His little list reminded me so much about what can be found on the Christian Zionists web page. They are much, much, MUCH scarier than all the Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists put together in one training camp.

That's the only faith based group of people that scares me. They are the only ones who are rejoicing about what is happening in the Middle East. They have a Rapture Index. The higher the conflict, the higher the index, the closer we are to Armageddon. And that's very good. Did I mention George Bush's new found Christian faith and the military arsenal at his disposal? I don't even want to go there before I start believing conspiracy theories. But then, why are some conservative Christian groups in the USA concerned??

What about Jerusalem?? What does the faith based state of Israel have to do with the discussion on Islam??

Yvonne, I note that you haven't mentioned my reference to the Barbary War (which was raised in Boaz David's last post), nor have you answered the question posed in my post of Saturday, 3 March 2007 9:25:40 PM - the first paragraph contains it. Could this be because you might find it very difficult to tar and feather me as a "Christian-Zionist" who believes in the Rapture?

Also, as a former high school history teacher I find it absolutely laughable for you to keep rattling on about history as if you were the only one who understands it. Give us a break ... of course the Second World War was "not about the Jews" as you put it so clumsily.

As for using Tariq Ali and Avi Shlaim as one's sole points of reference, I prefer my reading to come from all over the political spectrum. Salman Rushdie used to be a Muslim too but check out what he has to say about his former faith. And ditto for Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Might I suggest that you also acquaint youself with the writings of Maryam Namazie who has the courage to rail against both American imperialism and the appalling treatment of women in fundamentalist Iran. You could check out a speech that she gave at a March 8, 2002 conference entitled 'Islam, Secularism and Women in the Middle East' in London. One URL for this is: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=115

Dear Yvonne.. do you think_before_writing?

No offense but... claiming my post was more_scary than "all the muslim fundamentalists put together" is outright silly at best, and quite irresponsible. Scary is Quran_chapter 9:30 have a read.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030

I gave you a historical backbone for understanding the MiddleEast, not creating a Zionist master race or greater Zion/Israel nation.

Failure to comprehend the Genesis record is failure in the most basic idea driving the Middle East conflict. Do you by any chance think its just about a bit of lost Arab land ?

If so, then I have to challenge such shallow naivity forthwith.
Genesis is not only the 'book of beginnings' it also records the beginning of the Arab Jew conflict, and if you doubt me, read Gen 12-end and then ask a Muslim/Arab 'who' Abraham nearly sacrificed.

You might think this has little relevance ? Up to you, but when you see which promises regarding the land were made in Genesis, and to 'WHOM' they were made, you might begin to appreciate the matter and its modern relevance.

Jerusalem has EVERYthing to do with the settlement of the Middle East.
You have the Orthodox Jews and Zionists on the one hand and the "Islamic Waqf" mob on the other (Hamas, Hezbollah)
My list should have included that also.. see this please.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
scroll to "Part III Strategies and Methods" Article 11.

TR thanx for that extra info on the various documents. I hasten to add though, on your reliability claim, its much much stronger than you suggest.
I've looked at key hadith which have been passed down though various diverse chains of narrators (different narrators, locations etc) and have been astounded at the accuracy. So, I must caution against writing off the New Testament/Biblical traditions so lightly. Clearly Ancient memory and methods of preserving oral tradition was wayyyyy better than ours. Remember, Jesus taught many truths via 'parables' which are even easier to remember than discourses.

I have little doubt the Quran is very well preserved, I just find its contents abhorrent and far from holy. see Surah 23:5-6, 33:50, 9:30

OK Irfan, thanks for not contradicting my assertion that Islam has a clergy class. Your reply only asks whether any of the flock listen, asking for poll results.
If you have any reliable results to hand, would you like to share them with us? Were they done by non-Muslims? Were they done by Muslims? Would the respondents known about the likely uses to be made by the results? Was Islam polled, or other religions too?
In the meantime, we should not forget that it was Hilaly who made the statements which have provoked such outrage among the Australian community, with many in Australia's Muslim community joining in. I noticed that the non-Muslim comments pointed out that Hilaly's comments were wrong. The Muslim commentary was much more like 'unfortunate' or 'misplaced'. A quick reading of Islamic theory and practice shows why: Hilaly was stating Islamic theory and practice, dating back over 1,000 years. Islam blames rape on women, rather than on men. Come on Irfan - show me the places where it does not.
Thanks for the update on Aisha's age when married, I hadn't come across her being only 6 when married, if 9 when (technically) raped (I say technically because a 9 year old cannot consent to sex: no-one is in a position to say anything about what happened between the two then or afterward).
And a nice posting br TR, I look forward to reading your material again.

Camo, you alleged that Islam has a clerical class. You haven't yet provided any evidence that this is the case. If you make an inherently absurd claim, is it proven just because I don't specifically reject it?

The Mufti of Bosnia is currently in Australia on a lecture tour. He has recently called upon Europea Muslims to become more institutionalised than they already are. He encourages them to follow the example of churches, though not to the extent of having popes or archbishops.

I note with some amusement claims that the Prophet married a 9 year old girl. It especially amuses me that these claims come from those who claim to belong to Christian churches. Seriously, if I had the same lack of intelligence that some of the armchair Nazis on these forums possess, I'd be suggesting pedophilia is a Christian teaching! After all, many churches don't exactly have a sterling record on that front.

Still, just as I insist a small band of lunatic terrorists don't represent Islam, I also insist that a small band of pedophile priests (and the bishops and archbishop who protect them) don't represent Christianity.

Snappy writes: "I prefer my reading to come from all over the political spectrum. Salman Rushdie used to be a Muslim too but check out what he has to say about his former faith."

Salman Rushdie contnues to regard himself as a Muslim. You see, there are many kinds of Muslims. Some practise the faith, others believe in its tenets without practising and still others have a cultural affinity to it. Rushdie belongs to one of the latter groups.

As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, her credibility was thrown out the door when she admitted to lying in order to obtain asylum in the Netherlands. Her book "The Caged Virgin" is also believed to be a literary fraud in that she did not write all the speeches she claims to have. If I'd have known about the controversy surrounding the authorship of her book currently raging in the Netherlands, I'd have mentioned it in my review of the book.

Ali's book does, however, contain important information about undesirable pratices in certain nominally Muslim cultures. These practices need to be dealt with by certain African Muslim communities.

David Boaz wrote;

'TR thanx for that extra info on the various documents. I hasten to add though, on your reliability claim, its much much stronger than you suggest. I've looked at key hadith which have been passed down though various diverse chains of narrators (different narrators, locations etc) and have been astounded at the accuracy'.

I seriously think that you need to do some more reading David!

The Orientalists Ignatz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht put the hadith to the sword more than 50 years ago. Their work was so meticulous that it is now taken for granted by modern Orientalists.

Schacht wrote the following in the 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society' in 1949;

'We must therefore abandon the gratuitous assumptions that there existed originally an authentic core of information going back to the time of the Prophet....

The imposing appearance of the isnads in the classical collections of traditions ought not to blind us to the true character of these traditions, which is that of a comparatively recent systemization of the "living tradition". The same is true in the field of history; here, too, the vague collective memory of the community was formalised, systematized, replenished with details, and shaped into formal traditions with proper isnads only in the second century A.H.'

- Cited in 'The Quest for the Historical Muhammad' (Prometheus Books, 2000) page 366. Edited by Ibn Warraq.

What this all means David is that the various isnad ('chain of transmission') grew with the fiction of the oral traditions. The isnad were manufactured in retrospect to fit the particular biographic story. In fact it has often been noted by Orientalists that the more 'perfect' the isnad the more likely it is to be a forgery.

In short - I wouldn't trust the words of the Hadith, or their Isnad, any more than I would trust the words of Sheik Hilali. They are all phoney and out of touch with reality.

Bon jour Irfan,

Salman Rushdie was interviewed by the American magazine Reason in 2005. The interview by Shikha Dalmia, appeared in the August/September edition (see http://www.reason.com/0508/fe.sd.the.shtml).

In the introduction to the interview, the following is stated: "Rushdie’s literary iconoclasm derives not merely from the demands of his subject matter but from a deep personal instinct: his hatred of all orthodoxies, especially religious ones. Although he grew up in a Muslim household, he rejected his faith at a young age and still remains a resolute unbeliever. ... His 1988 book The Satanic Verses included a parody of Islam that incensed Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who charged Rushdie with apostasy and issued a fatwa calling for his death.

... [the fatwa] cost him his marriage and isolated him from his young son. The book was banned in India and he was barred from his homeland. Desperate to resume normal life, Rushdie apologized to Muslims and even formally converted to Islam, a move that he later repudiated".

I would suggest that as Rushdie has rejected his faith he belongs to a subset of "lapsed Muslims" who have an Islamic background. Of course his Islamic background also places him in a unique position to offer constructive criticism as to how Islam might take the giant leap from the seveth century to the 21st. See his Washington Post article of August 7, 2005 ("The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation"). The URL is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501483.html

As he notes: "Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women's rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are -- it has to be said -- in many ways at odds with the Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish cultures among which they live".

The trouble with people like Yvonne is that they want to sweep this assessment of Islam under the carpet, as it does not accord with their PC views.

David: sorry, but it is not your post that is the scariest thing. It is the Christian Zionists. Many Christian churches think so too. They distance themselves from their philosophy.

Snappy Tom: I respect you are a history teacher and hope you can understand that I learned my history not from your context, but from a very different viewpoint. My entire education was in Dutch and I lived in 3rd world countries in South America and West Africa. Perhaps you can take comfort that my education was therefore shockingly lacking.

When I was 15 years old I had an epiphany when I read a history book written in English. I was puzzled by how much was absolutely false and wrong, till it dawned on me that it was written for and by another people, not the Dutch view! If you really want to have it out re the Barbary Coast we can, but perhaps separately.

There are many, many different books, as I said. I only named two. I named these because I felt they gave a reasoned opposing view to yours. They are not apologists for fundamental radical beliefs, or condone the violence.

Salman Rushdie is not condemning Muslims, neither is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Incidentally, she was 'outed' by someone in her own party, which is centre Right. Theo van Gogh was unknown until the controversy surrounding his movie. He was an anarchist and hated everything. He was a Republican and thought the Royal family ridiculous. Not a pin up boy for the Right and too weird for the left.

Yvonne,

I was born Rotterdam (The Netherlands) and grew up with the teaching that you do not discriminate on race, colour or religion. Since moving to Australia (1971) this has remained to be the platform, not just to me but also for my children and grandchildren.

Remarkably, my former son-in-law a retired minister (religion) sought to bible bash me once and I made clear not to try to sell me something I wasn't interested in. Had no further contact with him and I later discovered that my (step) daughter had divorced him, and for reasons that did not appears to be very Christian like.

We should tolerate people of all religions provided they are not trying to shove it down our throat, as the moment they do it is not that we are discriminating to their religion but we are opposing their inappropriate conduct.

With the Sheik, albeit I am not a supporter of him, I do believe that the man is more to warn about the dangers around of women walking basically naked in the streets.

I for one do not appreciate to see women on television to display themselves in their undies as once they are, so to say, over the hill then the same will complaint that they were used as sex objects. So, while the money is good they do not mind but when their time is over then somehow they are the once complaining about it.

To me the beauty of a person is within the person, not just how the person looks in the flesh.
When my sister-in-law some 30 odd years as a young woman was involved in a car accident and part of her face was scarred, my brother-in-law didn’t love her any less and their marriage endured because she was a beautiful person from within and the outside merely was the wrapping.
We should appreciate any person for their inner beauty rather then to have their flesh on display. The program “UGLY BETTY” is a refreshing look at that beauty lies within.

Hi TRTL,

Thank you for reading my posts so thoroughly, it's a real honour. Although of course you didn't really understand what I wrote. For instance you interpreted my mention of the $ as profit when it actually means just a sustainable income. See the difference? Money doesn't have to equate to profit but it seems it does for you. Sad. A symptom of a false idol me thinks.

Nor did I complain about having a post removed. I stated it as a fact, thus removing it also from the category of paranoia. You see paranoia is where fear is held for something which is not real. Dictionary time old boy.

You also seem stuck on left and right wing. Those terms do date you terribly. They don't actually exist anymore except in the minds of those reminiscing of the "good old days". Of course some do choose those labels for themselves but they might also use other terms no longer relevant today. The real terms today are either followers of major parties or not. IE Barrackers or non barrackers. I am of the latter variety.

For Robert, censorship is where the editors of a site remove what someone has written. Full stop. Having put up I asume you will now shut up as you asked me to do.

West, I couldn't agree more. All religions are simply Neanderthal beliefs.

Back to TRTL. Good of you to point out where all these referred to people come from. At last, knowledge shared. Of course they are from the Middle east my good TRTL, that's where the Crusades have been fought and are still being so. Unfortunately Islam has chosen to take this war worldwide.

And at last you get my point. The written word can be taken in any way a reader wishes to. My faux acceptance of Irfan's statement re Jesus etc is exactly what he has done and is going on about. The written word is a weapon.

BETTY .."hunni" :) I like your style mate... more more.. I don't know if we are going to agree on some issues, but I sure know one thing, OLO will be more alive with your sharp little barbs and prods and pokes...
Keep it up.

On the subject of 'Right and Left'..yes.. agreed.. they do rather date people. I get regularly slotted into the 'Right, White Christian who wants everyone to be like me' category.
At least here, we don't get black eyes (as I have right now) from our 'intellectual' head butts, (mine was a real albeit accidental one) so we are pretty safe.

Hilali is about as 'misconstrued' as Arafat was when he spoke to Arabic audiences. They knew exactly what he was saying but it wasn't the same message he delivered to English news coverage.
cheers.

yvonne Christian zionism is one term for Pentecostalism. Pentecostals learnt as far back as the 1970's that changing names will mask past trangressions when attracting new cult converts.

I personally have witnessed the degredation of a fully functioning human being to a superstitious red neck with a course of a few years of joining a pentecostal church.

The woman once an equalitist and very egalitarian now believes a womans place is to serve her husband , even though she works and is a school teacher she now believes girls have no need of high school. She now believes women with short hair are lesbians and lesbians are possessed by satan. She also believes satan tracks us all via a commitee in Luxenburg by reviewing scanned bar codes. She believes climate change is a Darwinist conspiracy and anti-littering laws are unjust because the rapture will happen at particular shifting dates and god will smite the planet anyway. She believes all divorces are the womans fault and they deserve punishment but she prays for the release murderers serving life sentences which she equates as a demonstration of her righteousness. All on the authority of her pastors and 'life counsellors'. She did in the early stage doubt the existence of god as her disability had not been cured as was promised by the church (apparently due to her lack of faith )and through 'special counselling' make a complete personality change where the above attitudes and beliefs materialised.

