"Once meaningful policies are implemented, we can let the migration process run its course, and we will see Australian Muslims, like the Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese before them, become another colourful tile in the modern Australian mosaic."

And so the ignorance continues. This author compares a religion (Islam) with nationalities (Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese).

Even Irfan Yusuf goes to great lengths to try to explain that people who follow the Islamic faith come from varying nationalities and exhibit the varying traits of those nationalities/cultures.

Unless Muslims can learn to treat their religion as people of other faiths do - private, separate from state and not all-encompassing in their everyday lives - they will continue to be in the outer.

Islam has a disastrous image; some of the Muslim areas of South West Sydney are no go areas for a lot of people. The “in your face” expression of their faith and hostile countenance of some does not make a pleasant atmosphere. Attitudes to education and women’s rights and an uncompromising religious straight jacket have generated a distinct underclass. I may be pessimistic but I do not see a very harmonious future.

Leigh, I understand and agree with your point. Well played.

While I like the positive nature of the authors assertions I have some concern about the methodology of placing the onus on the government and the taxpayer to fast track Muslims through "successful integration" and guaranteed employments.

(A more urgent focus should be on developing policies which address economic barriers to integration and facilitate upwards mobility of Australian Muslims within the broader Australian society.)

(These programs should focus on areas of geographic disadvantage, and specifically address under-serviced areas such as Muslim women and youth. Such programs will tackle some of the disproportionate unemployment problems suffered by the Muslim community.)

Do not we have in place already programmes of special educational and employment services for women and youth? Do we require special Muslim services to facilitate their integration?

(One barrier is religious discrimination. Hence strong laws against religious discrimination will help Australian Muslims get jobs, keep jobs and gain promotion.)

I doubt the veracity of such a law will help anyone get a job but, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I know for a fact it will not help anyone keep their job or gain advancement. Unless it's a Muslim hiring a Muslim. Most everyone else will be focused on ability, work ethic and personality.

Having read and reread Imran K. Lum's article {a PhD Candidate with the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne.} I've come to the conclusion that it is a very neat politicalization of the religion of Islam with in Australian society. It's a slight of hand trick in the guise of social harmony. The author reminds us several times as to what could happen if these steps are not taken for Muslims.

I guess the best way to get over a fear of a monster under the bed is to look under the bed and see that there is no monster after all.

And I think there is partly a racial/cultural component to this because when one thinks of Muslim, one usually thinks of Arab or Middle Eastern. So saying its just about the religion isn't completely true. What would the perception be if they were Anglo-Muslims?
Maybe the objection that comes up in this nation every time a different race of immigrants comes in, is a fear of being invaded and of losing land to newcomers; fear of having what was perpetrated on Aborigines - by the founders of this nation - happen to us, the heirs of this nation

It is up to the moslems as to whether they are able to live in our western democratic system. The only reason for any anti-moslem attitude is mainly the fault of these moslems. The problems in Cronulla were the result of a group of arrogant moslems. The problem in France and all other western nations is, as I see it, the attitude of moslems as regards to democracy and freedom. If moslems can get rid of their fire brand seemingly uneducated imams there may be some hope but until they get rid of these rabble-rousers and they themselves accept democracy we will have strife. Regards, numbat

1)Islam is not a race. It is a religion.
2)The issue is not so much with Muslims as with Islam. If Muslims get offended by that, it is their business, not that of the one who caused the offence.

IMO Islam vs. Western values is similar to the ideology wars of Communism vs. Western values of the early-mid 20th Century. Although most Aussies decided that Communism was incompatible with Western democracy, at referendum they decided not to allow the government to compulsorarily dissolve the Communist Party of Australia, because they didn't want to give the government the right to decide which political parties could exist in Australia.

It's the same with religion. Your right to practice your faith is in the Constitution, so long as it doesn't conflict with other Aussie laws, and I can't see the government outlawing it any time soon. However, that doesn't mean the general public accept the ideals of Islam as compatible with Australian democracy. Right or wrong, I think most people's perception of Islam is something like "hold your private beliefs, just don't try and run or change the country with them".

I think understanding religions' impacts on society as more similar to political ideologies' impacts than racial impacts is very important.

To say that it is ignorant to compare 'Islam' as a religion to other cultures/ethinic groups is probably an unfair call, though I'll admit that the assumption that Islam has all the properties of any other culture is missing a few points; the same could be said about asian vs italian intergration.. while there are similarities in barriers to integration for both asians and italians, there are also obvious differences. In saying that, the point that Imran makes is relevant, and still stands.

"Unless Muslims can learn to treat their religion as people of other faiths do - private, separate from state and not all-encompassing in their everyday lives - they will continue to be in the outer.".. not to be rude, but is that really how people of other faiths treat their religion? That muslims should seperate certain beliefs from politics, isn't that in itself a political statement, based on certain beliefs/cultural expectations?

The point, as I read it, is really this; can muslims be a part of, and contribute to, an Australian identity. I think yes, definately, and an important part of that is allowing muslims (as it is with any group/minority) to have a role in the political process, and to shift policy towards positive social/political objectives, that work towards accepting muslims as part of the community and provide an opportunity for muslims to find their place within the Australian identity, in much the same way the Greeks, Italians etc have been able to do also. It's true, Muslims also have a responsibilty, but Imran.K.Lum has already made a note of this

"the same could be said about asian vs italian intergration"
Not quite. You are here referring to ethnicities. You can stop following a religion but not having an ethnicity.

"is that really how people of other faiths treat their religion? That muslims should seperate certain beliefs from politics, isn't that in itself a political statement, based on certain beliefs/cultural expectations?"

Excellent points, totally agree with the issues you raise there.

"allowing muslims (as it is with any group/minority) to have a role in the political process, and to shift policy towards positive social/political objectives, that work towards accepting muslims as part of the community and provide an opportunity for muslims to find their place within the Australian identity"

What you're saying here is kind of scary because it can be so misinterpreted. Should Aussies who happen to be Muslim run for politics? If they like. May their values and policies be informed by their religious beliefs? If they like (and if the people will vote for them). But should Islam be involved in the political process? No, in much the same way as we wouldn't want Catholicism/Pentecostalism/etc. running the show.

Also, do your comments leave room for selective Sharia Law areas to spring up (like in some counties/areas of England and Canada)? Surely this is incompatible with broad Aussie laws/values?

ABC Television interview this evening.

Researcher / author quoted a UK survey that revealed that 30% of British Muslims believe they would be better off with Sharia Law.

This calculates out to 600,000 people who find the democratic society of one of the most highly regarded nations in the history of the world to be undesirable and without intrinsic value.

When will the PC crowd begin to perceive the harsh reality that a significant proportion of the Muslim world detest their core values? But the delusional secular progressives continue to steadfastly defend of the rights of extremist, sexist, genocidal, racist and xenophobic Islamists.

It is bewildering why any reasonable person would want to import more individuals from a group who find the culture and society of the host nation to be odious and pernicious.

Just to test out our ability to convert others to secular progressivism? Just to prove our moral superiority? Just to prove to ourselves how highly evolved we are?

Leigh,

"And so the ignorance continues."

This really is the pot calling the kettle black. I reckon what you know about Islam could fit on the back of a postage stamp. I've read several of your posts now and it's obvious that your knowledge of Islam is superficial at best and is gathered only from the Western Media.

You seem to think that all Muslims are the same. The majority of Muslims in Australia are from Turkey and how do they fit your sterotype? Turkey happens to be a secular nation, a member of NATO and an ally of the United States and Israel. The Turks ( and several other Muslim groups ) generally have not given us any trouble at all when it comes to integration.

I have no problem with people criticising Islam if they know what they are talking about. But you are the one who has shown yourself to be ignorant. Don't bother replying to this post as I won't read any more of your Racist crap.

I think it is fairly obvious that Turkey is not currently a problem to Western democracies. But how does that nullify the lady's argument? I don't think Peppy's point is very relevant.

Perhaps Peppy could correct me -- what is the name of the race/nation in N Iraq bordering Turkey who are systematically slaughtered when ever the Turkish army has the opportunity? Kurds I think.

It might be worth noting that Turkey exterminated 1.2 million Armenians (Christians) after & during WWII nearly equalling Nazi Germany for genocide. I have visited the catacombs they were forced to hide in, it was a particularly interesting tourist spot. If one were to go for a walk through a rural Turkish village one may think they had time travelled back a century or two. Stop for a coffee and find yourself noting that the place is patronised by men only for some strange reason.

Modern Turkey is primarily opportunistic just like many other countries and they have their own issues with Islamists.

Cowboy JOe,

Please.....are you really trying to suggest that modern day Turks are somehow dangerous because of a genocide that occurred close to a hundred years ago. Using that logic no one could trust the Germans, Japanese, Russians, etc, etc today. Or if you want to go back further in history what about the massacres of whole Indian tribes in North America? Western armies have invaded more countries and killed more people in search of Empires in the past than Turkey.

It comes back to this mentality that you have that all Muslims are the same and they are all evil which Leigh has expressed in the past. If Leigh said all Jews or Blacks were the same and couldn't be trusted wouldn't she deserve to be called a Racist? Then why not when she says it about all Muslims?

