Phillip Tang's posts are evidence (if any was needed) that racism and bgotry are inherently irrational and based less on fact and more on innuendo. Did Jesus Christ teach you to lie, Philip?

"In absolute value there may be more of them engaged in criminal activities because there are more of them (white European males)to begin with in Australia, but proportionately it may not be true."

=> Phillip, you have failed to provide any statistics. You have made the claim that a higher proportion of Muslims engage in gang-rape than Christians in Australia. And you simply will not be able to find such statistics. Because crime statistics are not collected on the basis of religion.

"Australian Muslims decided recently that Sheikh Hilali should keep the post of Mufti of Australia that he has held since 1988."

=> Again, complete fabrication. A board of imams has been set up, and it has set up a variety of sub-committees which will be formally constituted in 3 months. By that time, the position of Mufti will be redundant. Hilaly is not on any of these committees.

"Most Muslims in this country are agreeing to the idea that its OK for non-Muslims girls to be raped because they are not covered, ie in Islamic attire."

=> Prove it. Provide your evidence from demographic studies of Muslim attitudes toward sexual violence. If you cannot provide such evidence, I'll be happy to declare you a complete liar.

"Der Spiegel is perhaps the most widely read and influential weekly news magazine in Germany. The relevance for Australia is obvious."

=> How is it obvious, Stephany? Are we a German-speaking country? Is our immigration policy identical to that of Germany? Do we have a history of genocide and anti-Semitism? Do we have huge numbers of guest workers whom we don't offer citizenship to on the basis of their ethnicity? Do we have a migration policy that is discriminatory on the basis of race?

Irfan,

Before I reply let me make my position crystal clear. I respect your right to believe what you want. Incitement to violence, NARROWLY defined, aside, I respect your right to SAY whatever you please.

Dealing with Islam specifically, it is a belief system. As such I consider it a LEGITIMATE target for critical analysis, satire, lampooning, scorn and even contempt. So of course are other belief systems such as Christianity, Zionism, Marxism, Fascism and astrology to name but a few.

I reject entirely the notion that a belief system should be immune from satire or scorn simply because it is labeled a religion.

I am aware that the law in Victoria has a different view. I am prepared to face ruin or go to prison to defend our right to speak out on ANY belief system.

With that out of the way, let me spell out the obvious. It appears that Muslims in Germany are attempting to construct some sort of parallel society isolated from native born Germans. This, as I explained, is likely to lead to the balkanisation of society, to civil unrest and even to low level civil wars.

Obviously I would not like to see something similar happen in Australia.

I certainly would not like to see the situation in France replicated here.

Now let me ask you a question Irfan.

Is the CONTEMPORARY Ummah antisemitic?

Note please the form of the question.

As a kafir I am not interested in whether "authentic" Islam is antisemitic.

I am asking whether a large enough majority or plurality of Muslims are antisemitic; not anti-Israel or anti-Zionist but antisemitic in the sense of being antipathetic to Jews, to justify the label antisemitic for the Ummah.

Based on personal encounters with Muslims, including Imams, as well as much research I believe that hatred for Jews is woven into the warp and weft of what is taught as Islam and preached AS ISLAM around the world.

This is what the Big Irf said a few days back: "Snappy Tom's example comes from the insurance industry. You must remember that insurers base their risk assessments on actuarial modelling based on statistical and demographic results".

And from that Big Irf went on to say: "If you apply the same demographic and actuarial modelling to crime and anti-social behaviours, there would be far more white European migrants banned from migrating to Australia. Why? Because crime statistics consistently show that there are more white European males engaged in criminal activity in Australia than persons from other cultural backgrounds".

[Irf – is this more white European males as a proportion, or as a whole??]

Now Big Irf, all I was suggesting was that on the basis of the involvement of those who loudly proclaim their allegiance to Islam, that similar modelling could be applied to the risks in the aviation industry of disastrous hijacks by passengers. (Think September 11, 2001 and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid in 2002). Now, I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea necessarily but it would seem to me to be NO more discriminatory to apply a higher level of airport security tax to intending Muslim passengers than it is to apply higher rates of car insurance to young drivers.

Now it is back over to you once again, Big Irf. … I just love ya, Big Irfy.

Irfan,

Spewing out ad hominem arguments shows that one is getting irrational, and the emotions is clouding the thinking process. Sorry, I am a secularist and religion is only for heaven.

No claim was ever made by me that “a higher proportion of Muslims engage in gang-rape than Christians in Australia”, as you have alleged. It was to show that your disparaging remarks about ‘white European males’ is misleading, because actuarial modeling is based on proportionate values rather than a whole number.

Irfan, who does the 60 members of the Australian National Imams Council who made the decision to reinstate Sheik Hilali as Australia's chief mufti represent? If not the Muslims, then who?

Hello all. Some time ago a poster made the assertion that a majority of those convicted of rape in Denmark were Muslims. The poster was asked for evidence, but I didn't see the reply. I've recently come accross the evidence, as much as it is.
It can be found in "The Myth of Islamic tolerance" edited by Robert Spencer, Prometheus Press, NY, 2005, chapter 25, 'Something Rotten in Denmark?' by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard.
The authors state that, "Muslims are only 4% of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists [and] that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim."
Two members of the Socialist-Radical Liberal government (which lost power at the last election) replied, saying that because 'criminal registers do not record religion' it was impossible to make such a claim.
Pipes and Hedegaard replied that 'Statistics Denmark does, however, produce numbers on migrants from third world countries and their descendents, which it reports make up 5% of the population; and it is known that Muslims make up four-fifths of this element. The latest police figures show that 76.5% of convicted rapists in Copenhagen belong to that 5% of the population, and from that we understate our conclusion.'
The arguement is not watertight. Copenhagen is not the sum total of Denmark, unless the statistics are collected and/ or referred to there. Pipes and Hedegaard assume that because 80% of a population are of a certain make-up, that make-up is replicated in statistics of behaviour and circumstances of that population. I do not think this is a safe way to use statistics (although I'm not a statistician).
This said, that population does appear to be over-represented in the statistics, if not perhaps to the extent that Pipes and Hedegaard assert.
Cheers