She is a member of a very popular church so you are right in your trepidation of the so called "Christian zionists " ( an oxymoron no doubt blasphemous to zionists) one can only imagine what the fringe lunacy of the fringe lunacy would entail.

Boaz,

One last attempt:

Fear founds hate and hate lays the ground work to violence.
My point is: what you think of Islam is none of my business but twisting and manipulating knowledge to promote fear is the problem.

The likes of Islamist fundi clerics use the very same techniques: The likes of Hilali or abu Bakr Basheer liken the west and Christianity to the crusades. Promoting fear, hate and violence becomes a normal result.

By acting like them you are being no different and hence my view that you are part of the problem. As much as I believe Islamist clerics should be held to account if a naïve follower falls into their traps, I believe your fellow mob should be held to account as well. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism are all here to stay and no religion replaced the other or ever will. All we can do is to learn to live together and promote harmony.
Please act responsibly.

Hope the penny dropped,

Peace,

T

Betty: I note you have still yet to come up with any posts to justify your views. What is it of Irfan's that you disagree with so thoroughly?
You say he is misreporting the situation - if so, then back it up with something - that is the point I have been hammering all along.

Regarding censorship - you can now cry that you've been neutral and fact-based after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that you stated "Like other posts here I have no doubt you will remove this one. Censorship is a necessary evil in the world of free speech isn't it Graham?"

Facetious or otherwise, this is still complaining. I've said it before and I'll say it again - posts here are removed when they become abusive, defamatory or attack the author on a tangent.
This post was neither, but you assumed that it would be removed - on this, I'll make an assumption - you thought that because the moderators disagreed with you it would be removed - and yet again, you don't have anything to back this up.

Left right, centre. Mostly irrelevant. I agree. This is a tangent, but I was expressing the fact that there are posts here from all points of view. The post name I use is an expression of their unimportance.

I'll cede paranoia may not have been the right term, but it wasn't all that far off.

The reason for my posts here, and focusing on yours has been simple: A muslim moderate has spoken out, and he was hounded for doing so. Some of the criticism has been fair and constructive. Some of it has not.

Cont'd.

The reason why I focused on your posts, was that so much of your criticisms appear to stem from that singular post, which you had misinterpreted. If they were to largely be based on a fallacy, then it was one that needed correcting. If you are to maintain this argument, then you need to provide a basis for doing so.

I know how hard it is to get intelligent moderates to speak up - whether the issue is Islam or anything else that is controversial. Most moderates just want to keep their heads down and get by, which leaves the rabid types free to monopolize the views and impressions of the public.

We ask Muslim moderates to speak up about religion - yet when we hear something that isn't along the pre-determined lines of what is expected, the writer is castigated.
To criticise is fair enough - but most of what is here is without anything to back it up. I hesitate to use the term armchair nazis, but if you're going to attack the author, please provide adequare reasons for why, instead of vague prejudices and misinterpreted posts.

And I don't see any reason to "shut up" and I never asked you to do so - I asked you to lift your game, and provide more constructive debate. Shutting up is hardly conducive to that now is it?

Sorry TRTL,

You just don't seem to follow. There is no crying over censored posts, just facts, openly stated. Where's the crying?

The shut up was clearly directed at RObert who made a similar statement. Please do try and follow the discussions TRTL.

I don't ask anyone to speak up about religion. I'd much rather they keep their beliefs to themselves, totally. It is and should be a personal and private matter where people make their own decisions and come to their own beliefs. Shoving them down on paper or other's throats simply demonstrates their lack of real belief in what they are thinking.

What do you want as back up. And to back up what? DO be clear, for once dear boy.

If you read Irfan's original item and my posts you may actually discern that we are making the same point. That is, words can be misused and usually are, by all. I write a few lines here and you fail to follow what I'm saying so you introduce your own interpretation, with a few additions and misinterpretations. You even introduce totally irrelevant issues which seem to stem from your own experiences.

It's called Chinese Whispers TRTL and you are very good at being in the middle of that line of people.

BOAZ. Why thank you my dear. Someone with an eye for detail, I'll read more of your own writing as I'm sure I've missed many a good word or three from your keyboard. Doesn't matter if we agree or disagree really does it, as long as we can discuss and who knows, maybe even learn from each other?

Regretably many seem to focus on a few words and miss the whole point. Ahh, what's new?

It's a bit of a struggle but let's all try and get TRTL to go straight, to use a pun or two.

Anyone else off to the new Brisbane Times news site? Fairfax, might be fun. Sure to be plenty of blogs.

F.H. . now that's a worry :) "ONE LAST" try ? and then what ? "Muslim brothers come to visit me in the night" ?

The UK police estimate there are like 2000 plots on the go at the moment.

We have Abu Izzedeen yelling and screaming at the UK home secretary about 'daring to come to Muslim areas' etc.. (fortunately he has now been arrested)

So, perhaps I'm the one who should be making one last try to convince you that I'm not against YOU or your broad, inclusive view of Islam. Sadly for us all, 'you' are not the issue. The doctrines in the Quran+Hadith+histories and History itself are the problem, and another dimension is the lack of understanding about these things by the general public in Australia and the West.

Just as an example, this recent 'survey' thing run by the SMH. They had a sample of 'Australians' (yeah right) of whom 30% or so felt threatened by "Muslims". After interacting with Sheikh Sneaky (Omran) and various selected others, they were resurveyed and now only 21% or so felt threatened.

Now, ask yourself this. Did Sheikh sneaky tell them about
-death for apostates ?
-Mohammed reported to have said "I am commanded to fight people until they worship Allah alone" etc
-That Mohammed tortured people, massacred people, invaded/raided people.
-Gave himself unlimited sexual opportunities ?
-Authorized the sexual use of captive slave girls ?

I'll bet NONE of those little gems of Islamic history came up.
I can guess what DID come up..
-The one-ness of Allah
-etc etc etc.. all the usual sugar coating on Islamic web sites.

F.H. If something is a threat to our national security by 'doctrine' then it should be mentioned.
That some muslims might feel marginalized as a result is not the fault of the exposer any more than it is the fault of someone showing the seamy side of the Ananda Marga sect or David Koresh's Waco lunacy is responsible for those followers feeling marginalized.

The last thing you should ever do, is try to repress truth here.

Hello Irfan, sorry for asuming your silence on a subject equated with your assent. So tell me, in an organisation like Islam, where the laws are based on religious texts, what do you call those who interpret those texts? They are given names like Ayatollah, Imam, Mullah and Mufti, and they claim the priveledge of speaking at the community's gatherings, attendance at which is a religious duty. What do you call them as a class?
Most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be, and that includes most Muslims in Australia. (Which, when you read those religious texts, is just as well.) But I'll tell you of an encounter recently. We had an imported car for 5 years, and went to a local repairer who was an enthusiast to have it serviced. He employed a number of mechanics and apprentices over the years, and at present one of his apprentices is a Muslim. He's a good worker, and is not dull. He prays 3 times a day at work, and his workplace has cleared a private space for him to do so.
He was asked at work one day what he would do if a son of his (he is presently unmarried) was to say to him that he (the son) was homosexual. "I would kill him," was the apprentice's reply. His shocked workmates asked again, to make sure they hadn't misheard. The apprentice repeated, "I would kill him."
This is an ordinary Muslim making an ordinary living, with beliefs like this. You ask why people who believe in civil and human rights are anxious about Islam?

Mr Irfan, was the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran not a Muslim?

The Faith Freedom website - which is run by ex-Muslims - has a translation of a speech that Khomeini gave on the day of celebration of the birth of Muhammad in 1981 (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm). In part it reads:

"The real Day of God is the day that Amir al mo’menin (1) drew his sword and slaughtered all the khavarej (2) and killed them from the first to the last.

...../

If the Amir al mo’menin (1) wanted to be tolerant, he would not have drawn his sword killing 700 people in one go. In our prisons we have more of the same kind of people who are corrupt. If we do not kill them, each one of them that gets out, will become a murderer! They don’t become humans.

Why do you Mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting? Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing?

Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God.

...../

Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people. In the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. In the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza (3) because they were a bunch of discontent people".


(1) The Commander of the Faithful. Title of Ali the fourth Caliph and the first Imam of the Shiites.
(2) A group of dissidents that rejected the leadership of Ali and when 4000 of them gathered in the mosque to protest, Ali sent his armed men and massacred them all.
(3) A tribe of the Jews of Medina whose quarter Muhammad besieged, cut the water to them and when they surrendered, he ordered his cousin Ali and his uncle Hamza to massacre them.

Boaz,

My post was about your attitude and how it is a potential threat to Australian harmony, integration and potentially national security.

It does not matter who is spreading fundies material whether Omran or yourself. The statistics you quote is a self fulfilling prophecies: probably 30% think of Muslims that way because of people like yourselves and / or Omran.

How would you like if a Muslim quoting out bloody violent references out of the OT and promoting it amongst Muslims as 'this is Christianity'?
Treat others as you would like to be treated and be honest. This is Australia not Christopia or Islamopia. Move to the Vatican or Saudi if you are interested in either.

Right now your fellow mob and the likes of Hilali/Omran are one of the same: messengers of fear and disharmony.

Peace,

T

Betty: changing tack again I see.

I was asking you to back up the fact that you had said "What a nasty (check spelling, OK) little minded man you are"

The source of that statement was: "Dear me Irfan, let's generalise shall we. Talk about venom. A virgin, a carpenter and a messiah, nasty people. Only if you don't agree with their religion and beliefs Irfan which you don't."

You also said: " it's religious intolerance. Amply displayed by Irfan's own venom poured out against Mary, Jesus and Joseph"

You've yet to back away from that statement, which was based on a sarcastic post. How was this venom?

Yet later, when this was pointed out it became what exactly? 'Faux acceptance?' I see. So it's 'faux acceptance' when your normal acceptance became inconvenient.

I asked you to provide another example of this 'venom' as you still stuck to your guns that Irfan is somehow attacking other religions.

It is this 'venom' that I would like to see some kind of example of - some kind of substantiation. I've yet to see any.

Now you are saying "If you read Irfan's original item and my posts you may actually discern that we are making the same point."

No, actually. I think you've changed point somewhere along the way to claiming that the issue is easily mistranslated, when you realised that the basis of your argument was flawed.

Cont'd.

I've been asking you to back up the claim that Irfan is a nasty little minded man - using a post other than the one that was clearly sarcastic as a basis.

As for me mentioning that on a personal note I was aware it was difficult to get moderates to speak up... I note you contemptuusly dismiss it as irrelevant, but quite frankly I think the issue of moderates V extremists is a key part of this debate.

If you disagree, kindly give reasons. And as you advise, let's try to keep them straight huh?

I'll concede - the post you mentioned was directed at R0bert - touche. I'll concede that you may have meant sustainability in terms of $. Touche again - though you do seem to have changed from assuming the site is politically motivated, to motivated by sustainable profits.

And it's quite clear that you implied posts would be removed if they didn't comply with political views, when you assumed your post would be removed for this reason. That post wasn't. There's your crying.

And yet, you have nothing to support this assumption.

I know it's easier to adopt a haughty attitude and claim that it's everybody else playing chinese whispers, but really, I've been quite straightforward: either put forward an example of why Irfan is so nasty (which you have been unable to do, save the sarcastic post) or revise your view.

And I'm afraid there is nothing in those posts to indicate your acceptance of that quote was 'faux.'

A little consistency would be nice - it would make it ever so much easier to follow your arguments.

Heya TRTL

I wouldn't waste your energy.. the fact that the original sarcasm went so far over Betty's head gives me little hope for your being able to engage her in rational debate.
The whole things reminds me of a wonderful neologism that some of you may have come across - "sarchasm" - the yawning gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the intended recipient's ability to get it....

MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OR ALEAXANDER THE CONQUEROR?

Today, when many examine the experiences of Islam visa~a~via Judeo-Christianity, we tend to look for the roots circa 580-630 CE. Those familiar with Arnold Toynbee, however, would turn the clock back, even further and review the eight hundred years leading-up to the establishment of Islam.

If we do take acount of the mentioned pariod, we find the Ancient Gripes, before the Old Gripes.

Around 300 BCE, the Syriac civilization resisted Hellenisation and continued to do so until the Arab tribes were unified in seventh century. In parallel the Christian myth had been Hellenised, via the Pauline doctrine, wherein, at the time of the rise of Isalm, we, also had a [Vulgar] Hellenised Rome,and, a [Vulgar] Hellenised Church of Rome. The Western Roman Expire had fallen, 476 CE (Gibon), and, Isalm was on the ascendency 700 CE into to the tenth century.

What stood in opposition to Islam was not merely Judeo-Christianity, but, rather, "Hellenised" Christianity. Islam respected the prophets, but not the Western church. Moreover, meanly, the older churches ridiculed the ermerging Islamic faith, for its lack of knowledge of the ancient scriptures. Thus, immediately DID NOT accept an ecclestastical posit.

In sum, the [disunified] Arabs were opposed to the Greeks, cautious of the encrotchment of expanding religions [already having prophets]. Meanwhile, the Hellenised Roman Catholic Church poured oil on the frames.

[The irony is Byzantine Empire preserved for the West [Attic] Greek Philosophy/Theory/Episte, which fueled the Reformation and the Great Divergence in the West.].

What -in part- has happened is, ancient dissimilarities morphed and were carried-forward under religious guise into the Christian Crausades period and with the expansion of Islam into Africa and Spain.

Perhaps had Paul not contrived the Nature of Jesus, we would not have this conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, without Paul, there might have been no modern Christianity.

In the Letters/Comments section of the online version of The Australian (March 8, 2007), Irfan (Yusuf??) of Canberra asserts the following:
"There is no such thing as ‘Muslim culture’." and
"There are many Muslims who prefer not to be just defined by their religious background. In fact, most Muslims have other defining features they regard as more important e.g. nationality, ethnicity, language".

OK, Irfan - if that is the case then answer me the following:

1. Look up Anouar Majid's 1995 essay "Can the Postcolonial Critic Speak? Orientalism and the Rushdie Affair" and note that he applauds Ali Mazrui's observation that Salman Rushdie "has been perceived by many Muslims as being guilty of cultural treason". This was in the aftermath of the publication of The Satanic Verses. (How could Rushdie be a traitor to something that you claim does not exist?) Indeed, if there is no such thing as Muslim culture, why then did thousands of Muslims all across the globe violently demonstrate against Denmark, America, Jews - you name it - in the wake of the publication of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad?