Peppy, Leigh didn't say that about Muslims or Islam and you took a small portion to define intent. Try it again. It is a valid statement given the authors assertion that, "Once meaningful policies are implemented, we can let the migration process run its course, and we will see Australian Muslims, like the Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese before them, become another colourful tile in the modern Australian mosaic.".

And so the ignorance continues. This author compares a religion (Islam) with nationalities (Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese).

Peppy note the "brackets" around the word (Islam) and (Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese). Which one of these does not equal the other? The racist label doesn't fit.

I think and hope Imran is right. Australia was probably the first modern country to treat Jews as equal, even to giving state grants to establish synagogues.

We have always had this anti establishment laid back approach and this rubs off on the immigrants. Problem is that we know little about Islam. But just wait for understanding to grow. But the governmebt could be a lot more helpful.

It is difficult to decide which of the three 'peoples of the book' are doing the most damage and pose the greatest threat to Australian society via their respective fundamentalist dogmas - the twelth century crap known as islam, the 'christ will come again and save us all' crap exemplified by the fundamentalist american style bible-bashing nonsense espoused by (among many others) most of the Howard cabinet, or the 'god gave us Palestine and to hell with the Palestinians' jewish zionist movement. There is no chance whatsoever of these three disparate and mutually exclusive 'faiths' ever living together in on-going harmony - the best we can hope for is a very uneasy stalemate based on economic expediency. Peace and universal prosperity will only come, if at all, when everyone over the age of ten comes to realise that not only is there no Santa Claus, there is no god of any description at all. Our only hope is a humanistic realisation that we are alone in the universe. It is up to us. Even the planet itself is starting to give up on us.

Logic. 'State Grants' to establish synagoques(or_churches)_is:

a) Illegal.
b) Unconstitutional.

In my humble view.

The day that the State has to fork out to enable Christians to buid a place of Worship is the day they need to do some SERIOUS naval gazing and reflection on their faith.

The Article.
"Because opening the doors would mean having to work next to Muslims, live next to Muslims, or God forbid, even allow our daughters to marry Muslims."

SHOW ME...Sheikh Omran or Wassim Dourhi standing up and giving a media interview where they say "We Muslims are quite happy for our daughters to marry you infidel Australians" and I might be more amenable to that quote.

And of course...this IS...the problem. Muslim 'people' (like Peppy and Fellow Human and Irfy) can of course integrate on the social level. No drama.....

BUT and its a big almighty but.. WASSIM DOURHI and SHEIKH OMRAN and MANY like them, have different views. They are working towards SHARIA LAW for Australia. Make no mistake.

THE CORE of the PROBLEM is not the incredibly shallow and ininformed "Oh.. now its the 'Muslims' turn" (as opposed to the 'wogs and daigos and chinks' etc)

THE CORE..is.. the inherrent animosity of Islam to all things Un Islamic. It is the fundamental aggressive, discriminatory, and violent aspect of the faith itself 'in regard to Christianity, Judaism and esPECially 'idolatrous' faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism.

Sure..Peppy is not going to run down to Springvale and trash the Pagoda. Nor will F.H. race up to the Hindu temple and firebomb it, but some OTHERS might. If not now....later if they ever get power.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? Let me recite my favorite 'proof text'...again.

Quran 9:30 "Jews believe Uzair is son of Allah, Christians believe the Messiah is Son of Allah, MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM"

Now..contextually these 'revelations' came at the time of a BATTLE. So....

Question: who is going to 'do' the destroying?
Answer: "Mohammad and his army"

Question DID he carry this out?
ANSWER: Ask the Jews of the BanU Qurayza tribe..oops..no, you can't they are ALL DEAD.

As if to underscore the inimicitious nature of muslim migration to Australia the author tells us that an Issues Deliberation Australia (IDA) forum was held to discuss Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia. What if an IDA was held to discuss Christians and non-Christians in Australia. It would have been pointed out by muslims that such a theme would not be inclusive. And why hasn’t it dawned on the author that no such IDA was needed to settle the Spanish, Estonian, Maltese, Indian and other communities in Australia. Also, if the author is concerned about a lack of policies to address the concerns of Australian muslims doesn’t it further highlight how unprepared muslims are as a migrant group.

The author offers us Dr Kevin Dunn, an expert on racism in Australia, as the arbiter on racism. However, two people who might inform Dunn are Tiffen and Gittins who presented empirical evidence on racism in their book ‘How Australia Compares’. Their book includes the result of a survey that asked Australians about what sort of neighbours were undesirable. The respondent percentages were: drug addicts 74, heavy drinkers 60, people with a criminal record 45, emotionally unstable 38, and immigrants and people from a different race 5. Only 5%; now how unhelpful is that in furthering Dr Dunn’s argument.

Rather than add to the annual AUD$7.2 billion multicultural bill by creating more employment programs, skills development programs etc, muslims should hold their own IDA and invite members of the Italian community and Maltese community and other communities and ask them how they integrated.

The author talks about introducing a law to prevent discrimination on the basis of religion. Under that law the Qur’an might be banned because muslims discriminate against their own. Sura (2:282) - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.

I think the IDA mentioned by the author seems more like Alice in Wonderland’s Tea Party. In allowing muslims to migrate to Australia, our governments have sowed dragon’s teeth

Imran Lum (Chinese_Muslim?) also says:

"There is no doubt that the stereotyping of all Australian Muslims in the media and public domain as fanatics and terrorists because of the misguided actions of a few can lead to unnecessary prejudices and misconceptions."

Correct.. but IT DOES NOT HAPPEN and to suggest it does is simply pandering to the 'victim' mentality and insults our non Muslim intelligence, and seems to be just 'massaging the community' for another agenda.

VILIFICATION LAWS have done nothing to help Victoria. They simply ramped UP the level of interfaith animosity and resulted in spy verses spy of "Christians" going to Mosques to 'catch them out'.

In any case, those laws do not stop the likes of myself from engaging in very strong discussions about Islam.

IF...we use those laws as they stand, we can (and might) seek to have the Quran and Hadith banned on the grounds that they SPECIFICALLY and 'BY NAME' curse Christians and Jews.

What the newspapers DO report, is incidents of Muslims allegedly stockpiling explosives in order to do us harm.

The ordinary Australian was not behind the bushes when brains were given out, and he or she asks "If this number of Muslims are (allegedly) prepared to blow the daylights out of us, how many MORE are there out their who simply hate us but don't go to that extent"?

Statistically it would be remiss to think that these are the only 'anti Aussie' Muslims in Australia.

So, to the author, I assume you have a bit of a brain, after all you are a PHD candidate. I recommend you use that brain to look closely at the man you follow... one Mohammad, and ask this "Would a man who is truly of God, claim a revelation which gives himself ALONE a licence for unlimited females to pleasure him(surah 33:50)and (because he knows the chaos which would ensue) then strictly FORBIDS the 'ordinary' believers that same privilege.?

In my view, such a man could not be from the Holy God who has revealed Himself in history and finally (and lastly) in Christ.

BOAZ_David
State Grants to establish synagogues and churches occurred in the colonies, before the existence of the Australian constitution.

I realise that you consider Islam to be fundamentally flawed and you have argued that ad nauseum, but all faiths are open to interpretation and therefore beliefs change. I have to remind you that Christianity was in its earlier days much worse than Islam, thought with inferior weapons which caused less damage.

GYM-FISH
Please get off the crap that Zionists believe that God gave us Palestine. Very few do. The history of Israel is far more complex than the one-liners beloved by some.

This author suggests that all the other states are out of step in not following Victoria’s lead in introducing religious vilification laws.

I would suggest that all the other states have seen what a farce the Bracks government laws have turned out to be. The only reason the Victorian government doesn’t repeal the law is that it is too embarrassed to have to admit that they were wrong.

There has not been one successful conviction against the Victorian law, several years after this strange law was enacted. If not one person has been found to have broken these laws, why does our author believe they were so necessary?

We already have freedom of religion in Australia. We also have freedom to speak our conscience. If some Muslims can’t cope with this, perhaps they are living in the wrong country.

Dear logic
Sorry - strike 'god' and make that 'Balfour'. In either case, no one asked those who have lived and worked the land for hundreds of years i.e the Palestinians.

In my opinion and experience there are two types of immigrants. Those who believe the onus of change is on their host country to adapt to them and their needs, and those migrants who are grateful for the opportunity to live free and uncomplicated lives and contribute to their adopted country. There have been some of each from every migrant wave but, for the most part the majority with some time fit well and the country is wealthier in all aspects for their coming. Muslims(NOT ALL)are the first group ever to migrate to a democratic country not wanting the rights and freedoms available and strive for religious political influence to remove those rights and freedoms from their own and even their host society. Asking to be accepted on that basis confounds most Australians. I can only imagine what is going through the minds of Muslims born and raised in Australia. A friend told me he quit going to Mosque because he was being taught that he wasn't Indo-Chinese, he wasn't Australian, he was Muslim and that was all the nationality he required. It's no wonder some Muslims equate any resistance to their ideology to be a racist attack

aqvarivs,

“In my opinion and experience there are two types of immigrants. “

I owe you an apology. I didn’t realise you were such an expert on matters of immigration. And the fact that you admit to actually having a Muslim friend obviously means that you can pass judgement on the other four hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine other Muslims in Australia who you haven’t so far admitted to befriending yet.