2. If in fact, most Muslims have other defining features they regard as more important e.g. nationality, ethnicity, language, then why is it that when Terry Sander from Britain's National Secular Society, recently wrote that,"Not all Muslims are as attached to their religion as the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) document would have us believe', he was taken to task by Osama Saeed at the Rolled-up Trousers blog, amongst many others? Including it should be added, the fruitbats at the Islamophobia Watch website.

Snappy Tom,

if all Muslims have such an overriding culture that it negates language, ethnicity, nationality, etc why aren't they than a homogenous united group?

Have you noticed the killing that is happening in Iraq between Muslim Iraqis for instance? Why is the Middle East then such a powder keg? Why are there then so many Muslim refugees and displaced persons in the Middle East?

If Muslims are so as one culturally they should be one happy family united in facing a common enemy.

Are there really people who believe that everybody who practices their Islamic faith is hell bent on destroying the West?

Yvonne, I don't think that you have got my drift. It seems that when it suits them that some Muslims will say that there is a Muslim "culture", e.g. in response to Salman Rushdie's book, while at other times they will deny it.

As for the situation in Iraq of course a lot of it is Muslim upon Muslim violence. Yet some crazy apologists for Islamism would suggest that this is part of a "Muslim Holocaust". There is also Muslim upon Christian violence and Muslim upon Mandean violence happening in Iraq. Which is why many people from the latter groups are currently fleeing Iraq.

If the Middle East is such a powder keg as a result of American imperialist meddling in Middle East affairs, why then isn't all of Latin America a similar powder keg - after all there is an even longer history of American meddling in that part of the world.

Dear TRTL,

Changing tack? If you can't see it's all on tack then you should re look mate. Don't you get bored poring over the same few words and still not seeing the picture. It's not an optical illusion or the same in words. It's right there staring you in the face TRTL.

It's in Irfan's writing. It's his way, use the base emotional appeal to attract a few pointless posts.

Consistency? You mean plodding away with one idea in your head, one thought, one train to ride, one. Are you not full of small parts of personality that all want to do their thing? Or are you so straight up and down that there is but one idea, TRTL?

Here's a real change of tack, something for you and others to ponder.

Re the very real human and social tragedies in Indonesia, would anyone attribute these to a deity? A Muslim deity, a Christian deity? Is there method in the manner in which these islands have been continually battered by natural and social disasters? Who's deity is taking responsibility for caring for those damaged and killed?

Or is this a case where deity's move in mysterious ways, like evading any responsibility at all?

If one was South Australian one might cry out loudly "Why Alla?".

Back to Yvonne. How ignorant can one be dear? Where do you get the idea that any culture or group can be "as one"? I've seen some dumb comments but yours is top of the class. Unless you assume that all beings are "one" which may be the real truth after all.

F.H. so... Islamic radicalism is now 'my fault' :)

You do have a partial point though. "My attitude" becoming a self fulfilling prophecy is in part valid. But it could not have any currency unless the raw materials were there in the first place, and I would not put very much weight on my utterances in this forum which is probably not read by many Muslims at all right ? My words are aimed at Non Muslims, and they are not designed to incite hate, but awareness.
I believe with my whole heart, that Islam as presented by the 'public faces' of it, are like a mask, and when people are sufficiently taken in, then the mask is ripped off and suddenly you see who it really was who lured you into this situation from which you cannot escape without serious threat to your life. (not so much in Australia, but you know as well as me that in places like Pakistan and others this is a reality)

Regarding the idea of mentioning the violent passages from the Old Testament and claiming it is 'Christianity'... well I have to wear that on the chin mate. If people choose to do so, I cannot stop them, but only teach them. The difference is, I can show by context that such 'blood thirsty' instances are in no way connected to general commands to wipe people out, or treat them in such ways.

Islam is not so, and this is clearly evidenced by its doctrines and history. Mohammad is repeatedly described as the 'Best of all creation' and of mankind.. so if such a claim is made in public with a view to attracting people to become his followers in 2007, then the whole of his life should be subject to serious and minute scrutiny don't you agree ?

The idea that people can proclaim him as 'best' in the full knowledge (but rationalized) that he did as I've described, is of great concern to me.

Remember....this thread is about 'misunderstood'

Betty.. you need to be disciplined :) "back to topic" mate.

Yvonnne... ur turn :)

"How come the middle east is such a powder keg" ? err..I explained that to you in another thread, but in that one (u remember..the SCARRRRRY one) I made no mention of the conflict between Muslim and Muslim (Shia/Sunni). Ok.. put your learning cap on and listen up please. Dr Google will now inform you about this matter.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxtiraq5.htm

Read that, and you will be full bottle on that particular issue.
For info on the Palestine/Israel thing, read 'Dr Boaz' in the other threads.

Why are they not one happy family in fighting a common enemy ?

Actually in many places they are ! Bosnia had mercinaries from just about every Muslim country around... and Afghanistan had even British muslims fighting there. The do unit against a common enemy, based on the "Islamic" commonality, but in a country like Australia, it seems to matter more if ur Turk, Iraqi,Pakistani or Lebanese when it comes to who runs the show.(Local Muslim/ethnic politics) But I think they are all united on the issue of 'The evil west'.

..and be nice to Betty :) and don't snap at Tom, but ignore Oliver, I cannot for the life of me see any point in his last post. (Ol.. u can do better mate)

Is it possible that the message is finally getting through, Boaz?

>>"My attitude" becoming a self fulfilling prophecy is in part valid<<

I am personally delighted to see this - even partial - admission.

That if you first imagine an enemy, then arm yourself to the teeth, and proceed to go on the warpath, there is a real possibility that your wishes will be met and a battle will take place.

But that battle will be with fanatics that are actually brought into being by the incontinent outpouring of your own fanaticism.

>>My words are aimed at Non Muslims, and they are not designed to incite hate, but awareness<<

Now Boaz, even when you wrote that you must have realized that it is either the most egregious piece of mendacity imaginable, or naivety beyond the boundaries of logical interpretation.

Your campaign has been consistently rabble-rousing, with its deliberate selection of texts, and idiosyncratic interpretation of those texts, designed to strike fear into the hearts of the masses.

Why else do you choose only those items that indicate a propensity to the mass slaughter of religious opponents?

Why else do you add a narrative that describes the inevitable progression of this religion being that its supporters will murder you in your bed?

If you doubt me, take another look at your posts on the topic. They all carry the same message, that Islam is a religion designed with the sole objective of wiping out infidels.

You have some distance to go, but it encourages me that you are at last starting to perceive that there may be an audience out there whose own hatred is inspired and nurtured by your own.

Despots and dictators know well the power of fear, and rely upon the creation of a backlash that will in turn be used as justification for the crusade in the first place - a neat circular system, where the fearful dupes are themselves part of the weaponry.

Think about it some more, Boaz.

I see a glimmer of hope here.

Again Boaz Christians see the west as the evil west. Our society is constantly under attack at Christians making up crack pot morals and then condeming western society against ridiculous Christian values.

All religious people are superstitious by definition. All people who need a guidence from gods exist in a state of moral panic.

All such people are self centred living a life hoping to be saved to be as immortal as a god.

Boaz all the voodoo mumbo Jumbo of god belief is fine in the privacy of anybodies own home , wether it is monotheism , Christianity , Satanism, Islam or celebrity worship. Or theism such as paganism, Hindi or Wiccan or Atheism such as Buddhism.

When god belief effects the general public , aligns with politics , forms institutions , seeks to rule or at least have "moral" influence then religion becomes fascism. Christians fighting with Muslims is utterly ridiculous since both cults are in operational terms the same superstition with the same self serving set of values.

If Christians are allowed to persecute Moslems then there will be no stopping them , it will be the Jews, Atheists and Gypsies next. To an outsider watching Christians and Moslems fight like this is like watching two Bikie gangs slanging off at each other.

What is the On Line Opinion record for the number of posted comments? Is it already held by Irfan Yusuf? Is it over two hundred?

Boaz,

I will second Pericles that I feel we are finally getting somewhere:

1. 'No' you are not responsible of Islamist fundies or others. My point is : Australia is a great country and its greatest asset is diversity and harmony, the fact that we have different ethnicities and different beliefs should add to the wealth of the country and not divide it. Community leaders like your self (you mentioned you are an esteemed missionary who educate thousands of people) have a responsibility to promote what brings us together. If the likes of Fayez and Hilali promote fear and hate, and you do the same, what kind of world we will be giving our children? You should lead and act responsibly.

2. You know that 99% of Muslims do not know or believe in 95% of the hadith (as you know what conflicts with the Quran is discredited). If you are into promoting 'awareness' as you claim, then promote what the majority fo muslims believe in not the nut cases.

That's the only way I know to make a better world.
Peace and have a good weekend,

T

"It's right there staring you in the face TRTL.

It's in Irfan's writing. It's his way, use the base emotional appeal to attract a few pointless posts."

Well, I suppose if it was staring me in the face I could be mistaken for thinking you'd be actually able to provide hard examples of this vague 'base emotional appeal.'

And here I thought the goal of blogs such as these was to encourage debate. As to whether they're pointless or not, I think that's up to the people posting them. In any case, I hardly think it warrants calling someone nasty or venomous.

As for the notion that few religions are going to claim the more unpleasant acts of god, I couldn't agree more.
I've discovered however, that just taking potshots at religions is akin to spitting in the wind. The religious have spent thousands of years crafting responses to the contrary aspects of their faith, while the non-religious know all this superstition is foolish anyway.

What I find more relevant is the role of moderate speakers and fundamentalists (be they of any religion) in society - if we are indeed headed for an ideological conflict with fundamentalist regimes, then how will we treat the moderate majority who just want to live their life and believe in peace - what of those who have lived in Australia for many generations?

In assessing the three speakers this article highlights - Irfan, Disraeli and the notorious sheikh, who is the more reasonable speaker? Not Hilaly - nobody would try to argue that notion.
Irfan however hasn't expressed the same kind of vitriol - but the reaction to his fairly constrained piece has been quite extreme.

Which brings us back to the issues of extremism - how do we treat our moderates?

TurnRightThenLeft you are effectively saying in your post that it is important what extremists say because they lead the religious and so moderates need to speak up. If that is the case then there is no such thing as moderate because in religion there is only leaders and the led. Those who lead will be fanatical because religion has always been led by making aggressive stakes of claims over what god says , thinks , does and wants. The moderate will always follow for in their superstitious beliefs it is bad luck to go against god. Religious material is imbued with the discourse of conflict, struggle and enemy. Existence is seen as conflict and struggle both within the believer and exterior to the believer. Religion is a philosophy of fuedalism of both the self and the world. God is a radical concept , it is faith reliant not truth based and so god will always be and can only be captured by the fanatic and the fanatic will always lead the moderate.It is not moderate to support the notion of god only comparitively moderate compared with the fanatic.

"It is not moderate to support the notion of god only comparitively moderate compared with the fanatic."

In a way I agree with you, though I think this is an issue of semantics.
When it come to religion you have a sliding scale of belief, or fanaticism if you prefer - though as fanaticism is a term that specifically refers to extremists and the bulk of the world is religious, I'd say it isn't the right one.
I am using the term moderate simply to define the opposite of a fanatic.

There can be no question that moderates do exist - they are those who aren't preaching violence or conflict.

All of this refers of course, to the notion of the institutionalised god - the god of religions and superstition.

I disagree with you (from posts in other threads) when you say that as an Antitheist you believe god is a product of superstition.

In many cases they are inextricably linked, but it doesn't have to be so.

Those who question the nature of existence and whether there is a driving force, not even necessarily an intelligence, may not adhere to dogma or ritualism.

Now while we disagree on plenty of things, I dare say that you and I and Betty would all be much happier if the world didn't have all this religious superstition.

The thing is - how would you dismantle these religions?

If you were planning to crack down, drawing lines as to what is a religion constitutes nigh on impossible - if you define it as a belief in god, you'll include plenty of people who eschew ritualism.

It would be impossible any way - most of the world is religious and wouldn't give it up without a horrendous fight, which is what we should be trying to avoid.

Then there is the treasured western ideal of being free to believe what we wish. Witness the oppression of the Falun Gong in China to see what happens when you discard this ideal.

Let's have a brief competition on OLO.Let Irfan list all the negative concepts and innuendos of the Christian faith,ie the teachings of Christ;and let David Boaz do likewise for the teachings of Mohammad.Let's exclude the old testaments since both faiths see it as a common pillar of their belief systems

Will David and Irfan have the courage to engage in such an exercise?

Good article, Irfan. Although context is crucial when making a legitimate comparison. If Israeli was the religious leader of Aussie Jews, and if he had said about women the things Hilali said (among all the other things), and if Jews were responisble for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents in recent times, etc etc etc then yes, I think his comments would have raised the same level of ire.... don't you? Nothing to do with being anti-Muslim per se.

I have lived in a Muslim country for over a year, met many fantastic Muslim people, who are exactly like the vast majority of people - they just want to get on with the business of getting on. Regardless, I think some of these people could easily be whipped up into a frenzy (like all religious groups) and therefore the comments of leaders of political & religious groups need to be scrutinised more so than non-leaders. It's common sense, no? The reactions to both Hilali & Israeli were reasonable in my opinion. Let's hope they & other would-be rabble rousers learned a lesson. Talk about which religi

(contd)

(to some posters) As for talk about which religion is the correct one, or whether none are, that is 100% futile. Yes, your group will persuade a few hundred at best, but is that worth the enmity that generates?

Arjay.. the most 'negative'(to the non Christian) aspect of NT Christianity I think is its exclusive nature..

"for God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Clearly, according to this, those who do not believe, will perish.

It is a message of hope and of despair at the same time, depending on whether people embrace Christ or not.

But as Paul says in regard to his own responsibility to bring this same message to his own..the Jews..

["2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.] (Rom 9:2ff)

'could' but doesn't...why ? because he knew the one who called him, and he remembered his Damascus road experience.. the light, the voice, the blindness, the healing..etc

But apart from that, and possibly the issues of women in Church, I don't find much that can be called 'negative'.

To be Christian is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit is:

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control

which are contrasted with the works of the 'flesh'

'sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

Probably the MOST negative is the imagery in Revelation about the end of the world and judgement. But negative only to those outside of Christ.