I base my previous accusation that some people post Racist comments on this site on the fact that they engage in classic Racist rhetoric and stereotyping. You know what stereotyping is don’t you? Examples: All Muslims are Terrorists, all Blacks are criminals, all single mothers are sluts, all Irishmen are drunks, all homosexuals are paedophiles, etc. Or in your case, that you can pass judgement on all Muslims based on what one Muslim said to you. The fact that you defend stereotyping proves the weakness of your arguments.

It is not unusual for Racism to come out during wartime. I well remember the Vietnam war with the statements about the Vietnamese, for instance, slanty eyes were obvious signs of inferiority, etc. You would have loved it back then. You could have told everyone how you met an Asian once and how that made you an expert on all Asians.

However I am optimistic about the long term. I think that deep inside most Australians are very tolerant and once the present hysteria about Islam dies out, people will rediscover common sense and we’ll be able to have a sensible discussion about Islam, etc. Eventually the views of people like Leigh and yourself will become irrelevant. Until then enjoy the racism while it lasts.

Have a chat with Boaz David. I’m sure he is right now looking up lots of good quotes from the Bible and the Koran that you can use to prove that Muslims are sired by Satan

Peppy, what I wrote was, “In my opinion and experience there are two types of immigrants. Those who believe the onus of change is on their host country to adapt to them and their needs, and those migrants who are grateful for the opportunity to live free and uncomplicated lives and contribute to their adopted country.”

I see your one of those deconstruction relativist who believe your distortions are acceptable as proof of your preconceived ideas and that your opinion and experiences by right over ride all other peoples experiences and opinions. As for my Indo-Chinese Muslim friend, I was reiterating his own life experience to point out that even some Muslims take exception to the religious and political strong arming done by some of the more extreme Muslim clerics. That your all for such behaviour and the continuation of such an attitude with in Muslim Australia and that you refer to any argument toward this type of Islam as racism proves my point on the politicization of Islam in Australia.

Using your argumentative methodology I could therefore assert, that you are by your writing, only in favour of the rights and freedoms of the individual inherent in democracy, for the sole purpose of using those rights and freedoms to install Sharia and thus do away with democracy and institute a Islamic theocratic dictatorship. Oh ya. And that your a racist. I don't need any more proof than to highlight that you posted this statement. “All Muslims are Terrorists, all Blacks are criminals, all single mothers are sluts, all Irishmen are drunks, all homosexuals are paedophiles, etc. “ You must be a real piece of work to carry that much hatred for the different people and cultures that make up your society.

P.S. I would hardly require BOAZ David to choose a negative example of Islam from with in the pages of the Qur'an. I can accomplish that by just flipping randomly and choosing any old page. In as much as I wouldn't require your help in vilifying Judaism or Christianity and calling those people all as pigs and monkeys.

aqvarivs.

“I can only imagine what is going through the minds of Muslims born and raised in Australia.”

In case you missed it my point was that you engage in stereotyping. You seem to think you can read the minds of all the Muslims born and raised in Australia.

As I have said in previous posts I have no problem with people criticising Islam as long as they base their criticism on facts and logic. I often criticise Islam myself and there is plenty to criticise about Islam, and Christianity and every other religion for that matter. However every time I try to have a serious discussion with someone on this site I get this crap thrown in my face that all Muslims are violent, all Muslims are brain washed, blah, blah, blah. I don’t see why it should be so difficult for people to stick to facts and logic instead most of the half baked stuff you get on this site about Muslims.

Let’s just look at the standards you yourself use to try to prove that Muslims are bad news. Your biggest proof was that your mate told you what he’d heard in a Mosque. Well that’s verifiable proof isn’t it? After all, I’m sure that you can prove that your mate is a reliable witness? And if your mate told you he met Elvis at the Mosque I guess we should believe that too? Why don’t we all use the things that our mates tell us to prove our points of view. Well my mate reckons your mate’s an idiot. So there’s positive proof that you are wrong using your standard of proof. Now if you think that’s bad you should hear what my other mate said about you.

If you ever want to have a real discussion on Islam or Christianity or whatever and base it on facts and logic and not things your mates told you they heard then I’m in, but we all know that day will never come.

why does everything have to be so complicated and everything seems to revolve around religion. I personally have no religion but that doesn't make me a bad person. I don't care what religion a person is I believe there is good and bad in all races and if we didn't pussyfoot around and have different rules for different races, intergration with all races would be so much easier.

I was once told I would make a good christian. I asked why and was told " because I help people" I wonder if that same person would say the same thing to my muslim friend, who would bend over backwards to help anyone?
maybe I am way off topic or just very naive but a greek is a human being, an aboriginal is a human being, a muslim is a human being and a religion is just that.....a religion...it is not a breathing living human being.

Moderates talking to moderates is not going to solve anything except some minor integration on the margins between Muslims and the mainstream. But so long as our Muslim population is allowed to rapidly outgrow the mainstream, we can expect nothing but trouble. The signs of a dangerously regressive culture are here and overseas for all to see. Expect these hardcore elements to flourish under their ever-increasing comfort zone. In the end, moderates on both sides of the divide will be bundled out of the way along with their token efforts to integrate. The moderate Muslims are unable to control the regressive Muslims. And it will be left to right-wing Aussies to deal with the extremists.

Look at Turkey the other day where ONE MILLION rallied at the threat of a regressive Islamic party taking control - and Turkey is 99% MUSLIM. The army is now the only thing that will save them - but for how long, because the regressive Muslim population is outbreeding the secular Muslims. Wake up Australia, Turkey is our future. Stop Muslim immigration, stop the Muslim population growth within Australia, or radically transform Islam in Australia into an invisible personal pacifist faith, or hope our army comes to save us, or do nothing and leave it to future generations to get on their knees and submit to Allah. There is no easy road here - all choices are going to be painful for some. "Softly, softly" will not work.

Callie
The childish naivity expressed in your post is a major part of the problem. Religion is, by definition, not an opinion but a (largely irrational) belief, and the rejection of other religions is entailed in that belief. An opinion is of the form (for example) 'A Holden is better than a Ford'. The holder of such an opinion will simply buy a Holden rather than a Ford. Expressed as a religious belief, the opinion now becomes' God has decreed that a Holden is better than a Ford, therefore anyone who buys a Ford is disobeying the word of God'
The outcome then depends on the believer's interpretation of god's word, and the entailed punishment for disobedience. Ford owners are then by god's decree stripped of their human rights. If that punishment is believed to call for a jihad - or a crusade - or socio/economic sanctions against Ford owners, then so be it. The religious fanatic unquestionably accepts tne (totally unsubstantiated) notion that there is an all powerful force which will punish and destroy any who do not comply with that fanatic's own assesment of the individual compliance demanded by that all powerful force. As a result we see the obscene carnage visited upon the world not by any god, but by the people who claim belief in a particular 'god' at a particular time. See my earlier posting.

GYM FISH, you are saying that my thinking is a major part of the problem but you then go on to say about religion and fanatical beliefs, therefore, if everyone had no religion and looked upon each and every person as a human being, there would be NO PROBLEM.

I know that it is not as simple as that but I would like to think it is.

For an intellectual debate about improving relations between Muslims and other faiths or secularists, agnostics or atheists – the above comments border on the irresponsible and ignorant. The academic arguments forwarded by Lum are practical and worthy of reasonable consideration – not that I have noticed much in the way of practical considerations in the debate so far.
Let’s look at his arguments:
“It appears Muslims are knocking loudly on the door of mainstream Australia but the problem is many of us are too scared to open it. Because opening the doors would mean having to work next to Muslims, live next to Muslims, or God forbid, even allow our daughters to marry Muslims.”
The response was that Muslims would not accept the reverse – when clearly this is not the case. A significant number of Muslims are marrying non-Muslims – even the controversial ‘Mufti’ has an Aussie son-in-law, as do most of the immigrant Muslim community.
Lum’s next argument that “The UK, United States, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand all have legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, whereas here in Australia, it is not unlawful under federal law to discriminate against someone, or vilify them, on the basis of their religion” is a sound one. Justice often comes down to laws especially when some shock jocks can get away with incendiary statements such as:

“We only have ourselves to blame that twenty years later nothing has changed in this community, and nothing will until we take the gloves off and make life a collective hell for these bastards and their followers” followed by “Beware, Australia – the enemy lives amongst us already” – Alan Jones on April 27 2005 (is anyone surprised at the violence that later erupted by his listeners?)

Lum’s suggestion that laws that adequately operate against racial discrimination should also apply to religious discrimination is a logical step – and one that works both ways, removing any extremist Islamist threat to other religions

A good knowledge of historical philosophy shows that the problem speaks for itself.

It was Socrates who said Out with the Gods and in with the Good, adding the premise that if we reason/meditate deep enough we will find the Spirit of Goodness within ourselves.

It was also the English philosopher, John Locke who said, as a liberal Christian, that faith without reason is a faith misguided.

To a philosopher, the two above quotes are somewhat alike, the word reason being uppermost in each.

As far as I know there has been only one group of immigrants who completely refused to adopt in any way the local Australian culture - the British.

"ultimately, these underlying prejudices between Muslim and non-Muslim Australians must be tackled through community projects. Ones that work at a grassroots level with schools, service providers and welfare organisations are likely to be most effective, and extra funding for such programs would be a wise social investment."

This is so vitally important to note.