"They just want to get on with the business of getting on. Regardless"

Yes TNT, that is corrects, but religion aside, what would you suggest being the catalyst that prevents this?
Remember; Religion takes on many forms be it to Idol minds.
Even the staunchest Atheist or Agnostic/ Islamists worship a religious deity- namely Altruism.
This entails a mind bending conundrum to re- define the metaphysics to be what they wish it to be, and not what it is; From a philosophical stand point- Or how we can define now days as; ‘Derrida Deconstructionist’, and ; ‘Lacan psychoanalysis’.-‘ Foucault social sciences’ – ‘Lyotard post modernism’ - ‘Baudrillard and some Cultural practices’
.
The Primary design is to Dislodge and reorder human consciousness to a form that is not natural occurring in Humans; by seizure ones Conscious soul, forces people to enter the realms of an Invented Metaphysics for relief (Submit); You have entered the antipathy of Intellectual Twilight zoned Altruism; or a Surreal meaning of nothingness, Then Label it for what it is not.
Irfan does this well, as does Trad. As do Proletariat Useless Idiots.
You have to learn their arsenal of Weaponry to understand. Guns and bombs are not the only thing’s used.
“Phonocentrism- Logocentrism”

This thread has become rather predictable thanks to Irfan and David Boaz. That is, they both employ the 'American Gun Lobby Tactic' - as I call it.

The Pro-Gun lobbyists use the tired old argument that, "It's not the gun that kills people but rather the person behind the gun."

The obvious rebuttal is that there will always be angry violent people in any given society - so we to preempt their inevitable violence and dry up the supply of guns.

And so it is with monotheism. Monotheism inevitably begats fundamentalism and bigotry. Which in turn escalates conflict within society, and between societies. Therefore, we dry up fundamentalist theology by attacking its base. This is the right and moral thing to do.

So, with that in mind I will make the point that Islam and Christianity are BOTH flawed because there are NO such thing as angels - Gabriel or otherwise. No one has ever seen an angel. Not ever. And if they think that they have seen (or heard) an angel then their delusion can easily be explained by neuroscience and medicine. Hasn't any monotheist ever heard of schizophrenia or narcolepsy!?

"If Israeli was the religious leader of Aussie Jews, and if he had said about women the things Hilali said (among all the other things), and if Jews were responisble for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents in recent times, etc etc etc then yes, I think his comments would have raised the same level of ire"

I don't suggest Israeli's opinion represents all Jews, nor that he was a religious leader. As for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents, it depends on how you define an international terrorist incident. Would you regard the massacre of 3,000 Gujrati Muslims by Hindu-fascist mobs supported by the BJP state and federal governments as an international terrorist incident? How about suicide bombing missions carried out by the LTTE? Or the kidnappings in South America by groups like FARK?

Ifran people are reacting to terrorism. Unfortunately for Moslems the fact terrorism has occurred in the name of Allah means that ghost is in the machine. TR is right the defensive argument is like the gun lobby bumper sticker ‘guns don’t kill…’
If guns could not kill then nobody would get shot. If Islam is peaceful no terrorism could occur.

The Christians here are in the same boat their religion has the same ghost in their machine. The only relevant consideration is the ghost in the machine. Many Italian fascists had nothing against the Jews, they most probably would have argued that only fanatical fascists hated the Jews and did not represent fascism. In the end their loyalty was to the fascism and they did persecute Jews. Anti-Semitism is a ghost in the fascist machine. Terrorism is a ghost in the Islamic machine wether Moslems like it or not.

The fact is now terrorism and Islam have become synonymous and no doubt Islam will be regarded a monster by the west (including India and southern Africa) for a many hundreds of years to come September 11 now not having been an isolated occurrence. It was only after World War 1 the price of the Ottoman attack on Austria – orientalism began to break down. That at a time when the Moorish invasion of Spain and the subsequent crusades that it sparked could have been lost in popular history but the old animosity revived.

Jewish Australians don’t ask anything of other Australians. There is no Australian –Judeo conflict. Bringing a Jewish element into the discourse of uncomfortable co-existence Moslems face in this country wont help anybody make friends , it may make matters worst. The only people who had a problem with Jews in our history, I am talking 1970’s to possibly the September 11 attack were neo-Nazi skinheads. That’s what Australians will identify surprise attacks on the Jewish community with. Israel and Palestine are not our problem, terrorism is. The koran like the bible is long over due for a rewrite by committed ghost busters.

Irfan, buddy, maaaate ... please go a little easier with the acronyms, eh? {Your post of 10 March 2007 6:51:55 PM)

For the benefit of those who might not otherwise know the BJP is the Bharatiya Janata Party - Indian People's Party (created in 1980, it is one of two major national political parties in India and projects itself as a champion of the socio-religious cultural values of the country's Hindu majority); the LTTE are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (aka Tamil Tigers), which is proscribed as a terrorist organisation in 32 countries; while FARK is a noise that crows make. The acronym for the Colombian guerrilla group is FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia), which translates into English as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. FARC was established in 1964-1966 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party.

Irf..

Jews don't believe in establishing a 'Jewish State' in Australia. Many Muslims, and to be more focused "Islam" as an Ideology does.

You should know by now that I can back this up with plenty of documentary evidence from strong Islamic traditions. So, I'll refrain from repeating it here, now.

Just yesterday on the news, 2 notable anecdotal incidents were reported which should interest us.
But by way of background, lets look at what a 'whacko' Liberal said recently.

http://www.active.org.au/sydney/news/display.php3?article_id=4442&group=webcast
[Liberal Member of Parliament for the electorate of Hunter Danna Sue Vale...Ms Vale has taken the long view, warning that by dint of reproduction alone fertile and attractive Moslem citizens could render Australia an Islamic nation within fifty years, if ‘we’ other Australians continue to ‘abort ourselves almost out of existence.’]

Now, if it was just a 'whacko right wing conservative' saying this, we might be tempted to write it off as typical hyper fundy right wing lunacy. BUT....

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,21359122-662,00.html
"Turn the World to Islam" is the story. (referring to DVDs and literature available in Melbourne)

There was a story on Sky news yesterday about a Muslim Cleric who urged Muslims to take over Australia by outbreeding the rest. (Cannot obtain a source for this, other than hearing it last night)

So, while it is quite true that there is no single voice representing the Islamic community in Australia (who would want to claim ownership of or alliegance to Hilali ?) the many voices we do hear are saying very different things.

Irf assures us that Islam and thus Muslims are docile and friendly contributors to society, who are simply 'misunderstood'. Fellow Human,Pericles, CJ Morgan and gang, would have us believe that my rantings are simply out of context selections designed to alienate the Muslim community and are based on hatred.

But is it possible that the 'Gang' is basing its opinion on just 'one' preferred and selected Muslim voice ? while I am aiming at another ?

SAUDI ISLAMIC JUSTICE "What! you got raped ? you dirty girl, its the LASH for you.. 90 stipes"
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/4/14524/0625

Snappy Tom, the only crow that ever went FARK was Graham Kennedy's on-air crow.

Irfan,
How did this thread go from differing public reaction following the comments of Sheik Hilali to that of Prof Isreali, to that of international terrorism?

The reason for the differing public reactions is simply that most people did not view Isreali's comments as offensive. Wheras Hilali's comments were offensive.

I have said here and on other similar threads, that Muslims have a poor reputation, which is not without reason. I am sure that you well know this.

Talk to most females that deal with muslims in their daily work and they will tell you that muslims are rude, arrogant, dictatorial and offensive. The conduct of the gang rapists, in court, displayed no respect for our Laws and justice system. Muslims will not try to integrate with others and are seemingly trying to get seperate advantages for themselves. Then there is the anti-social behavior of young male muslims. These type of factors are reason for poor reputation.

I beleive that you once stated that the Lebonese made up the majority of muslims in Australia. This being so,our perception may be a little distorted because the main muslims the we encounter are Lebonese. However, this is countered by reports about other muslims from time to time, and from overseas.

Now we have reports of growing muslim population here, and more political influence coming from this. Sheik Omran saying muslims should take advantage of our low birth rate and breed more. Did not a prominant Muslim leader once say that muslims will conquer the world through the wombs of muslim women?

Is not it reasonable that secular Australia be concerned that our way of life is threatened?

Once again, Boaz, you are being simultaneously rabble-rousingly provocative, and dead wrong.

>>Jews don't believe in establishing a 'Jewish State' in Australia. Many Muslims, and to be more focused "Islam" as an Ideology does.<<

Through the tortured English I believe I can discern you proposing that while Jews do not look to establish Australia as a Jewish State, Moslems are bent on establishing Australia as an Islamic State.

If I have misconstrued, I apologize, the grammar is all over the place. But you then say:

>>You should know by now that I can back this up with plenty of documentary evidence from strong Islamic traditions.<<

You cannot.

You can drag up a few fanatics who rant on about turning the world to Islam, but you could do the same for Naziism if you so desired - there are plenty of hate sites out there on the Internet to choose from, after all.

Some of them make your hair stand on end, truly they do.

So the most you can say in all honesty is that "there are a few nutters around who use ancient scriptures to justify their own position against other competing religions."

You, unfortunately, like it or not, are one of them.

But the serious part is that each time you write, there is a possibility that one weak soul thinks that you are spot on, and vows to fight Muslims wherever he finds them. On the beaches, in the streets, whack-a-mozzie.

And simultaneously there is one more Muslim who is convinced that Australia is full of Boaz_Davids, expressing hatred and spouting vilification, and who will go out onto those same beaches and those same streets, ready to fight for their honour.

Start being part of the solution, if you can.

As Fellow Human points out, right now you are a part of the problem.

Dear Banjo

In your most recent post you said that: "Did not a prominant Muslim leader once say that muslims will conquer the world through the wombs of muslim women?"

I think that you might be confusing this perceived scenario with the actual words of one-time Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, who in a speech at the United Nations in 1974 said that: "One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

Mind you, a Norwegian-based Islamist, Mullah Krekar, told the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten in early 2006 that by 2050, "30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim." Why would this be so?

"Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," Krekar said. "Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children."

Irfan says that "... there are many kinds of Muslims. Some practise the faith, others believe in its tenets without practising and still others have a cultural affinity to it. Rushdie belongs to one of the latter groups."

This may be so but what guarantee is there that increasing numbers of Muslims in Western democracies won't be more like Mullah Krekar (a supporter of Obarmy Sin Laden by the way), rather than like good-time seeking ex-Muslims such as Salman Rushdie?

Well, well ... it's the last ball before tea and Graham Young rolls over a slow ball. Irfan clips the leather ball behind him with a neat flick of the wrist and trots through for an easy single. The double century has been scored.

Snappy Tom,
Sounds and looks like you have the correct quotation. I think it was that Algerian bloke that I was thinking of. I could not recall the exact quote and that is why I put it as a question.

The implication of what he said is the important bit.

Thank you for that and the addition information

I have to say that Irfan created an excellent opportunity for many of us to get a few things of our chest.

I've learned a lot. One is that Boaz and Banjo neither would be happy chaps if one of their kids came home with a Muslim as partner. Reminds me of my father-in-law 40 years back. A most devout (daily!)church going European Christian (the peaceful religion!) who gave his daughter a broken nose and cut of her hair when she wanted to marry her highly educated young man-who happened to be Muslim.

To the Christians, if indeed the Muslims are going to slaughter us all you should be Okidoki and not be so petrified. It could all be God's mysterious plan, you believe you'll be resurrected anyway come judgment day.

I was fortunate to grown up where many religions were practised, so got to see a few of them up close. My conclusion is that if there is indeed one God (which I doubt very much) He/She would hopefully be horrified with what gets said and done in his name by all 3 Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I've read both the bible and the Qu'ran, both obviously translations. I don't know if I should confess this, but the Qu'ran made a little bit more sense to me than the overly edited, multiply translated group of books that makes up the bible.

'The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next'

- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

One day Jehovah, Jesus and Allah will be relegated to the status of Zeus or Thor. When this happens society will have overcome its addiction to monotheistic tribalism and then be able to build a more rational and peaceful community.

It is only a matter of time till the likes of Hilali, Irfan and Boaz become extinct like the T. Rex and the dodo. Future generations won't miss them nor their small minded opinion pieces.

Actually the more I think about this thread the more predictably pathetic it is. Of all the visiting Professors, scholars, writers, and dignitaries that visit Australia Irfan had to pick a JEWISH one. And surprise, surprise Irfan is a Muslim.

So, here we go again. The Islamic preoccupation with all things Israeli. This piece of Muslim psychopathology is engrained from birth and reinforced by every visit to the Mosque. And now its in Australia.

If only the Banu Qurayza hadn't been such turncoats....

"Actually the more I think about this thread the more predictably pathetic it is. Of all the visiting Professors, scholars, writers, and dignitaries that visit Australia Irfan had to pick a JEWISH one. And surprise, surprise Irfan is a Muslim."

It's easy to speculate about other people's intentions without ripping their hearts out of their chests or their brains out of their skulls to determine what their real motivation is.

There are some marvellous scholars of Islamic theology and Muslim societies of Jewish background. Professor Ira Lapidus has written a comprehensive history of Muslim societies. Lawyer and academic Noah Feldman has dome some excellent work in developing a new constitution for Iraq.

Jews have made marvellous contributions to Muslim societies. How many people here know that the Foreign Minister of Bosnia is Jewish? And that the senior adviser to the King of Morocco is also Jewish?

I have to acknowledge that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a sign of their degredation that they treat their twin-faith as the enemy.

But I'd like someone on this forum to name me just one Muslim ruler who was able to systematically murder 6 million Jews. Just one. Can you, B_D? What about coach, dee and others?

Irfan: "I don't suggest Israeli's opinion represents all Jews, nor that he was a religious leader."

And I didn't imply either. My point was simple. That the media reaction to Hilali, as a religious leader, was entirely proportionate & reasonable.

"As for 99.9% of international terrorist incidents, it depends on how you define an international terrorist incident."

True. Putting a figure on it like that was just asking to be knocked down. But that's not my main point & we are getting off topic. Your main thesis and mine relates to the reactions to both Hilali & Israeli.

BOAZ_David:
wow, how do you keep taking the knocks? (I confess, I do get a laugh when it happens) You must be THE most maligned writer on OLO (unfairly of course). Congratulations! Sign of a thought-provoking writer. Well I for one generally love your posts. Of course I don't agree with all of it, but it's always thoughtful, concerned, intelligently written & often warm. This site would definitely be worse without your contributions. Keep them coming!