See Dr Amanda Wise's Ashfield Community Harmony Project:

http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/research/harmony.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nonenglish-signs-a-barrier-for-many/2006/10/27/1161749313595.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

And here's some homework for the assimilationists on this board; read the following:

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=1791

Democrat,
Are you seriously suggesting that we need more laws that curb our free speech? We already have laws against slander and incitement to violence.

Did you not see the farce that was played out when Victoria passed laws on religious vilification? The main people who were dragged through the courts were those attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. It stirred up antagonism between different communities. There were no winners except, of course, the lawyers who made plenty.

The main problem with the Victorian laws was that they drew no distinction between race and religion. The two are not the same thing. Race, your ancestry, and your skin colour are not things you can choose or change. Religion is different. Tomorrow I could get out of bed and change my religion to anything I wanted. Religion is a thing of the mind, heart and conscience.

(Note: when you were talking about inter-group marriage, did you confuse race and religion? For if the man who married the mufti’s daughter had to convert to Islam before marrying her, then your argument falls down).

While I am no fan of Alan Jones and those of his ilk, one of the greatest things about being Australian is the freedom to speak our mind. Let’s try and solve our differences that way, not in the courts.

I don’t think your suggestions were practical. I invite a response.

When I married my wife I may have in broad terms married into a family but, I actually married an individual. Not a family. Not a culture. Not a race. And not a religion. We have people from many differing nations, cultures and religions migrating to Australia. We do not have cultures or religions or nations migrating to Australia. There are only a very minority of Australian Muslims who want to be identified as Islamic first and foremost. There are others, as I introduced in an earlier post, who may be Muslim by religious practise but, are Australian and are proud of their cultural heritage and do not want these marginalized by a few Islamic extremist whose sole focus is on dominating any discussion on religious matters. Politicizing religion is the first step toward over riding the laws regarding the separation of State and religion. If any Muslim has a problem finding employment perhaps they should try applying for their next job as an Australian. Where I work we hire Australians. Some may be Tamil, Indian, Singaporean, Lebanese, Turkish, Pakistani, etc. and all may practise Islam. We didn't hire on any of these people as examples of their nationality, culture, or religion. We hired them because they are Australians who came to us wanting to contribute to the welfare of Australians regardless of race, religion, or cultural representation. Those who want or demand exclusivity or special considerations with in Australia will always find their road difficult and the people unwilling to accept them on those grounds.

GYM FISH.... I noted with interest your comments as follows: (regarding religious fanatics)

"The outcome then depends on the believer's interpretation of god's word, and the entailed punishment for disobedience."

In order to properly understand the Christian concept of Law and Grace, and in particular the idea of 'punishment' for those erring from Gods Word, I recommend a careful reading of Pauls letter to the Romans. In that letter, he systematically outlines the human dilemna and goes step by step to show that mankind is alienated from God, first the Jew, then the Gentile.
Once he has established that 'all are alienated' he then points to the solution, but that is where the critical point arises.

"Not by Law, but by Grace" He spends considerable time developing this theme, and it gives greater clarity to how 'fair dinkum' Christians should approach the specific issue of "erring from Gods word". The other important point to consider is that "Christian" discipline is for Christians, not for non Christians.

In its severest form, it amounts to social ostracization for stubbornly refusing to depart from publically known sin. (e.g. immorality) But no one would be "disciplined" for not attending a meeting.

Islam is different. It is a political entity, with a side salad of 'spirituality'. So the primary sanction on its followers is Law, rather than Grace. "If anyone leaves his Islamic faith, Kill him" is a rather terminal 'legal' constraint.

It is the growth of that value system by stealth or stride that I oppose with all that it in me. I know it cannot be by 'opposing' alone, which is why I also point to Christ in many of my posts.
The best 'prevention' is by 'proclamation' of a better alternative.

"I came that they might have life, and have it in abundance" Jesus.(John 10:10)

Callie
I was trying to make the point that a religious belief is categorically different from day-to-day beliefs/opinions. A religion that has a particular omnipotent god as its central belief simply cannot live side by side without friction with a religion that has another equally omnipotent god as its centre. The worship of any such 'god' is ipso facto exclusive of other modes of 'god' worship, and in many different religions (notably today that hodge-podge of twelth century nonsense known as islam) that exclusion, in the hands disenfranchised and ignorant followers, is amplified into intolerance and ultimately violence. As to your vision of a social order without religion, I couldn't agree more - I would only say that, whilst the notion is by no means new, John Lennon beat both of us to the point.
As to BOAZ-David, I am indifferent to the alleged rantings and musings of a sun-struck professional sado-masochist who 'saw the light'and became the first professional evangelical pulpit thumper in a long line that has led us to the like of Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn et al, except to note that it would seem the Freudian coping strategy known as 'reaction formation' was alive and well long before Freud came onto the scene. Present day courtrooms are full of similar 'conversions' and it is sad to note that people who should know better still fall for it and many brutal criminals escape justice by similar pleadings. Tell it to the Balkan states christian militias, or the various inquisitions, or the witch burners, or any number of rabid fundamentalist christian sects, etc etc.

Strayan, thanks for the New Matilda website. Though not of Lebanese heritage or Muslim, really identified with the story your link sent me to. I've been in Australia for 30 years too and relate exactly to what he said

For Logic, British colonialists having left the Stone Age before arriving in Australia had no desire to revert back to darkness by assimilating into the Stone Age.

Peppy. Yesterday’s news featured a report of a large Turkish demonstration protesting the possibility of a Muslim state.

Turkish-Kurdish Clashes in Brussels, 02 Apr 2007 another riot & community centre burnt. Article mentions thirty thousand dead in recent times.

September 24, 2006, Turkish tanks in Kurdistan. A new Middle East war is in the offing. DEBKAfile’s exclusive military sources in Iraq and sources in Iran reveal that Turkish and Iranian air units as well as armoured, paratroops, etc -- the synopsis was intelligence reports were that Iran and Turkey were poised to cooperatively attack Kurdistan. Yes it didn't happen, but this does not prove it was not being planned. Now the US Democrats may assist forward planning by scheduling a withdrawal from Iraq.

The tactic of emotively denouncing someone else by feigning outrage and labelling them racist is becoming very tedious. The additional tactic of arguing that a point of view lacks merit due to the lack of detail is another transparent tactic especially useful when OLO posts have a word limit.

Assuming Peppy is not being obtuse, -- Turkey is not some benign enlightened state. Nazis, Khu Klux Klan, still have adherents and presumably dangerous organisations exist in Turkey.

Aquavarius quote. "There are only a very minority of Australian Muslims who want to be identified as Islamic first and foremost." It was reported on a recent ABC interview that 30% of British Muslims wish to have an Islamic state replace democracy.

When are we going to debunk the naive assumption that the radical minority equals 2% or less. People who live in several key western suburbs of Sydney already know the bogus contentions of the academic elite in reference to the purported "small minority". Remember the jubilation of certain ethnic cab drivers as the 9/11 news broke?

If OLO writers really desire accuracy they should change the PC mantra to the "minority of about 30%".

I think everyone is patently aware of the shortcomings of Christians just as we are aware of the shortcomings of humanity in general.

It would be beneficial if people were to refrain from deriding Christians and their history in a vain attempt to prove that the present danger of Radical Islam is largely paranoia.

At least the true believers in Jones Town poisoned themselves instead of choosing suicidal bombings of civilians.

Cowboy Joe, Your wasting your post on Peppy. That person cut and pasted from Leighs post, "And so the ignorance continues." and built a defence of Islam on racism. And labeled Leigh a racist. Islam does not equal race.
From my post Peppy chose, “In my opinion and experience there are two types of immigrants.“ Then accused me of making the assertion that I know all about the workings of the minds of every Muslim. Peppy's defence for such poor comprehension of the written word is "I base my previous accusation that some people post Racist comments on this site on the fact that they engage in classic Racist rhetoric and stereotyping." By which my post becomes stereotypically racist.
In my next post I say, “I can only imagine what is going through the minds of Muslims born and raised in Australia.” From which Peppy takes this brief snippet and declares, "You seem to think you can read the minds of all the Muslims born and raised in Australia." The most liberal interpretation does not take one to that end.

Now. From my post you select, "There are only a very minority of Australian Muslims who want to be identified as Islamic first and foremost." And then bring in British Muslims and a poll that suggest all things being equal 30% of British Muslims want Sharia. While I believe that number is a very liberal assessment I do believe that since OBL has defeated the "West" many western born Muslims have climbed on the radical band wagon. However, I think this is more displaced loyalties thanks to the preaching of these self proclaimed Imams who have an interpretation of Islam not practiced by the majority. And certainly not the Islam expressed by the 100 signatories of the open letter to the Pope.

Here is a link to a downloadable PDF copy.

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf

Leigh,
you are right. "so the ignorance continues"

Imran Lum a PhD Candidate? He won't pass with this type of article. So much basicly wrong it would have to be torn up if presented as an essay.

Lum is the one who bundles all muslims together and attempts to compare them with nationalities.

Irfan Yusuf says Lebanese muslims are the highest population of muslims in Aus, so i wonder if Peppy has considered the possibility that his claim of Turks may be wrong?

It seems to me that muslims, in general, are integrating and we are having problems with, mainly, one group. Lebanese muslims have an anti social attitude and arrogance that prevents them from integrating. They display disdain for us, our culture, our laws and social standards.

I have not seen or heard of many problems with muslims of other nationalities. Only a few, mainly minor and infrequent.

Unfortunately, for many years the actions of the Lebs has greatly tarnished the image of all muslims in Aus.

The way to correct this is not through anti discriminatory legislation, on religion, but for muslims themselves to lay the blame for local problems right where they belong, with the Lebs.

I wonder why we are so reluctant to admit that Leb muslims are incompatable with our society. The cultural evidence has been in front of us for years. The same cultural problems are there, even three generations later.

OPEN LETTER TO POPE from IMAM'S.

I had a read of it. Typical Islamic 'spin' which quickly mentions the 'Christian friendly' verses, such as 'no compulsion in religion' etc but not a syllable of 'ALLAHS CURSE BE ON THEM' .. 'may Allah destroy them' (Quran 9:30)

That one verse (along with the similar hadith where Mohammad repeatedly curses Christians and Jews on his death bed) are definitive about how Islam truly regards Christians (and Jews)

INTERPRETATION. This is crucial. If Christians were cursed because:
-They broke a treaty.
-Had murdered someone.
-Were telling lies.
-Were immoral.

etc, one could understand them being 'cursed' with a degree of legitimacy. But we are cursed and our destruction is called for NOT for any of those reasons, but

-due to the fact that we believe Christ is Son of God.

The end result of this is, that there is no other possible understanding of Islam's regard for Christians than that provided by this verse. Individual Muslims may be friendly and social, but "Islam"...thats the critical bit...the motherload, the refined plutonium, has a different view.

CURSED FOR ALL TIME. This verse does not curse or invite destruction on particular Christians at a specific time or location, it does so for all time.... for as long as we believe in Christ as Son of God, "Islam" wishes to destroy us.

So, while I can agree that the integration of 'moderate/nominal' muslims is quite possible, the danger is that their Imams will drag out the 'May Allah destroy them' verse at the 'appropriate time' which of course is when they have more and more power.

Hitler murdered 6 million Jews based on a wrong interpretation of Jesus cleansing the temple of money changers. How much MORE will Islam seek to destroy Christians when such destruction is based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Quran?

CONCLUSION:

-Moderate Muslims.... basically integratable (but in reality spiritual time bombs waiting to be primed by scorching oratory)

-Islam as a faith....totally incompatable.

Commenting on Leigh's comments:

1. Leigh, the first comment was excellent!! It was based on a fallacy in the article "... we will see Australian Muslims, like the Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese before them, become another colourful tile in the modern Australian mosaic."

You are right: "And so the ignorance continues. This author compares a religion (Islam) with nationalities (Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese and Chinese). "

Agreed. Agreed. A religion is not a nationality.
Please can people wake up to this fact. And Islam is not 'any old religion'. It has some fairly nasty directives inbuilt via Mohammed's most recent comments.

2. Leigh, the privatised faith thing is not something most Christians could go along with, and certainly not members of Islam. The loud early morning call to prayer, waking everybody in the vicinity, is certainly not a private matter. (Ringing a bell at 10 am for Christian churches is not mandatory. They can even negotiate, and refrain)

Belief issues in actions, and even quiet Christians seek to contribute society based upon belief. So it is never private. It affects society. And lots of Australians want to be able to eat ham sandwiches in any council meeting they choose to have.

3. Many of the other nationalities mentioned have Christian foundations, and do not violently object to the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, but rather confess it is so.
(Most Chinese and Vietnamese folks can live with a Christian founded culture without feeling compelled to change it!) Not so Islam.

Please BOAZ David no religion is going to express itself in the worst possible light. Nor any healthy individual. One can not fault the Good decent Muslims which there are many for protesting any attacks on their faith. Anymore than one would expect Christians to not react to any group constantly harping on the incompatibility of some aspects of the Christian Bible in todays secular society. Two extremes don't make a moderate.
There is but one Pope. That 100 influential and respected Muslim educators and clerics came together from around the world in a consensus of understanding and interpretation of the Qur'an is not something that should be shouldered aside as immaterial to what negativity could be made of the Qur'an by those less informed. Baby steps my friend. Baby steps. Mix in the Muslim Secular brief from Florida, another consensus of opinion and change and reformation becomes possible. Patients is a virtue.

Aqvar...quite true. No marketer will point out the deficiencies of their product, but highlight the positive.

None of which changes the fact that when you buy it, you then find out those deficiencies. Sadly, if the price was so high that you took out a mortgage to pay for it, you are LOCKED IN for the duration.

As I've said "moderate Muslims"....can integrate, but are they time bombs?

In a documentary about the rise of Hitler, the one outstanding theme keeps recurring. HIS POWERFUL ORATORY, and his passion. He had certain pet themes which included the restoration of racial purity of Germany and Austria, the destruction of the Jews and various other niceties. But he surely did NOT make a detailed song and dance about his 'final' solution when speaking publically. He surely 'blamed' the Jews and others for Germany's ills, but the actual solution to this was not made public.

"if anyone departs from his Islamic faith KILL HIM" is not high on the 'Must show' list for Islamic web sites.

"May Allah destroy them" (Jews and Christians) will certainly not feature on the front web page of the Victorian Islamic Council. but it SURE is in the Quran.

Along with this.

Surah 4:82

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians".

This is interesting, because 9:30 says regarding Christians "May Allah destroy them" and here "They are the closest to Muslims"..but look at "Pagans and Jews"...... they are THE WORST.

Lets be clear, when the Quran says 'nice' things about 'Christians' what it MEANS is 'Those Christians who do NOT confess 'Jesus Christ, Son of God' in other words.. they are not Christians at all.

So, in SUMMARY....Islam has hatred towards.

1/ JEWS
2/ PAGANS
3/ Christians (who are true)

The worst are Jews and Pagans.

That makes it pretty much ALL of us non Muslms

Belonging to a particular religion could hardly integrate in any different society as religious particulars dictate differentiation automatically, naturally.

Therefore, secularism of multi-nations countries is a way to their social unity.

“Atheism” is not used in this text-but let a reader guess…

Boaz,

Your intentional mis-interpretation is interesting:

- There is a number references (like 4:82) to establish the rights for the minorities 14 centuries ago.
- There is also a clear reference that Muslims do not judge others or other religions and that judgement is reserved to God (22:15).
the misleading one you quoted at the end was the definition fo enemy in a time of war which is misleading (obviousley in your case it is intentional and planned).

Boaz, I met a lot of missionaries like you in Africa: lies, deception, brooo haaa haaa and Jesus's axe. I am used to that. I guess what is puzzling me is this:

- If a Muslim cleric is twisting the islamic material the way you do, I would reported him to ASIO for inciting fear, hate and violence.
Convince me why you should be different?

Fellow Human, I've made that same point to Boaz-David before. That if he was a Muslim and sprouting what he does, giving some of the web sites he does, he would be in dire straights with the Anti-Terrorism Act. Lucky he is just a 'devout' Christian.

He probably sees himself as a Christian missionary with zeal. David slaying Goliath. Sales people with his methods would have the Fair Trade Practices Act thrown at them. 2nd hand car sales men could learn a thing or two!

The Quran.....WORD of Allah or... 'Words of Mohammad' ?

If the Quran is the WORD of ALLAH then, one is curious why Allah cannot make up his mind about Christians and Jews... one minute he is at war with them (because of their core beliefs) and the next minute they are 'close but no cigar'.

Your response(FH and YVONNE) reveals some important issues.

1/ 'Which' part of the Quran which I have already quoted should predominate in terms of the 'correct' Muslim attitude to Christians and Jews. According to many Muslim authorities, Muslims must 'Love what Allah loves and HATE what Allah hates. True or false?

2/ Blindness is selective. Yvonne seems to simply 'not get' the actual meaning of 9:30.. Yvonne.. do you?
F.H. is cheerfully selecting a more 'Christian/Jew friendly' verse, and claiming this is what establishes 'minority rights' in the Islamic state.

But if the Quran is the WORD of Allah, then Allah is either confused or changes his mind. Further, if it is his WORD then how can it be wrong ? How can his 'Allah is at war with them' and 'MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM' have any other interpretation than that he wishes Christians and Jews destroyed due to their core belief regarding the Son of God ? (which is a threat to Mohammad's own claim and political aspirations)

F.H. you mention that this verse was about a time of Battle.

I've CLEARLY pointed out that the verse does NOT condemn Christians or Jews for breaking any treaty, but for their CORE BELIEFS .. and so I have to suggest, that my understanding of this verse is more correct than yours.
Believing that Christ is the Son of God has NOTHING to do with the battle.

Syed Maududi on Surah 9
"The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah."

In the next breath he refers to the 'Conquest of Arabia' hmmmmmm peaceful Islam?

Yvonne, please view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP4CvfnbQaw
I speak Indonesian, the captions are spot on.

F.H. perhaps you can clarify something for me.

1/ Is the Qur'an the Word of Allah ? as in..Allah dictated the words which Mohammad recorded ?

2/ If so, then how else can we understand "May Allah destroy them" than that it means what it says.

3/ If you agree that those words are NOT the Word(s) of Allah, then what does that say about the Qur'an ? and Islam ? What would a Sheikh say about your status as a Muslim in such a case?

For you and Yvonne, consider this.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm
Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars, dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger, a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous, monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity...