To the anti-religious (not non-religious - big difference):

Although a staunch atheist myself, religion clearly has a lot of positives, eg. religion transcends race & nationalism & a host of other differences that humans instinctively latch onto. Most of us have witnessed different race Christians whole-heartedly welcomed into churches and different race Muslims welcomed into mosques (I have a slight problem with Judaism in that it is a religious AND a racial thing. I've been very warmly received by Muslims and I know it would make their day if I converted. Jews are exclusionary. Is that a fair comment? I expect criticism on this point).

Religion can't possibly be all bad. And it's total naivity to think that the world would be better off without religion. Wishful thinking. Religion is a projection of humanity, not the other way around. Do people honestly think the world would be any more rational if religion was suddenly abolished? Not at all. In fact new religions would spring up overnight because that's what many people want. Mindless behaviour is not confined to the religious, and rational behaviour is not the preserve of the non-religious. Apparently the greatest scientist who ever lived was deeply religious - Newton. Didn't seem to stop him. It may even have inspired him. Horses for courses.

Irfan,
I hesitate to engage you since you seen to have enough on you hands at the moment.And something inside me says don’t kick someone when everyone else is …

But the question you pose:
“But I'd like someone on this forum to name me just one Muslim ruler who was able to systematically murder 6 million Jews. Just one”
Implies that you are genuinely unaware of such instances. So I’ll start off the list [ OTHERS CAN ADD TO IT -AS THEY SEE FIT-AS WE GO ALONG!] :
-The Armenian genocide in Muslim Turkey
- A heap of lesser genocides during the Ottoman/ Turkish occupation of the Balkans & Greece.
-The Persian /Iranian cleaning of Iran of Zoroastrianism & Bahá'ís
-The black Sudanese genocide currently underway .
And everywhere you look from Indonesia to Sth Thailand to Bangla -desh to Pakistan to Egypt you see non-Muslim minorities being murdered, raped, relegated to second class status & dispossessed of their lands…

Is this just men /women behaving badly or something more systematic?

One of them most damming & frightening aspects re the above (as with the London bombings) is most Moslems will deny the above happenings -But when confronted with the evidence will straight-away jump from denial mode to justification mode…

Well, Irfan, do you really want a list of Islam's abuse of jews which came under its control? It would be a very long list indeed. And how about the systematic oppression of Berbers, Persians, Kurds, Hindus, and Christians? We know about these opressions because some have survived. We don't know about the oppressions which were successful - where none of the victim people survived.
Ever heard of the word dhimmi?
Ever wondered why Lebanon was created? Because the French stepped in to stop the slaughter of the Christians under Syrian control. Of course, neither the Syrian political elite, nor the Syrian populace, could stomach this interference in their affairs, and set out to undermine the new safe haven. The christians are now a minority in Lebenon, and control from Damascus is stronger now than ever (Ceder revolution being a false Spring, as it turned out).
If you want more records of oppression and systematic slaughter of conquered peoples, don't hesitate to ask.
Most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be most of the time on most issues. But the religion itself is pre-fuedal fascism.

camo asks: "Well, Irfan, do you really want a list of Islam's abuse of jews which came under its control? It would be a very long list indeed. And how about the systematic oppression of Berbers, Persians, Kurds ..."

I presume camo must be suggesting that Kurds are Jewish, Berbers are Hindu and Persians are all Callithumpians.

And I guess camo will also suggest that the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans during the 1990's was carried out by a band of Shi'ite Serbs. And those poor Darfur Shintos.

Yes, there have been terrible atrocities carried out by political and military entities of all faiths. virtually all the nasty acts against Kurds, Berbers and Darfurians are being carried out not in the name of Islam (after all, their victims are all Muslims!) but rather in the name of some nationalistic or tribalistic sentiment. And I wonder who the Muslim fanatics learned nationalism from ...

Yet none of you can mention a genocide comparable in scale to the Holocaust.

Once again, I pose the question. Which Muslim ruler carried out anything comparable to the Holocaust? Some of you have mentioned dhimmi (which literally means 'protected'). Which Muslim ruler organised the killing of 6 million Jewish dhimmis?

Back to the topic. The anti-Semitic hatred which led to the Holocaust is now being transferred from Jews to Muslims.

Irfan: You are attempting to defend the undefendable where there are moslems there's bloody brutal cowardly killings including (dis)honour murders public hangings and stonings especially to the victims of rape. In Palestine yet another truce has been signed and almost immediately broken. When someone marries, dies, passes wind out come the clowns with their kalashnikovs and fire into the air. And these things as well as be-headings after atrocious torture all by these adherents of the religion of love and peace are happening TODAY - NOT in the distant past but TODAY! I would much rather not have these brutalities and stupidities in the fair land of Oz thank you! You rightfully say that the wonderful caring loving moslems never slew six million Jews but irfan the leading moslems of the day were one with Hitler. As well there were moslem brigades in the German S/S.The reason moslems did not commit this atrocity was because they have never had the opportunity yet the moslem clowns in the Mid-east say over and over again that they intend to exterminate all Jews in Israel.
By the way you never answered the points in my other post of the 23 February, NOT one but you couldn't eh? Instead you waffle on about Bush converting to pagan islam then in comes trtl and using his vast intellect talks about pretzels - funny people you pagan moslems eh irfan? Regards, numbat

TNT thanx for your kind words.. glad to see SOMEone is detecting a tiny bit of warmth :) I'll send young Pericles and F.H. to you for some much needed therapy.. all they see is 'hate'.

HORUS.. well said.. (the List).

To me IRF any 'similar' list to the Holocaust is irrelevant. I am basically only interested in the foundations.. the founders.. the cornerstones of the various faiths. From that..all else becomes clear.

If Pablo Escobar had peddled a religion I can well imagine that huge numbers of people in Medayin for whom he was a generous benefactor would instantly become his evangelists going hither and thither to promote him as a modern prophet or saviour. Of course, they would not mention 2 things.
1/ His benevolence was based on brutality and drug money.
2/ If you cross him, he will kill you, without mercy.

Now.. this is where you will have to forgive me for repeating what I've been saying all along.

A) JESUS... THE MESSIAH.
neither by teaching or example never engaged in
-killings,
-raids,
-war,
-forming armies,
-executing enemies,
-declaring states.

But he DID.
-Heal the sick
-Give sight to the Blind
-Raise the dead.
-promised to forgive sin and proclaimed the Gospel of Salvation.

So, I find my heart reaching out to Him without the slightest doubt or hesitation and embracing Him as He is reported to be, "Our Saviour"
"But these (signs) are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing you may have life in His name" John 20:31

B) MOHAMMED did all the things listed above which Jesus did not,
and produced a book which authorizes:
-Beating of wives (4.34)
-Sexual abuse of captive slave women. (23:5-6)
-Prostitution in the name of 'temporary marraige'. (4:24)
-Provides 'blank cheque' for unlimited sexual encounters for himself "any woman who offers herself" in temporary or permanent marraige) 33:50

YVONNE.. is all this making more sense than the Bible mate ? you need to look 'CLOSE....ly'

Boaz... you're endlessly pointing out how much better christianity is than Islam.

Kindly address these sections of Leviticus:

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Cont'd

Oh please TRTL.

I'll save Boaz the trouble of having to tell us all yet again.

The Bible is to be read as metaphor - you cannot take what it says literally.

Try to remember this, it will save us all a lot of discomfort.

It is only the scriptures from other religions that have to be read literally.

Irfan, Today (Monday, 12 March 2007 11:42:38 AM)

"Back to the topic. The anti-Semitic hatred which led to the Holocaust is now being transferred from Jews to Muslims".

Irfan you know this is BULLDUST. Go back and read Kenan Malik's excellent essay, "The Islamophobia Myth" (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html) and stop believing in codswallop.

Also I noticed an excellent post about a week ago by Savage Pencil (Monday, 5 March 2007 10:27:12 AM). I don't think that you have answered him, have you?

Irfan, Today (Monday, 12 March 2007 11:42:38 AM)

"Back to the topic. The anti-Semitic hatred which led to the Holocaust is now being transferred from Jews to Muslims".

Irfan you know this is BULLDUST. Go back and read Kenan Malik's excellent essay, "The Islamophobia Myth" (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html) and stop believing in codswallop.

Also I noticed an excellent post about a week ago by Savage Pencil (Monday, 5 March 2007 10:27:12 AM). I don't think that you have answered him/her, have you?

Well, yes, Pericles, the rest of that post outlined more of Leviticus, but it's all pretty similar. Basically death, or if you're lucky exile, to anyone who puts their genitals in anything that isn't approved. Including people of the same gender, or women who happen to be menstruating.

I was going to try and finish by pre-empting what I suspect the response would be, but you've gone and pre-empted my pre-empting. Bravo.

The point I was going to add, was that clearly, all these ancient books can be interpreted in a variety of ways - and christians interpreting the Qu'ran tend to do it from a hostile viewpoint - but such a hostile viewpoint can just as easily be extended to the christians.

I’m sorry Irfan but you can’t bring up the Holocaust and then run and hide.

Here’s why. The butchering of the Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza by your Prophet;

‘During the night trenches sufficient to contain the dead bodies of the men were dug across the market place of the city. In the morning, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, commanded the male captives to be bought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company as it came up was made to sit down in a row on the brink of the trench destined for its grave, there beheaded, and the bodies cast therein ….The butchery, begun in the morning, lasted all day, and continued by torchlight till the evening. Having thus drenched the market place with the blood of seven or eight hundred victims, and having given command for the earth to be smoothed over their remains, Mahomet returned from the horrid spectacle to solace himself with the charms of Rihana, whose husband and all her male relatives had just perished in the massacre.’

- Muir, W. ‘The Life of Muhammed’

Of course, while the NAZI’s beat Muhammed in sheer numbers of Jews killed your Prophet beats the NAZI’s in hypocrisy hands down. Even Adolf Hiltler never claimed to be in league with the God of the Universe while hacking heads off. Neither did Hitler hypocritically espouse the supposed compassion, forgiveness and justice of God while engaging in genocide.

It’s all a matter of degree Irfan. Both the NAZI’s and your Prophet engaged in murder. The difference is that Mohammed was better at spin doctoring than Hitler. That is, Mohammed had the 'sense' to legitimise his atrocity by sticking a reference to it in his Holy Book (Sura 33:25). That way the whole sorry event becomes OK because it’s somehow ‘God’s Will’.

No wonder Muslims become so confused when interacting with Jews - Mohammad's example was terrible. .

TR Hitler did claim to be in league with god . He mentions how god gave him the mission of the third Reich at the Nuremburg rally and many radio broad casts. He said the German people were blessed by Jesus. He sought the support of the Vatican which was newly installed by the Italian fascists and with Mussolini helped negotiate the Vaticans financial support for the fascist revolution on Spain. Also Hitler called Eastern Europeans heathens on several occasions. The values of Nazism concepts of morality and purity were Christian values taken literally. The confusion for many is Germany was not a dark age state as was parts of Italy and Spain were at that time and as Afghanistan is today. Germany embraced the science of technology in a big way which for a dictatorship is still unusual. Nether the less Nazi Germany was modelled on a theocratic frame work and blue print.

Snappy Tom - as a pencil (savage variety) I am quite happy to be identified as an "it", rather than as him/her.

Anyway I'm going to re-post my question to Irfan.
"Irfan, if there are so many parallels between the treatment of Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s and the treatment of Muslims by the West today, why weren't all of the mosques of America damaged or destroyed in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001 and many hundreds of American Muslims slain at the same time?"

Could it be Irfan, that you're sprechen utter crap.

TRTL (and Pericles)

such a list was to be expected mate.. and you asked me to address those points, so I'll try.

1/ Leviticus was addressed to Israel as a state. A holy nation, set apart for God. There role was to bring Salvation and blessing to the world. There is nothing metaphorical or symbolic about those things, which were intended to be carried out exactly as you read.

2/ The important question for us is... "Does the Mosaic law apply to Christians and if so, how ?"

You will, I hope notice an important difference between my list of Islamic issues and your list in Leviticus.

My post showed what unnholy conduct Islam ALLOWS.
Your list showed what unholy conduct is PROHIBITED.

Can you show me where even the Old testament makes prostitution/temporary marriage in any way acceptable ?

Can you show me where the Old Testament specifically allows the sexual use of captive slave girls ? (tread carefully here.. it must STATE the matter clearly not be something you 'conclude' based on what you think is suggested)

Does the Old testament specifically approve of wife beating ?

The Mosaic law included reference to the Covenant with God, which has universal application, AND specific Israelite rules of conduct for the nation at that time. It is the nation being addressed, not mankind as a whole.

When Jesus said "Do you think I have come to change the Law ? I have come to fulfill the law" can I suggest you look at HIM and then observe his behavior in fulfilling that law, it might help you to prune down some of the list you provided.

You see.. in the end it is with the Messiah, Jesus or the man Mohammed that we are confronted with. One brought holiness, the other ... mass killings supervised by himself.

Boaz you need proof of god before you can claim anything as holy or unholy. Without previous proof of god the whole holy debate is ugly and dirty.

Umm West:
I cant stop laughing, so in an about way, Hitler was actually acting in accordance with the Protocols of Zion?
Or was it a cultural thing that Allah made him do it?

West, I will demonstrate what you wrote is false, just as the false hood of Mohammad was a Prophet of God and was a very loving – kissy -cuddly teddy bear; but it was only if people misunderstood him, did not appease him or believe him then they were terminated. Just ask his Uncle.
And that’s a fact Jack, and consistent for 14 hundred odd years , the only thing changed is the date.

Perhaps Graham should raise a title of; “Hitler-torial Myths any why Stalin remains a silent saint”. It will raise some Eye browse.

I am processing your request Irfan; Stand by for a three thousand page reference on Islamic Genocide from Saudi Arabia all the way to China- in 1400 years of African - European - Asian Occupation.

Sheesh Irfan better make that 6 thousand pages, processing the Barbarian Mohammedan Genocides in India Just made it bigger.

And the first 100 years of Mohammedan Cultic destroyers reached the mark well over 6 million- that’s why they created Dhimmi Irfan, they killed off all the slaves- Very stupid thing indeed.
What a coincidence , an new age slaves Tax return. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Shame- shame- shame.

I notice some people here are quoting from texts of the Koran. I also note B_D dismissing Leviticus. Yet to bring B_D back to the topic, the fact is that certain Jewish extremists on the same side as Raphael Israeli use these texts to support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories.

I know some people keep complaining about Muslims not protesting against terrorists. I'm sure Palestinian Christians must be wondering why all the so-called Christians aren't protesting over the plans of Israeli and co to strip the Palestinian territories of their churches?