Qur'an says Christians and Jews are: (9:30)

-Allah (Himself) fighteth against them, How perverse are they! (Pikthal)
-Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Yusuf Ali)
-may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! (Shakir)

If this was an isolated incident, with reference to specific behavior by Christians and Jews, a milder understanding is permissable. But it is
a) Not isolated. (Mohammed also curses Christians and Jews on his deathbed REPEATEDLY)
b) Relates to BELIEF not action.

Now.. you say I'm spreading hate? On the contrary, I am POINTING OUT THE SOURCE of ANTI SEMITIC hate which is residing in the religion of Islam against the majority of Australians.

Just like someone in Germany should have pointed out the hate which is in Mein Kampf BEFORE Hitler had the power to obliterate 6,000,000 Jews.

Mohammad DID commit genocide against Jews.(Banu Qurayza)

I've shown video's of how 'Qur'an believing Muslims' in Indonesia attack Christians. Yet..."I'm spreading hate" ?

I am combating hate, by pointing out its SOURCE.

People have a moral right to hate Nazism AND anything like it.

Boaz,

Hitler, 12 April 1922 speech:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." "My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

Please read his whole speech on the German Gov archives website and note how he copied references from the Bible such as "their sword will become our plow" (Micah 4:3) and the ‘tears of war’ copied from (Joel 3:9-10)

Even though you are marketing your faith as loving, peaceful and tolerant, someone found justification to murder 6 million innocent jews using Biblical references.

A decade ago in Rwanda, 96% population murdered 800,000 non-Christian infidels! How did that happen?

My point is simple: it’s not the scripture, its how you contextualise and teach it. If you followed the same approach with the Bible you might win the world’s shortest book.

How do you explain that Christians and Jews lived amongst Muslims for the last 14 centuries, their faith, places of worship intact while the Muslims and Jews were slaughtered (and burnt alive) under tolerant Christianity? Something is not adding up Boaz.

F.H. I disagree with your point "It's not the scripture, but how you contextualise it".....

I prefer to say "It's about correct and incorrect interpretation"

When Hitler used the cleansing of the temple to justify his racial prejudices, he 'wrongly' interpreted the scripture.

1/ He claimed that "our Lord and Saviour chased the evil Jews from the temple"
a) Neglecting Jesus WAS a Jew.
b) His cleansing of the temple had NOTHING to do with their race, but everything to do with their actions as people.
c) Jesus never taught that the ill treatment of people based on their race was acceptable.
d) He seems to think Jesus was an Aryan.

When we have a verse like Surah 9:30 it is abundantly clear (probably even to a child) that the verse attacks Christians and Jews because of their 'BELIEF'. So, given that this Surah was 'sent down' from Allah (unless you have a heretical view of the Quran) we have in this verse the very mind of Allah, according to Islam.

How in the world can you talk about 'contextualising' the 'mind of Allah'?

As I said in another post. "Your" Islam is not that of many others.
Lets use a local example, the Imam of the preston Mosque. How does he regard the Quran ?

Geraline Doog

The ..... Holy Qu'ran (is) considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God and not open to interpretation ?

Sheikh Fehmi Iman

Islam is the clear clean page which doesn't change. It didn't change in the past, is not changing now, it will not change in the future.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s287380.htm

COMMENT
I rest my case old son..... thats from the transcript of the interview.

Fellow_Human, why are people grudgeful? As you state:
"How do you explain that Christians and Jews lived amongst Muslims for the last 14 centuries, their faith, places of worship intact while the Muslims and Jews were slaughtered (and burnt alive) under tolerant Christianity? Something is not adding up Boaz".

Nor is it adding up on the Muslim side either my fellow human.

Can I quote from a news report on the January 2007 release of "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'i of Iran", which is a new report by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC). http://news.bahai.org/story/502

"Practicing members of the Baha'i faith are subjected in the Islamic Republic of Iran to a level of social exclusion and harassment that shocks the conscience," said Tom Parker, Executive Director of the IHRDC. "Community leaders have been murdered and sites of irreplaceable religious significance destroyed.

"Ordinary Baha'is are refused access to education and employment opportunities and cannot openly worship. They have become third class citizens in the country in which their faith was born. It is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut case of religious persecution," said Mr. Parker.

Interesting this. It was also interesting to see in The Sydney Morning Herald recently, the juxtaposition of an article giving a whitewashed view of Islam ("A new faith for Kooris", May 4, 2007), which portrayed Islam as a faith for the oppressed, while on the page opposite there was an article about the minority Samaritan community in Israel and Palestine.

As this article by SMH correspondent Ed O'Loughlin noted: "In Israel, which considers them to be Jews, Samaritan men usually perform their mandatory military service, but West Bank Samaritans prefer to avoid taking sides. In recent years many have been forced to abandon their original homes inside Nablus in the face of growing Muslim harassment".

I would suggest to you Fellow-Human that the peaceful co-existence of Muslims with Christians and Jews is now PAST HISTORY as the list of Muslim-majority countries in which non-Muslims are accorded the same rights as Muslims is pathetically tiny.

Dear FH. still waiting for a clear and simple answer on the meaning of 9:30

Today..Hilali calls for Muslims to 'stand in the trenches' with Iran.

Headline "Iran call sparks Hilali sedition probe"

Lets compare his action with the conditions imposed by MOhammad in the Treaty of Hudabiya.

"No attacks on any of Mohammad's forces OR any allied to him."

Mohammed decided that the Meccans had broken the treaty, because some obscure tribe allied to the Quraish attacked (quite justly from what I read) an ally of Mohammad. On this basis he invaded Mecca. "They have broken the treaty"

On the same basis of Hilali's antics, Kaab bin Al Ashraf was assasinated. "He is seeking alliances with the enemies of Islam"
He was writing poetry against MOhammad, and stirring up others against Mohammad.

HILALI IS DOING THE SAME ! except it is against Australia!

Clearly, this 'moderate' is one major reason why there is no possibility of Muslim integration into Australian society, the only possible course is 'parallel' society and an eventual attempt at usurping our sovereignty.
If Hilali and company are calling for the Muslim world to "stand in the trenches with Iran" "now".....what will they be saying if they have infiltrated our society at much more serious level.

We should scrutinise more closely the nature of Mohammad's treaties, and when and why he broke them, and how he considered others broke them, and how he acted subsequently. Why? because Hilali and company are VERY aware of these things.

Call Hilali many things, but don't call him 'irrelevant' specially when he has the clear support of the Lebanese Muslims.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21725189-601,00.html
Alalam on its website had quoted the disputed leader of Australia's 300,000 Muslims as saying the global Islamic nation would not "kneel" to its enemies and should unite with Iran. "The mufti of Australia has called on the Islamic world to stand in the trenches with the Islamic Republic of Iran which possesses the might and power," the website reported.

Did everyone note the term "Global Islamic NATION"

Snappy Tom,

My point exactly: it not the scripture but how you preach it.

Boaz,

Stop living in the past.
The Time magazine top 100 most influencial personalities chose a Muslim Moderate preacher: Amr Khaled.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1610319,00.html

Any idea why Hilali is still in the Australian news and not this guy?

Peace,

F_H

I took the time to read A Khaled's and 42 other Muslim cleric's proclamation.

My first impression is to believe in the greater good inherent in most people.

Unfortunately, I can not help but recall A Arafat of the PLO -- a despotic, amoral, mass murdering, duplicitous, smiling snake. He conned the left leaning media along with Presidents Carter, Bush, Nixon and Clinton for decades. Peace agreement after peace agreement dashed due to his duplicitous dealings.

Why? Simply, because the prime goal of destroying Israel would not be achieved during peacetime.

I would like to belive that Western democracies have learned something after the decades of deceit by the quintessential moderate Muslim slime ball.

What are the bookmaker's odds that Amr Khaled isn't playing another version of con the infidels and catch them napping

Yeah, same faces-same stories. Allah Akbar-Long live Christ!

F.H. I presume Hilaly is in the news because:

a) Newscorp is 'out to get him'
b) He makes possibly seditious statements about all muslims aligning with Iran.
c) He is twofaced.
d) He offends Australians in every second mouthfull.
e) all of the above.

How many 'Good Christians' are in the news ? scarce few. But how many 'hatchet jobs' has Hollywood done on the image of Christians by portraying them as:
a)Whackos.
b)Skitzoids.
c)Child molesters.
d)Happy Clapping geeks.

My concern, to be a bit repetitive, is that radicals will always seek to radicalIZE moderates. So, even though nice blokes like your good self can fit in no problem, the 13 who I saw in the dock in Melbourne appear to have different ideas. They won't even stand for the magistrate.

As an example of how dangerous the Radicals are. Bear in mind that 'Al Ghurabaa' is pretty much defunkt now to my knowledge, but this little group had big impact.
This is their type of Theology:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

This is how it was translated into mobs on the streets of London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-1z2MRTaQ8&mode=related&search=

So, we can attack the 'ideas' behind these groups or we can attack THEM physically. I'm sure you would agree that the 'word' is preferable to the fist.
But one thing is for sure, unless these satanists (radical Muslims) are stopped, they could do a LOT of damage.

Everybody asks me how I wrote "Elastic Man", so I tell these Gretchen Franklin nosey matron things, "How dare you assume I want to parlez-vous with you?" It's that easy. So I hear you telephone thing listening in, 'cos I can hear the grass grow and I hear rainbows in the evening.