Perhaps some of you should read Peter Manning's description of what is happening in Bethlehem. You can find a summary here ...

http://madhabirfy.blogspot.com/2007_03_12_archive.html

Hi Irf
I don't actually 'dismiss' Leviticus... not at all. I am simply pointing out that there were a lot of rules established for the operation of the Israelites as a "state" or theocratic community in those days.

Many Jews(Settlers)are still actually LIVING in that old Theocratic mental zone.

I can understand this Jewish mindset, but we need to be clear, it is not Leviticus which is used by Jews to justify the claim on the land, it is Genesis. The promises made were to 'your offspring forever' so that does not in fact have much relevance to the priestly system that Leviticus covers.

Have I not outlined those promises and the nature of this position in other posts ? yes..I have, just as I've outlined the Hamas position which is equally strong for total 100% ethnic cleansing of the Jews.

I've shown these 2 extreme positions, and have further suggested that in the light of these intractable poles, that the best thing IS an ethnic cleansing based on compassion. i.e. provide a place to live, land with equal productivity for the Palestinians most aggrieved by the establishement of Israel (those in the camps)
Perhaps if I was going to use a Biblical verse to underpin this it would be "As far as it depends on you, live peacefully with all men"
In the absense of peaceful attitudes on both extremes, the next best thing is to separate them totally. Given that Israel will not move, history (not any sense of morality) suggests that the weaker party should. I point to our own present existence in Australia as evidence for this.

One problem though, is that the Settler movement will most likely seek to continue expanding on the basis of those Genesis promises and that will further alienate more Palestinians who are currently not so effected by the existing situation.

When Hilali makes a remark, or Israeli .. we Australians are more likely to regard one as a whacko than the other due to our historical religious traditions being Judao/Christian. I state this as an observation, not a justification.

Irfan,
Don't tell me that the story in the OZ yesterday, about it being unislamic to pay income tax is misreported. Apparently some of your "thick sheiks" have been telling their congregations this. In other words, advocating the non payment of tax.

One letter writer said this morning-- "That if it unislamic to pay income tax, then so should the acceptance of welfare payments"

Another valid critisism of Islam? They constantly do it to themselves.

Some days, I guess you can't win a trick.

Irfan originally wrote that in the media criticism game it is not a level playing field. I would have tended to agree but yesterday’s news that some clerics preached non-payment of taxes is already yesterday’s news. When the Family First party suggested that lesbians should be burnt as witches there was barley mention in the press. That should have been up there with Hilalis comments. When Hill Song stole thousands upon thousands of tax payer’s dollars earmarked for a desperate indigenous community there was barley a couple of paragraphs in the news. Much of what George Pell says is inflammatory and what I regard as anti-Australian and two newspapers treats him as if he is some sort of intellectual. In the crux of the matter Irfan is right but I say because of terrorism which did not stop at an isolated occurrence but continues then it is expected that Islam will be treated like this. Irfan you must remind yourself it is not the Islamic way of life being threatened, I use the word threat as in purposefully threatened by agency. You cannot deny some Islamists have in actuality threatened to destroy our way of life. The response by western society is quite restrained and gentle considering what the stakes are. You can’t compare it to the holocaust, Muslims are not being rounded up and interned for being Muslims and Jews did not commit terrorist acts against Nazi Germany nor threatened to ethnically cleanse German culture. Anti-Islam has been created by the deeds and rhetoric if Islamists. It was Bin Laden’s strategy to provoke the west but what he accomplished was sowing the seeds of his religions own destruction eventually and it is already beginning to repel its own believers. I say this because now the religion is unsustainable , swamped with too many questions for which it cannot hold answers and the terrorist acts will stay in the minds of the world for generations. Bin Laden has forced in the minds of the world for the terrorism and Islam to become one and the same.

West, I think you've hit the nail on the head - though I think in allowing Bin Laden to monopolise a view of Islam we're not doing the innocent people within the religion justice.

BD, Just for starters-

Women
- If captured in war, can be taken as wives but if they don’t please the victor may not be sold into slavery. A nice concession. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

- must submit to their husband's whims(Colossians 3:18-19, Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, Corinthians 11:8-9, Romans 1:26-27, Genesis 3:16)

- may be sold by her father as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-8)

- if engaged, should not be raped by a stranger (unless she is a slave) (Leviticus 19:20-21)

Polygamy by the way, is OK, but only for men (Exodus 21:10, Kings 11:3, Matthew 25:1 and 5:32)

If you happen to impregnate a prostitute, then you should kill her (Genesis 38:16, 40)
However, prostitution itself is OK when the money raised is used to support needy Christians (Isaiah 23:17-18) and sinners should marry whores (Hosea 1:2).

God may have also your wife raped by your neighbour if you sin (Samuel 12:11)

This is what happens when people base their arguments on interpretations of ancient writings, regardless of context – particularly those writings with many contradictions and inconsistencies. You can’t cherry-pick the bits that support you and ignore those that contradict.

This is what gives rise to the number of spin-off religious groups that would kill over their interpretation being the only true one, and not just between religions, but within them as well.

Perhaps in matters of true faith, it should be all or nothing.

Most of the issues argued over in these sort of threads are actually cultural and distorting them into purely religious issues doesn't help.

Wobbbbbles... *ouch* :)

good try old son.. not bad. Now lets look more closely.

1/ Women captured in War. Yes, you are correct, they may be taken as WIVES by the Captor, and if they don't please him, they are to be freed. If she wants freedom, then a few nites is enough to say "sorry, this is not working out" and she is a free woman.

Gen 38:16 (there is NO verse 40 ) Judah was deceived by Tamar. Where do you get "kill" her from ? (probably the same place as the mysterious verse 40 :)

2/ Women must submit to mans whim. NEWSFLASH.. so must men to their wives whims "give to each other..... your conjugal rights"
Col 3:18 "Wives, submit to your husbands.
Col 3:19 "Husbands dont be harsh with your wives.
(its called balance, and the 2 sides of the marriage coin)

3/ May be sold as a "sex" slave ? Ex 21:7-8 Hardly, SERVANT is what I read. But it does refer to marraige also. This is not 'interpretation' I'm just reporting what it actually says.

4/ LEV 19:20 "Raped by a Stranger". The word is "sleep with" not rape. It does not mention consentual or non. I report..you decide.

5/ "Your wife raped by a neighbour" II Sam 12:11 Notice the context ? God is speaking (via Nathan) in terms of battle defeat, David has brought it upon himself, by having Uriah killed, the result will be untold shame and trouble for David. Referring to his wives as God did, he is touching David at the most relevant point of his sin. God does not arrange rape, but people do. Nathan is simply relating the reality of the day.

6/ "Sinners should marry Whores" Hos 1 err..and why not ? If they can redeem their sordid lives by marrying them and giving them stability and family... you have a problem with this ? :)

DISREGARD CONTEXT and we end up with a host of pretexts.
Hitler is a case_in_point. (cleansing_of_the_Temple) and 6million dead Jews later..... etc.

It is truly sad that you waste so much time justifying your painfully extremist position, Boaz, that Christianity is always above reproach, and Islam is forever beneath contempt, with pathetic little tap-dances like this one.

Can you not for one moment see, that instead of arguing that black is white, white is black, this is literal but that is metaphor, this can be translated as rape while that can be construed as marriage, you would serve your cause, and the rest of us, by looking for ways to be open, accepting, conciliatory and tolerant of differences?

That was rhetorical, by the way.

I don't for a moment expect you to answer.

I had to laugh Boaz in trying to spin wobbles to your view you confirm the bible is immoral. There is also somewhere but I couldnt be bothered looking for it that a widow must marry her brother in law. What shocks me is your own misogyny trying to defend such evil. Yes evil because women are willfully exploited and harmed in biblical logic. Really the bible is disgusting and more so because it is an occult guide which people believe in and follow. Just try and fathom how many women have suffered , not only from believers acting out what the bible says but also from believers treating women as inferior because that is the misogynist integrity of the message the bible installs into its worshippers.

West is quite correct in saying that the current debate within Western society re. the role of Islam can't be compared to the lead-up to the Holocaust. One wonders why Irfan likes to keep postulating that there is such a link. I've read quite a bit on Europe in the 1920s and and 1930s and one of the things that is strangely absent were Jewish demonstrators wielding placards saying things like "Behead Those Who Say That Judaism is Violent". There is just NO comparison.

Let's also not forget that Islamists wanted to demonstrate their contempt for Western civilisation long before Obarmy Sin Laden entered the fray on September 11, 2001. I can well remember a televised debate between British Muslim leaders and brave supporters of free speech during the immediate aftermath of the publication of "The Satanic Verses". To directly quote what one of these British Muslim leaders said - "Islam does not turn the other cheek." Hence their support for the hounding of Salman Rushdie

So let me get this right. If a few imams in one prayer hall in Lakemba tell their congregation that paying taxes is haraam, does that mean that all 300,000 Muslims from over 60 different countries (many of which probably only set foot in the mosque once a year) are held responsible? Including the Muslims who exposed these thick-Sheiks in the first place?

If that is the case, I'd like to declare that all believing Christians should be held responsible for the priests who molest little boys. And let's blame all Tamils for the suicide terror attacks of the Tamil Tigers.

Anyway, I notice that someone here says they've read a few books on European history. I suggest they read some stuff from genocide studies programs taught at universities. The parallels are alarming.

The parallels are not alarming Irfan, chiefly because they are non-existent. There is NO parallel between the discourse about Islam in Western societies and the vicious anti-Semitism that was propagated by the Nazis and other fascist groups in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. The only people who believe this nonsense about so-called Islamophobia being the new anti-Semitism are quite delusional ...

"From genocide studies programs taught at universities".
Good one Irfan, that explains everything-

If it is your idea, then we should close down Universities or at the very least withdraw all public funding , then uninstall Wuddu Machines and Infidel exclusion zones the new age idiots in Australian Universities have seen fit to create, The new Islamic Apartheid .
And that is in Australian Universities, Not Saudi Arabia.
The place is riddled with Looters – liars and thief’s.

They obviously no longer function as the bastions of knowledge and advanced education and are now Mushroom fertilizer factories and useless idiot Indoctrination /recruitment centers.

Things are looking very dark bleak for the future.

Irfan,
Good try. I reckon the christian priests that prey on young kids should be hung and the senior ones that covered it up should be hung as well.

However, i have never heard of a priest advocating, from the pulpit, that pedophilla was OK or to break the taxation laws, or any laws.

You are saying it is all the problem of the muslim clerics that advocate not paying taxes. You mean to tell us that muslim clerics do not preech islamic doctrine? How do they become clerics and teachers then? Even the most senior clerics do not have a say in what is preeched?

Will you now admit that the clerics responsible are liars and Islam does not condone tax evasion. Will you also state openly that the comments of Sheik Feiz Mahommed in relation to aussie girls asking for rape, by their dress, is not only wrong but against all Islamic teachings. Then Sheik Mahommed is also an outright liar.

Do you not find it strange that muslim clerics do not have to follow Islamic doctrine, but can preech whatever they wish.

No wonder Muslims have a credibility problem. This latest episode simply gives your opponants more ammunition

"Will you also state openly that the comments of Sheik Feiz Mahommed in relation to aussie girls asking for rape, by their dress, is not only wrong but against all Islamic teachings. Then Sheik Mahommed is also an outright liar."

Banjo, you might want to read the very first article posted by me on this website.

The Exclusive Brethren have also sought (and obtained) legislative concessions in areas such as tax, workplace relations and even the use of computers in schools. I guess you wil respond by telling me that the Exclusive Brethren aren't Christians.

Irfan,
I did read your first article for OLO and I had not seen it before as it was before I got onto OLO. Its dated 13-5-2005 and titled "Justifying Rape......"

I'm glad that you have the right attitude and call Faiz Mohammed as he is. One who manipulates doctrine for his own purposes. I would call him a fraud and charlatan.I wonder why your religion does not get rid of him and how he ever attracted large audiences is a mystery. But you know that in every pub/club in Aus people were saying "Thats what they are teaching the young muslims, no wonder our girls are being raped". Every other muslim spokesperson said that Sheik Faiz should not say that, but none,except you, said it was incorrect and wrong and not islamic teaching.

Now, take it, you are saying the same about the clerics that preached that paying taxea was unislamic. If they are wrong they should be exposed for what they are, Liars.

In relation to the Exclusive Bretheren, or whatever they call themselves. To get the tax concessions you speak of, they must qualify as a religion as must other religions. Muslim, Hindu and Buddest and other christian denominations. If anyone thinks they do not qualify then they should inform the ATO. I know nothing about them and I am not religous at all. I was brought up with a lot of christian teachings, but gave it away when I realised that adults did not practice the religion I was taught as a child.

Irfan - in your post of Wednesday, 14 March 2007 8:26:15 PM you said:
"Anyway, I notice that someone here says they've read a few books on European history. I suggest they read some stuff from genocide studies programs taught at universities. The parallels are alarming."

I am that person who has done the reading on Europe in the 1920s and 1930s - if that period isn't relevant to an understanding of the Holocaust then what else is?

Yes there are some really nasty things being said about Muslims in some online forums and blogs but the people doing this are not mainstream. On the other hand it was the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. [see http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816 ]

Hmmm. Irfan, doesn't that have echoes of what was said (and done) to Jews in Europe in the middle of last century?

Actually the thing that really disgusts me about your bleatings Irfan, is that the scurrilous Tsarist Russian fiction "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is widely published throughout the Arab and Muslim world. The meticulously annotated and non-disputed article at Wikipedia notes that since 1948 "many Arab governments funded new printings of the Protocols, and taught them in their schools as historical fact".

The article goes on to note:
"There are at least nine different Arabic translations of the Protocols and more editions than in any other language except German. The Protocols also figure prominently in the anti-Semitic propaganda distributed internationally by the Arab countries and have spread to other Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia."

The Protocols have also been widely publicised by the Islamic regime in Iran since 1979, while the charter of Hamas explicitly refers to the Protocols accepting the Tsarist lies as factual.

Last night I made the following statement: "The only people who believe this nonsense about so-called Islamophobia being the new anti-Semitism are quite delusional ..."

I'd like to add to that by stating that anybody who thinks that so-called Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism is a complete charlatan.

Irfan two wrongs dont make a right. I consider the Exclusive Brethren a social terrorist organisation and yes I believe they should be treated the same way as violent terrorists. I think priests as anybody who abuses children should be punished for abusing Children and the churches who protect child abusers should be disolved in this country. Mosques which harbour or foster terrorists should also be disolved. The similarities between Islams reputation and the Catholic churches are strong. Islam is identified as terrorist fostering and the catholic Church is identified as child abuse. I try not to but I cant help think of Catholic parents as irresponsible for allowing children near their cult institutions. Anyway brainwashing children into god belief is child abuse in its self and all cults are guilty of that.

The important thing is if the belief system was true and perfect terrorism or child abuse would be impossible. Obviously if terrorism can occur in the name of islam or a priest of god can molest a child then that whole religion is corrupt. It does reflect on other believers because they accpt that corruption when they chose to have a religion. For the crimes of both Christianity and Islam all members of those religion must accept their burden of guilt for those crimes because they stay in their "club" in full knowledge what that "club" is capable of. Unlike a secular police force or government body which has commited a crime religion cannot reform and repent because the ideology of superstition devotion remains.

West - have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He actually refers to religious indoctrination of minors as child abuse, and rails against the description of "a Muslim child" or "a Catholic child" on the basis that they have never had the right to make an informed choice on the matter.
Whilst of course, the vast majority of parents have their hearts in the right place (inculcating their offspring with a solid moral platform), I can see his point. Also, when one looks at the extremely high association between one's religious upbringing as a child and the persistence of said religion into adult life (I think Dawkins quotes studies showing around 7 in 8), it is not difficult to cast religion as a predominantly cultural, rather than devotional phenomenon. Hence, we end up with people fervently espousing the veracity of the beliefs of a club into which they were born, through nothing else than an accident of birth.
Whilst these comments are directed at religion in general (and anyone who is prepared to commit violence in the name of an unprovable set of beliefs), Islam worries me particularly, due to the disproportionate number of random, indiscriminate violent acts committed in its name.

Stickman no I have not read Dawkins, I don’t feel I need to. There is no real debate, god does not exist. Claims of god are based on preferences of those who suffer a chronic interdependent syndrome of mortality crisis and moral panic.

Obviously children are born without a belief in gods, ghosts or spirits. It is not until the monsters under the bed stage of development can a child begin to use the imagination to go beyond personality fetish of objects and pictures and construct an abstract belief in something that does not exist. It does take brainwashing to believe in god and it is a form of child abuse. The parent or institution is burdening a child to a life of mortality crisis, moral internalising and bondage to superstition. Consequently it is quite likely the reason why religious children and teenagers always appear to be freaked out and living in a state of surrealistic unreality.

"However, i have never heard of a priest advocating, from the pulpit, that pedophilla was OK or to break the taxation laws, or any laws."

I've never heard imams preaching against tax. I first heard about it when it was in the paper. Still, I guess I am no longer part of the vicious and ficticious Islamist conspiracy to take over the West.

Irfan,
Seeing that I made the comment you quoted, I will respond to your post.

I do not know if the ultimate aim for Islam is to take over the world or not. However I get the message that the more Muslims that are in a country the more social problems that country has. This is of concern to me, as I do not want us to have the problems that many European countries appear to be having.

Add to this, that one wonders WHY devoted muslims want to come and live in a country governed by non-muslims. Is it simply because Islamic rule has stuffed up the living and economic conditions of the Islamic countries? Maybe they see themselves as pioneers for Islam!

"However I get the message that the more Muslims that are in a country the more social problems that country has. This is of concern to me, as I do not want us to have the problems that many European countries appear to be having."

So you are now limiting the problem to European countries. Are we an EU country? Do we pursue the sort of assimilationist policies of France and Germany? And what problems is Singapore having with its 15% Muslim minority? Perhaps you can ask Lee Kwon Yue when he arrives in Australia in a fortnight.

Also, in what sense were the Cronulla riots and the Sydney gang rapes caused by Islam? Does Islam teach men to rape women? If it does, what textual evidence do you have to support this? And no, by evidence I don't mean something that JihadWatch has manufactured. I mean what evidence do you have that Muslim religious jurists have interpreted the texts to deduce a ruling that rape is mandatory.

"Add to this, that one wonders WHY devoted muslims want to come and live in a country governed by non-muslims. Is it simply because Islamic rule has stuffed up the living and economic conditions of the Islamic countries?"

How do you define "Islamic rule"? Are you suggesting that Muslim-majority states are all ruled as theocracies? What evidence do you have for this contention?

Oh irfan: Look at the countries that are islamic and/or the western countries with islamic citizens and no social problems - come on now sport!
Wait until the islamic clowns order the islamic death-lovers to begin a bombing campaign in Singapore like say in Thailand - a peaceful country one time well relatively so.
You are right here irfan the Cronulla riots were the work of the blood thirsty Baptist Women's group. It was they who attacked surf lifesavers NOT, as many islamophobes claim, the adherents of the peace loving pagan moslems.
Again irfan study islamic nations, read newspapers or watch TV learn how they govern the masses in most islamic nations the minority have a type of a democratic system and even less allow? their nationals to change their religion. In Saudi Arabia for one Christians cannot meet cannot hold a Bible study or Church service cannot even carry a Bible openly. And definitely cannot erect Churches irfan please cease making a total twit of yourself as regards the aims of islam.
regards, numbat

Irfan if there was god why is his words not perfect? I think what molems and christians both suffer is Kubriks 'Eyes wide shut' on this matter. Why do you think the Red Cross never kill people and drain their blood? It is because it is not in the Red Cross's constitution to do so. It is effectively imposible that the Red Cross will do so. If you join the Red Cross you know the Red cross will eject you and disown you if you murder on their behalf and they wont accept the benifits , the blood you gained for them.God is not as perfect as the Red Cross for if he existed he allows such things to occur in his name. Those who choose to believe in Allah or Christ or whatever are accepting that terrorism , child molesting, ripping off the elderly , persecuting others , rioting , violence and judgement are part and parcel of what it is to belong to a fraternity of a religion. The various football codes are also struggling to confront this problem with players and although losing the battle at least they confront it which is the opposite to what any religion is doing especially Islam and christianity.

'A RADICAL Muslim cleric linked to the World Trade Centre bombing is coming to Melbourne as a key speaker at a major Islamic conference.

Sheik Bilal Philips is listed by the US Government alongside Osama bin Laden as an accused conspirator in the 1993 Twin Towers car bombing which killed six and injured more than 1000.
Australian authorities are now considering the sheik's application to enter Australia next month.

But investigations have revealed the sheik:

ADVOCATES marriage to pre-pubescent girls.......'

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21399450-2862,00.html

The problem with moderate Muslims like Irfan is that they provide cover for the lunatic fringe of Islam and legistimise the existence of mental cases like Sheik Bilal Philips.

It far easier and more practical to debunk the WHOLE of Islam without trying to split hairs as to who is moderate and sane, and who is extreme and looney.

Irfan

I don't know how you keep up the stamina to try and show another side of Islam to some of the posters. My experience with some posters have been that it does not matter what authority you may have, how long you may have experienced living in mainly Muslim societies or societies with a major number of Muslims, if it does not fit in the picture it will be discarded. Preferably with a scary website, which if they were indeed Muslim ASIO would probably be knocking (?)on their door. It doesn't matter that scary websites exist for any extremist idea.

There are many, many ordinary people who see Muslims, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans also as ordinary people. Whether a God (or Gods)exists, that would be another interesting debate.

The issue we should be discussing is the rise of fundamentalism, not ONLY in Islam, but also in Christianity. Both are equally scary to me. The rise of extremist (and if there is a God, erroneous) ideas.

I believe the rise of extremism is directly related to the sense of uncertainty that globalism brings. Governments of all kinds seem to be less able to deliver the security that most people want.

I've been on your weblog, but found the many ugly anonymous posts too putrid. How cowardly is an Anonymous post.

I agree, whenever Hilali coughs, let alone opens his mouth, we get bombarded with 'news' reports. He makes good copy, especially because he doesn't speak English, which in itself could be construed as 'suspect'.

Yvonne, what authority does Irfan have? He's a lawyer for Chrissake!! And how long has he experienced living in mainly Muslim countries? I understood that he came to Australia from Pakistan as a very small child - and has since balloooned out.

I too don't like Christian fundamentalists ("Bible-bashers") but I have yet to see any of them demonstrate their madness by holding up placards which read: "Behead those who say that Christianity is violent". But I do have a picture of an Islamic fundamentalist holding up a Muslim version of this slogan in a London demonstration just over twelve months ago

Tom..good2c you snapping away at various blinkered_posters :)

Now we need to sink our teeth into some others.

SMH reported (as per the link above) regarding the Sheikh Phillips as follows:

"ADVOCATES marriage to pre-pubescent girls."

Now..to be fair, this is not a quote from Philips, it is a "report of his position". Still, the fact that Yasser Solimon sees fit to denegrate his view, supports the idea that it is truthful re his actual position.

[Muslim leader Yasser Soliman said the sheik's views on young girls were distasteful, unfortunate and not a true reflection of Islam.]

Did I read that correctly ? NOT a true reflection of Islam ?

Ooo....k.. lets look AT "Islam" as contained in a number of hadiths about the same issue of Mohammad's marriage to Aisha.

[Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj........

Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of NINE years of age.]

I report... you decide. "Islam" does...or does not allow/promote(by example) the marriage to pre-or near pre pubescent girls ?

Apart from outside non Islamic influences, why would this ever change ? So if Islam was able to remain stable in any given country from the days of its establishment till now, the custom would still be the same. And.. surprise surprise.. for many older Saudies it is.
(Google this)

Yvonne.. are you actually seeing this ? are u going to persist in saying that its our 'western' views which colour our understanding of Islam and only impose our own understanding on it ? did you read that hadith ? would you like to read the full version ? You can.. just google it, heck..I'll save you the trouble.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
There.. read to your hearts content. Then, I'll be happy for you to explain to us how this is 'not' what_it appears to be :)
cheers

Irfan,
Firstly, congratulations on your score of 250 plus. I bet your bating average is the highest on OLO. Well done, and I am sure that you make yourself available to respond to comments, unlike many writers, has much to do with your score. I certainly appreciate that.

I do not limit problems to European countries, but European countries are a good example of western countries that have had a considerable influx of muslims of more recent times. There is no doubt that they have considerable problems.

One would think that the oil rich middle east countries would be flooded with immigrants. After all with the ammount of money they have, they should have the higheet living standard in the world.

Iraq is a bit different because since the Yanks toppled Saddam for them,(recall the dancing in the street) the population has been busy sorting out their pecking order, the only way they know how, by blowing each other up.

By the way, you have not answered my query of WHY devoted muslims want to come to a country with an alien culture.

"you have not answered my query of WHY devoted muslims want to come to a country with an alien culture."

Banjo, I'm not sure which devoted Muslims you speak of. The theology I was taught was that a devoted Muslim should adopt the culture of the country s/he migrates to.

What we see in Australia is not Islam as a religion but numerous Islams as ethno-religious identities, most of which are of little relevance to 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims and to Muslim converts.

What makes this particularly sad is that the ethnic tribalism of the 1st generation migrants has been glorified by the Howard govt which deliberately ensured its Muslim Reference Group was stacked out with ethnic tribal leaders.

Mr Howard accuses Muslims of not adopting democracy and then goes ahead and handpicks which Muslims he will talk to. The ethnic fueds of these leaders is given national prominence.

So why aren't the rest of the more mainstream Muslims speaking out? Some are. The rest are too busy getting on with their lives. That might explain why Howard acknowledged that 99% of Aussie Muslims have completely integrated.

Ifran as an Australian you have to realise that Howard is irrelevant to Australians. Howards divide and conquer strategies are political discourse which influence is confined to the ivory tower of Canberra and a couple of puppet news papers and shock jocks. The only people listening are little old ladies with dementia who will blame unemployed single obese mothers who can drive but have disbled stickers who smuggled diamonds into Australia fleeing Vietnam on a raft of hashish and heroine because they secretly belong to several trade unions which is why they hide their faces with a burkah.

I am not saying posters here hold physically justifiable reasons for fearing Islam but I am saying their fears are valid because of terrorism. That aside obviously the Christians are in direct competition to reinforce their beliefs and even though their superstition runs by the same concocted logic as Islam its bums on seats which the whole dungeons and dragons thing justifies its self on, not to mention the incoming $$$.

Obviously we need a second coming of John Lennon and at least if he is too decayed to sing then it would still be a neat magic trick.

"So why aren't the rest of the more mainstream Muslims speaking out?"

Well, if they get the sort of reception that Irfan has above, I surely can't imagine...

Several people who post here are so obdurate in their Islamophobia that there is mostly little point in engaging with them (which is why I mostly don't). However, I'm reasonably sure that the people who rant on about Muslims in online forums aren't exactly representative of the general community ;)

Having said that, while it's sometimes moderately amusing for me to read, this kind of sustained Islamophobic venting is probably quite offensive to any Muslims who might happen to read the discussion. Given some of the crap that's written above, why would any Muslim want to invite abuse by attempting to participate?

I have no great love of Islam (or ay other religion), but I have a strong abhorrence of bigotry - which is all too apparent here.

"I too don't like Christian fundamentalists ("Bible-bashers") but I have yet to see any of them demonstrate their madness by holding up placards which read: "Behead those who say that Christianity is violent". But I do have a picture of an Islamic fundamentalist holding up a Muslim version of this slogan in a London demonstration just over twelve months ago"

No, you just see them distributing leaflets calling upon them to pray that God destroys Buddhist, Hindu and Masonic temples. You just see them openly flouting orders of the family court. You just see them campaigning to re-introduce immigration policies which discriminate against anyone deemed Muslim (even if they be a family of Egyptian Copts!).

And it makes so much sense to judge 1.2 billion people by the actions of one person. Lots of wisdom and logic on display there.

Christian fundamentalists are more than just 'bible bashers'. If that was all, they could be easily ignored. It is all in the degree of sophistication that violence is promoted and used as an end to a means.

It could be argued that the 20 to 30million strong Christian fundamentalists have more clout, both financially and politically to influence life for the rest of us.

Read up on the influence some well known Christians have within AIPAC, the most powerful Jewish lobby in the US. Ask yourself, what do some Christians and the Jewish lobby group have to gain by working together? Or rather, why are they finding each other useful?

Don't just take my word for it. I know a few of you think I'm a simple head in the clouds bleeding heart who must have led a charmed protected life. There are enough within the Jewish, both orthodox and secular, and mainstream Christian community very concerned about this unholy alliance.

Some sites you may wish to visit are:
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/christian_zionist.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm
http://www.christianzionism.org/News&CommentaryN.asp

This last one is a Christian site and includes some interesting articles, including a letter from Jimmy Carter.
None of the above sites are pro Muslim or apologetics for Muslims. They should all ring alarm bells re the ‘peace loving’ Christians who do not wave placards threathening beheadings.