BOAZ David, I shouldn't think anyone faults you for ringing the alarm bell on the Islamic extremist(violent by word or deed)with in Australian society and discussing the harm done to the laws and secular associations through appeasement(rather than standing firm on the laws of the land). Having said that, I think it is just as necessary to relax ones grip on the bell rope and give credit where credit is due with out fearing any loss to your concerns in argument.

Peace

Hi Cowboy Joe,

Amr Khaled is not into politics and his most famous work now is ‘invitation to co-existence”. He is viewed by +30 million Muslims (mainly youth) and is considered the most influential modern thinker amongst Muslims today. I am not sure I understand how Arafat (as a politician) fits into this discussion? Israel and Palestine is about a land conflict and not religious conflict and most Arabs (and Muslims) support 2 states solution. I separate ‘Arabs’ and Muslims as Arabs are only 16% of the Muslim world.

Boaz,

“To be a bit repetitive”
You are! :) No offence intended.
As Aqvarivs said you have to give credit when it’s due and support the moderate majority.
Where we disagree is this:
- I think the only way to get rid of Radicals is to empower moderates of the same faith and hence radical Islam (at an ideology level) is moderate Muslim problem to deconstruct as a first line of defence.
- The first nail in the radicals’ coffin is to stop linking them to Islam by finding them another name like what the British did with the IRA. If the British called them ‘radical Catholics’ or 'Catholic terror’ where would we be today?

PS: I disagree with your comment “radicals converting moderates”. If it was so easy they wouldn’t have resorted to bombing the moderates: 90%+ of terrorism victims are Muslims. There is a line between ringing bells and promoting the tactics of fear Boaz,

Thanks, I will try to keep track of A Khaled. Hope he doesn't have an accident.

The 'moderates' have been very quiet over the years and even when very few of them do speak up their criticism is mild in comparison to the activities of the radicals. They (Islamists) are not really Muslim's seems to be the common statement. I do not recall any marches against the militarisation of Islam but they have marched in Sydney for other reasons. My suspicion is that they are quite content to have a bet both ways -- their perception might be the promise of a win win situation.

Perhaps they are busy paying the mortgage, raising children, coping with work and trying to enjoy themselves once in awhile but it would be very reassuring if they could somehow manage a more vehement denouncement.

They do not seem to be aware of OLO either.

New apostasy bill to impose death on anyone who leaves Islam http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A draft bill adopted in first reading by Pakistan’s National Assembly is now before a standing committee. Tabled by a six-party politico-religious alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal or MMA, the Apostasy Act 2006 which the government sent to the committee would impose the death penalty on Muslim men and life in prison on Muslim women in case they leave Islam. It would also force them to forfeit their property and lose legal custody of children.

During the same session, lawmakers rejected another draft bill moved by minority MNA Bhandara which sought to amend the existing blasphemy law....

Should the bill become law anyone who leaves Islam for another religion can be sentenced to death (if male) or life in prison ‘until repentance occurs’ (if female).

Section 4 of the bill says that the offender’s own confession in court or the testimony by at least two adults is sufficient grounds for conviction in apostasy cases. Testimony by non Muslims is not however admissible in certain Pakistani courts.

Section 5 stipulates that the ‘offender’ must be granted 3 to 30 days to recant the conversion and return to Islam. But even in cases where the person returns to Islam judges can impose two-year sentences as punishment for the original ‘crime’. The accused can convert and reconvert up to three times before the death sentence becomes automatic.

I will be listening to talk back radio waiting for moderate Australian Muslims to soundly denounce the legislation. Their silence will speak volumes -- again.

The appeasers will spin an alternate reality-- again and the world community will appear impotent in stopping the radical movement.

And Sydneysiders think Mormons are a dangerous sect. Doh!

Joe... now you may begin to understand my enduring affection for mr Musharraf.... were it not for him, such laws I'm sure would be passed in an instant.

Contrary to what F.H. suggests.. the 'conversion of the moderates' by radicals issue.. well.. look at it here. The 'Quranic' Muslims are behind this law, and may I say it first perfectly like a glove into the Quranic and Hadith teaching on the issue.

So, it becomes clear, that in a country (UNlike Australia) where Islam is the dominant religion, there will be pressure from the 'zealots' to return to the foundation documents and practices of the religion concerned.

FH. speaks from a 'minority status' Islam, and connects our thinking with those selected individuals who's mention promotes his benign approach.

Sadly, the reality against which I for one am struggling, is that which you observe in Pakistan. Like they say "It won't happen over night, but it will....happen" and I'm referring to the ugly (but real)side of Islam.

Note..I say "Islam"... that law IS the faith,- the religion itself.

People like FH in western societies would not make much mention of this, but I highly doubt that FH would stand up in the town square in Islamabad and cry out against such a law..... would you FH.? :)

In fact..it might make a good documentary.. "Australian Christians and Jews fund a trip by moderate Muslim to Pakistan to publically denounce the punishment for apostacy law" and the ABC 4 corners can have a camera crew there to witness and record what happens.

Inconsistent as usual, Boaz.

>>Note..I say "Islam"... that law IS the faith,- the religion itself<<

If this is true, and since Pakistan is undoubtedly a Muslim country, how come the law in question a) does not already exist or b) has not been passed?

Cowboy Joe

“will be listening to talk back radio waiting for moderate Australian Muslims to soundly denounce the legislation. Their silence will speak volumes – again”

That’s why myself and many Aussie Muslims stopped calling the talk back radio. I am out of the guilt trip. It worked for a while but I am not going to run and call a radio station every time does something stupid somewhere on planet earth.
US Mormons have 50,000 polygamy cases based on interpretation (or mis-interpretation of the Bible). I am not knocking on my Catholic or Orthodox friends next door telling them ‘please explain’.

Boaz,

I always feel like a fish in a tank: wow, look, it’s a whole new coral…5 seconds later…wow, look it’s a *the same* whole new coral, etc…
You quote "FH is in 'minority status' Islam…"
So now that you are running out of arguments, you pushed me in the ‘minority’ box? So what do I make out of the 80-100 Aussie Muslims that I know in Sydney? They are bankers, accountants, engineers, traders, shopkeepers who are working hard to make a living, contribute to the society and raise a family. All of them are a minority? You are right, keep focussing the microscope on the ‘hardly visible majority’, I am sure you will find 'few' to use as a 'majority. Two words: ‘seek help’

PS: Please spare us the 'sincere concerns' statement. If one is sincere about observing the ‘moderates and modernisation’ as you claim, you wouldn’t be dwelling on Pakistan and Mawdudi interpretations of the Quran..

Fellow Human, don't despair. It is a common trick to reduce opposing moderate voice of Islam. Please keep on writing and commenting. There are non-Muslims like myself listening and want to exchange thoughts.

Without contributors like yourself, it will just be us 'others' squabling amongst ourselves. And if you think your credibility can be reduced, a non-Muslim is completely without credibility.

The vociferous comments when a moderate Muslim writes an article for OLO are quite extraordinary. It just is never moderate enough, or loud enough, or Middle Eastern enough (only Aussie/Western). It simply is never good enough for some.

“Moderate Muslims”-is not a stupid expression?

To what degree was any other confession already being moderated, or?

The great communicator MichaelK stumbles over his thoughts again.

At least he is trying to be concise, maybe there is hope.

Actually, a conciseness providing a core of an issue is a talent itself, and needs no tumbling by lacking the elementary topic-related professionalism and understanding uneducated cowboys.

Isn't it time the Federal Government legislated an Accetable Behaviour for all Religions Act?
Some relevent points could be:
Equality between male & female:
Western/Australian dress in public
No persecution for changing religions:
All ministers to preach in English
Threats of violence to be a Federal offence
Australia Day to be sub-named "Integration Day" with many activities to reflect this
Religious schools to activily integrate with State Schools etc

Dear Wollads...in short YES!

and plenty more as well. :)

We have witnessed selective enforcement of existing vilification laws and so this entrenched mindset could be an ongoing problem even with new laws. The two ministers of religion in Victoria were prosecuted over some factual statements that others took offence to. By contrast the majority have to tolerate offensive & stupid preachings by an addled Sheik every couple of months and he remains untouched by the legal system.

I was once told not to show the soles of my shoes in a discussion with Muslim customers as they would be offended. However, it never occurs to the PC crowd to point out that I was entitled to be offended that they might be offended because it would be perfectly clear to any feces for brains moron that no offense was intended.

When the declared cultural war blends with the undeclared war against democracy many journalists, Labour pollies & uni lecturers seem to manage to assert their Marxist bias at every cross road. It is a very unlikely alliance but some people will do anything to move closer to their goal.

Case in point we are still hearing about David H or whatever his real name is. Apparently, he had toast & coffee for breakfast. The pathology of the left can not be any more apparent than it has been with this bloke. Also referred to a father of two -- and just what sort of father would that be? But no, he is constantly referred to in the most benign language possible; his story is just another opportunity for the far left to massage & manipulate the ignorant masses before the looming election.

Your proposed legislation could be a positive and proactive strategy but I can't help but be concerned that 'they' will turn it into another method of discriminating against the majority.

In short it is unlikely that the legislation will be utilised in manner that it was originally intended IE objectively applied.

Diarest wollads,

Which holy book provides all these testaments?