Irfan,
You said. "The theology I was brought up with was that a devoted Muslim should adopt the culture of the country s/he was going to"

If all muslims adopted that theology we would not have any problems.
You also spoke about different tribes. We seem to have a lot more than a few that speak rudely or offensively to women, which Aussie women certainly dislike. Some complain about nativity scenes at shopping malls and complain that females in scanty dresss at beaches is offensive to them. Appear to have much distain for our laws and police officers. Many seem to believe that women in western dress are whores. We must have adopted the wrong tribe.

I do not think John Howard is right if he said 99% of muslims are fully integrated.

The above mentioned matters are reason muslims have not got a good reputation. The question is what can we do about it. appeasment semms to be taken as a sign of weakness. Other than stopping muslim immigration what can you suggest?

Again I state that I DO NOT HATE MOSLEMS! though I do think that islam is despicable and I do know that islam will one day be no more.
Having said that right now I am very wary of islam and I do not like it in Australia at all. So some sad adherents claim that they have spoken back to imams but only the little imams a biggie would have them be-headed.
One of many reasons I do not think that moslems belong here is as follows: 'Khomeini's teachings on sex with infants and animals - islamic teachings on sex with infants' quote - "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby, however he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister.- end of quote. the complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, fourth edition, Darol Elm, Qom
Just one more: Islamic teachings on sex with animals - "The meat of horses, mules or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomised while alive by a man. In that case the animal must be taken outside the city and sold". end of another appalling quote. Yes I hesitated to post these would you believe! I know that most moslems in Oz probably would not agree with these teachings but some would and no doubt do and Oz would be better off without them. Regards, numbat PS The above from "Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation" web site

'I have no great love of Islam (or ay other religion), but I have a strong abhorrence of bigotry - which is all too apparent here.'

Sorry CJMorgan, but I see little bigoty contained in Irfan's threads. That is, the personal attacks are few and far between. In fact, when they do occur they are likely to come from Irfan himself.

What the participants are doing is opening up the ideology of Islam to critism and scepticism. This is a very healthy thing and indicates a vibrant society.

I see no practical reason why any religion should be off limits when it comes to questioning the fundamentals of its dogma or the conduct of its oligarchy. In fact, if there is an ideology worth critising it is the monotheism of Islam and its cousins, Judaism and Christianity.

ANY gagging of the right to freedom of speech is simply beyond the pale and detrimental to society.

With that in mind I now reserve the right to declare that Mohammad the Prophet did not talk to the angel Gabriel because angels are as about as likely as garden fairies and unicorns, that the resurrection story of Jesus is a myth of the early Church, and that there is absolutely no hard evidence that Abraham ever existed in real life.

That CJMorgan is NOT bigotry but merely telling the Truth. And while Sunnis kill Shia, Jews kill Palestinians, Christian neo-con's invade other peoples' countries and brain-washed young men detonate themselves on London buses, this Truth NEEDS to be told, and retold again, and again.

(Thankyou Irfan for providing this opportunity!)

"With that in mind I now reserve the right to declare that Mohammad the Prophet did not talk to the angel Gabriel because angels are as about as likely as garden fairies and unicorns, that the resurrection story of Jesus is a myth of the early Church, and that there is absolutely no hard evidence that Abraham ever existed in real life."

Actually TR, I don't think we disagree with very much in substance. However, while it's a bit late in this thread, I think that our disagreement might revolve around the relative evils of one version of Abrahamic mythology over another.

I could mount a case about the intrinsic involvement of Christianity in the evolution of world capitalism and all of its subsequent corollaries (like environmental depradation, third world poverty, global warming etc). Others could point out that contemporary Islamism is on only a problem because of the unhappy accident of the existence of vast oil reserves in the Middle East.

However, such cogent perspectives are entirely lost on those poor souls whose introspective worldviews are limited to their experience of their suburb, or of the world as delivered via 'Fox News' or 'A Current Affair' etc.

Irfan, re. your post of Tuesday, 20 March 2007 8:52:33 AM.

You sprayed: "And it makes so much sense to judge 1.2 billion people by the actions of one person. Lots of wisdom and logic on display there".

Did I say at any point in the post which mentioned the Islamic fundamentalist at a London demonstration, that he was somehow representative of 1.2 billion people? No I didn't, ABSOLUTELY NOT AT ALL. So I would suggest that the absence of wisdom and logic is totally on your side mate.

As for the flouting of orders of the family court, how is this comparable to chanting: "Europe you will pay. Your annihilation is on its way." Or, "We will take revenge on you. ... And take their [Danish] wives as war booty." Or, "Kill, kill Denmark." Ad nauseum.

This chanting is from a demonstration held in London on February 3rd, 2006. I have the wmv file (sound and vision) on my computer. And I should note that there were not one, or two, or three but hundreds of FASCISTS (Islamic fundamentalists) at this demonstration. Are you going to pretend that these people aren’t Muslims, Irfan?

Yvonne, re. your post of Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:29:37 AM

I read two out of the three articles that you referenced (the first link didn't work). How exactly are the 20 to 30 million strong Christian fundamentalists influencing "life for the rest of us?"

They are certainly trying to influence American foreigh policy in the Middle East (Israel and its neighbours) but are they bringing death and destruction upon the inhabitants of Darfur as is being waged by the Islamist regime in Khartoum? Why indeed is their this deathly silence about Darfur by Islamophiles such as yourself - is it because they (people of Darfur) is black?

I would suggest to you that the most "unholy alliance" at present is between those elements of the left who are marching arm in arm with the most rank type of Islamists (the homophobes, the misogynists, the anti-communists) merely because the Islamist is anti-American.

"I would suggest to you that the most "unholy alliance" at present is between those elements of the left who are marching arm in arm with the most rank type of Islamists (the homophobes, the misogynists, the anti-communists) merely because the Islamist is anti-American."

Well, I guess the lefties are merely following the example of the Right, who were quite happy to arm and train Islamist militias to fight a proxy war against communism. Let's face it. That dude in the cave's real name is Usama bin Reagan.

numbat tries to prove the existence of a deep dark evil Muslim conspiracy similar to the one his ideological forebears in England and Germany (including Winston Churchill) believed existed among those nasty "Hebrew money lenders". And his evidence?

2 books published in Iran

Millions of volumes on Islamic jurisprudence, art, literature, music and spirituality have been written over 14 centuries. numbat chooses to ignore the words of Rumi, Chishti, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, al-Ghazali, Farid Esack, Hamza Yusuf, Kaled Abou el-Fadl etc etc. Instead, he chooses to rely on 2 books published in Iran.

Way to go, numbat. I'll follow your example and judge 3 millenia of Western civilisation using John Pasquerelli's bio of Pauline Hanson and her own autobiography. Then I'll conclude that our Western values are all about sleeping with Queensland fish 'n' chip shop owners.

You are right Irfan, it is pretty sad when those on the left (Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, and the drongos at Islamophobia Watch to name just a few) are making the same sort of mistakes as their right-wing mirrors did a decade or two ago.

The most stupid thing about the left is that you would have thought that they had learnt their lesson from the experience of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Here's a brief description of how that so-called revolution soon came to attack the left:
"On August 8, 1979, the revolutionary prosecutor banned the leading left-wing newspaper, Ayandegan. Five days later hezbollahis broke up a Tehran rally called by the National Democratic Front, a newly organized left-of-center political movement, to protest the Ayandegan closing. The Revolutionary Council then proscribed the front itself and issued a warrant for the arrest of its leader. Hezbollahis also attacked the headquarters of the Fadayan organization and forced the Mojahedin to evacuate their headquarters. On August 20, forty-one opposition papers were proscribed. On September 8, the two largest newspaper chains in the country, Kayhan and Ettelaat, were expropriated and transferred to the Foundation for the Disinherited". (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/revolution_and_iran_after1979_1.php)

As for 'Osama bin Reagan', while he may have been given oxygen by the USA in the 1980s, the annoying fact for you is that his DNA is firmly rooted in the Koran.

irfan: On the WND website this morning I saw a photo of a palestinian toddler dressed as a martyr and there were dire warnings to Israel that a new wave of terrorism was to begin soon. Using six year old innocent female children? - well they are palestinian terrorists and devout pagan death-loving moslems eh?
Then in Baghdad where devout pagan moslems are blowing up other devout pagan moslems who are attending their mosque or shopping for food. A car was allowed through a checkpoint because there were two children in the back seat. This car went to the market where after strategically parking the car the two peace-loving devout pagan moslems ran away and when a safe distance away they detonated the bomb killing bystanders and of course the two innocent kids. Now if these innocent kids were family of the bombers it would be an animal act but they were probably just kidnapped no-bodies or even perhaps orphans - who knows? But the local religious clown or leader will designate these kids as martyrs and all is fine eh irfan. I say again islam is a very sick death loving pagan religion and I just wonder when these despicable craven murderous acts will occur in Oz - can you give us a time frame irfan? Regards, numbat

Pagans as were the origional Goths were amongst the first peoples to be ethnically cleansed by monotheists. Paganism held more universal and higher values than the cults of Islam or Christianity. One of the most dire evils was the Christian extermination of paganism in Europe and western Asia and the Muslim extermination of paganism in North Africa. Only after pagans were all but extinct did the fury and psychopathy of monotheists turn on each other. It is odd that the word Pagan here is used a slur to diminish certian Moslems when both Moslems and Christians should lower their head in the most significant shame as what they have both done to pagans makes Hitlers treatment of the Jews look like a Sunday Picnic as Jews survive in large numbers today. The memory of paganism can only prove that the motivations of both Islam and Christianity are pure forms of evil at best and to use the word Pagan demonstrates the malicious nature of both darkage cults is well and truley with us today.

West: Pagans are those misfits who worship false gods as I understand it. Those who worshipped baal or moloch were pagans and death-loving moslems are pagan as they worship an arabian tribal god hubal the moon god of mecca who had three daughters. Have a deco at their flag and you will see a crescent moon, strange but true the Christ is called at times the Sun. Moon for the dark - like their religion - night and the Sun for the bright day. Regards, numbat

"Christian extermination of paganism in Europe "
Shucks West I like it when you nearly get it;
That era was Charlemagne; Regardless of rewritten history, that era was the precursor to advanced civilization (Again), just measure the time gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the return to Barbarism; to a firm hand and a system. It seems to have been forgotten, it was the same that destroyed the Romans as what will destroy us; be it not for Charlemagne; there would be a good chance we may well be all little Mohammedans performing un-surgical Lobotomization instead of Modern day Intellectual Lobotomization that transpires from Proletariat Idiotic being.
Then we end up back to primitive Barbarism.

Around we go again.

I am glad you brought the "era" up all. Not withstanding subsequent witch hunting and excorcisms the fact that Christianity and Islam undertook to ethnically cleans paganism lasted an era. Even though the Ester festival still exists with bun and bunny in tact and (economic) slaves still get a day off on Saturnalia and gift giving and birthdays survived the alledged but if true the plagerised teaching of Christ. There are two dimensions to your fogging off history because it is from the past. The first is that as Christianity has demonstrated in its past that ethnic cleansing is a ghost in its machine. Ethnic cleansing is not separable to the spirit of Christian beliefs nor Islamic for that matter. The other is as we know you worship Jesus All. Jesus if he did ever existed died long before Christians gained power and began their program of ethnic cleansing. To say that the lives of people between 100 years ago and 1500 years ago are diminished as far as suffering , pain and turmoil are concerned because they are past really assasinates the worth of the life of Christ. Jesus died before them if he ever existed. If somebody being burnt as a witch 400 years ago does not matter then a dubious historical character of 2000 years ago such as Jesus does nopt matter.

"I read two out of the three articles that you referenced (the first link didn't work). How exactly are the 20 to 30 million strong Christian fundamentalists influencing "life for the rest of us?""

Snappy Tom really needs to escape from that catfood can and travel a little. Christian extremists have supported the US invasion on Iraq and are now trying to support an invasion of Iran. They have raised money for illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including on the outskirts of Bethlehem involving the bulldozing of Palestinian Christian homes and churches.

Christian extremists in the US are the dominant Christian denomination in the southern states of the US. They are open about their armageddon theology which is threatening to spark an all-out war in the Middle East which could spread very quickly.

Snap into reality, Snappy Tom. A recent Chatham House survey showed that support for Bin Ladin has hit rock bottom in the broader Muslim world. This is supported by other surveys and polls. But polls consistently show support for the agenda of Armageddon Christianity is rising in the land of the free.

irfan: You and your fellow moslems are total fools or you are practicing the very deceitful, but normal to islamics, TAQIYYA and/or HUDNA. Yes Christian fundamentalists are a worry, you say that they have raised money for "illegal?" Israeli settlements including the bulldozing of Palestinian Christian homes and Churches. Irfan if you were fair dinkum you would admit to the moslem palestinians destroying far far more Palestinian homes and Churches as well as desecrating the later. These mindless pagan moslems are driving the Christians out of the areas where they have been living in for years. And moslems including the saudis have and are giving much more money to islamic (are there any others?)gutless terrorists. At present I do not see any Christians creating mayhem with acts of insane terror bombing - do you irfan? I do not see any Christians be-heading moslem school GIRLS - do you irfan? I do not see any Christians involved in (DIS-) honour killings - do you irfan? I do not hear of any Christian group killing teachers in front of the young students even cutting their throats - do you irfan? Yet wherever pagan moslems have settled in whatever nations all of the above are occurring aren't they irfan?
By the way have you read in this morning's Australian newspaper the story entitled "HUNTED THE WOMEN OF THE GAZA" It seems that eight women have been murdered by "brave?" armed islamic males during a 10 day stretch. These, moslem I may add, women had been ONLY accused of immoral behaviour some for just fraternising with men outside their families. Irfan I do not want these pagan, gutless, miserable, judgemental psycopaths in the fair land of Oz thank you very much.Regards, numbat

"Irfan if you were fair dinkum you would admit to the moslem palestinians destroying far far more Palestinian homes and Churches as well as desecrating the later. These mindless pagan moslems are driving the Christians out of the areas where they have been living in for years."

numbat, I think you should travel to Bethlehem and provide your information to the mayor and Palestinian Christian leaders there. Also, you might go to Ramallah and the Bir Zeit University and provide your information to Christians there.

Because what you are saying will clearly be of surprise to them. Still, what would they know? After all, they only live there. Surely the world inside your skull matters more than the real world they live in and face with their fellow Palestinians of Muslim faith each day.