Cowboy Joe, nothing ventured, nothing gained. As the old maxim goes. We must invest in our social growth. Given time Muslims acclimated to the benefit and protections of secular law will support it. Outside of the radical minority, Muslims who came here for a better life will not want their families and businesses they have nurtured to success dead on the streets of Australian cities and towns due to unrestrained Islamic sectarian violence and neighbourhood death squads.

Diarest wollads,

Which holy book provides all these testaments?
Posted by MichaelK

Deerist MikelJ ewe tol us, evun batter tol us whar in tha post the ward book apeers. Ta.

So wa hav J ewee s wiz Moslim-Azzii azimilasn?

Eventually, well organized Muslim hatred will sweep racist Aungl-regim on "green continent" leaving none but David H-back converted only, perhaps. The question remains, where they succeed first-in Sydney or London

All I have been saying.. could not be better summarized by some Muslims themselves.

KEITH.. are you out there mate ? reading ? Logic ? :)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4813382.html

[Some said the fighting showed the power-sharing deal only papered over the disputes between Hamas and Fatah. "The Mecca agreement didn't get into the deep-rooted divisions between Hamas and Fatah," said Saudi writer Khalid al-Dakhil.
Those who signed onto the deal at Mecca knew it faced opposition from extremists on both sides, said Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi.]

Key words:

-deep rooted divisions
-extremists
-both sides

*bingo*.... and the blood flows on.

I see the ultimate proof of integration is the % of eligible Australians in the armed services.

Do we have confidence that all groupings will answer the call if Australia ever needs it?

What about the inequality of the sexes? Males totally dominatre some groups, unfortulately with terrible results. Probably there would be less bloodshed if women ran countries (hopefully)

A deeply religious person on TV said without religion, there would be fornicatrion in the streets! Perhaps so, but at least there wouldn't be bloodshed in the streets. Look how many religious conflicts there are worldwide.

Lets make sure it doesn't happen here in Australia.

“Fornicatrion in the streets” happens where religious bigots demonstrate their clergy will openly.

“Lets make sure it doesn't happen here in Australia” – self-assurance of accepting Judo-Christian grounding values by Muslims ticking this answer during naturalization test is a next nowadays stupidity demonstrated most recently by national-liberal Anglo-racists keeping their both castles in the UK and offspring employed overseas either

Michael- can you use shorter and cleared sentences- I am old and thick

Wish you get well soon on merits your natural age allows, of course.

Is it CLEARed sentence

The statement; Positive Muslim integration is possible. Allows for a successful probability. Which then begs the question. Is positive Muslim acceptance possible. No matter how diligently one conforms to be accepted there has to be acceptance. Muslims must make some compromise in their religious social dictation and mainstream Australians must be more encouraging in helping all Muslims in their effort to successfully integrate and respond holistically to societal values and laws already established for the benefit and protection of everyone.
It shouldn't be an us or them proposition instigated by either side.

aqvar
I contemplated this question as I spoke with a Somali bloke at the easter Islamic conference/seminar in Melbourne some time back.

"Can there be acceptance of Muslims in Australia" it depends....

I think if they are simply 'nominal' and good blokes and sheila's.. fine. Not many people will make much fuss.

But the problem comes with how serious they are as Muslims. Close scrutiny of history and the foundation documents and traditions, show a non acceptance of Christians and Jews especially by Muslims at the doctrinal level.

A serious, knowledgable Muslim living along side of you, a Christian would be thinking "Yep.. if we gain power, you are just a DHIMMI" and then your rights would suddenly be withdrawn in many areas. You would no longer be free to proclaim the gospel.. which is part of our faith "Go into all the world, make disciples of all nations" etc"

The denial of that basic right in Muslim controlled countries is anathema to Christians. Here is how it works when Muslims have the political power. I know of no muslim controlled country which legally allows Christians to convert or evangelize Muslims.

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003402.html

[The 13 states of Malaysia have mostly adopted the Control and Restriction Bill, which gives a fine of 10,000 ringit ($2,653) or imprisonment for up to one year for "persuading, influencing a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion."]

VALUES. For me the most important thing is 'what values' are growing "with" the Islamic community? The above should be self evident.

Remember, I've lived in Malaysia and have felt this first hand.

My area. 25% Muslims max
-5:00am WAILLLLLLLING of the call to prayer at about a GIGAwatt from the moque.
-Friday "Muslim sermon broadcast to the whole town"

Do they REALLY think we non Muslims want to be ear bashed at a Gigawatt about Islam and Mohammad? :) NOT A CHANCE.

BOAZ David,
I can't say if I lived next door to a Mosque I would appreciate a 5am. shout to prayer but, then again I did live once directly across the street from a Catholic Church and got used to the sound of about 15min. of straight bell ringing each Sunday. Time tells. I would adapt and if I couldn't, I'd move. I'm no fan of evangelism. I've had the too many times experience of self righteous "Christians" tell me Catholicism is all wrong and I should join their Church of Blahblahbalh. And that only their Church was the real Christianity. I don't blame that on religion. I blame it on people. Jesus didn't say convert the world to Christianity. He said I am the way and the light and go among the people and be a living example that will bring us to the heavenly father. As in lead by doing. Not lead by talking trash on the court of religion. :-)
If you don't like how some Muslims behave set the example so they will have a comparative model. Then when you say something they will be more inclined to hear you. Otherwise you risk becoming like those church bells. You would have your voice but, only heard by those already like minded, and all others deaf to your shout to conversion. Besides a world of nothing but "Christians" would be no different than a world of nothing but Muslims. Be careful what you wish for. You wouldn't want to be placed in the book of "not our kind of Christian". Bad things start to happen.

Hi Aqvar
well.... 15 minutes of bells would probably drive me batty too :)

Though, I think Church bells are not until later in the morning correct?

I'll criticize Roman Catholicism quite harshly, from a doctrinal point of view, mainly in the area of Transubstantiation, Indulgences, and rigid celibacy of Priests along with the doctrine of 'The Church' being that which must be obeyed rather than only Christ, or that obedience to Christ is interpeted as obedience to the RC Church.

That said, I would shudder at the thought of then claiming 'my' tradition is 'the' correct one. I think all traditions should be scrutinized in the light of scripture. The differences between Baptists and Brethren are miniscule and Church of Christ also.. Anglicans are closer to RC but there are evangelical and liberal Anglicans. I find the very term Church "OF ENGLAND" having no relevance whatsoever outside 'England' :)Just as the 'Roman' Catholic idea outside Rome.
The 'Church Catholic' in truth is the body of Christ comprising of all those with sincere and biblical faith, whatever their tradition.

So please don't ever think I'm campaigning for any particular denomination. (some call them 'abominations') If anything, I'm more a campaigner for Scriptural Christianity, and if my own thoughts ever became a 'movement' and then a 'denomination' it would be sad and it would have the same 'warts' as various others.

A visious cirle of religious bigotry well fed up with exceptionism, which is a simple apartheid itself.

Thanks for the link David

You are making sense to me.

BOAZ_David, There is no "the doctrine of 'The Church' being that which must be obeyed" in Roman Catholicism. That's an old tale told by Protestants to justify separating from Rome in the hopes of covering up the fact that the Church of England split from the Roman so the English Monarchy could dictate religious policy via law(see Henry The VIII). Henry approached the Eastern Orthodox Church (Eastern Catholic) and received no joy from them either for his immediate divorces. Which is all water under the bridge, as in ecumenical unity, or worldwide Christian cooperation. And not forgetting that the times have changed even if a few refuse to join in with the reconciliation. Not all Christians are worthy of the name and having this example with in Christianity ought to have Christians holding out a hand to Muslims in understanding. Instead many Christians have chosen to get all pissy and adopt an in the face reactionist attitude to the likes of Hilali et al setting the fools up to be someone considered by the media to be news worthy and therefore every grunt these people speaks immediately gets placed on the front page as if there was actual value in their condemnations.
Thankfully most recognize just how large a step it is to go from religious authoritarian dictatorship to secular social law and experiencing freedom on a single boat trip of a day or two, or plane trip of a matter of hours, and just how people like Hilali prey on that religious and cultural discombobulation.

What a delighting: “the fact that the Church of England split from the Roman so the English Monarchy could dictate religious policy via law. […] Thankfully most recognize just how large a step it is to go from religious authoritarian dictatorship to secular social law … and just how people like Hilali prey on that religious and cultural discombobulation”!

Making a liiitle step forward one might easily grasp all the artificial substance of dividing the people by faiths and confessions as this deed profits particular sheppard-es only - FINANCIALLY, at the end of the day, of course.

MichaelK., the only problem with putting forth a conspiracy thesis of religion being a "corporate" tool is to convince the average person to reject historical sequential facts. Religion, and a very great many there have been, preceded merchandising.

aqvarivs,

Playing a clergy card is a danger for any multi-nations country.

Therefore, either of minorities a total oppression on a religious basis or logically leaving all the spectrum of religions in the socio-political life’s most unattended corners the seen options are

MichaelK., unfortunately I can only think of one religion that is during this era of human advancement oppressing it's people. Which is why to my mind the people have migrated to Australia and many other western secular countries. Unfortunately their oppressors follow to maintain the tension on the leash and we end up with situations the likes which are popping up in Europe, Australia, and United States. As I said in an earlier post. It is not the fault of the text. It is the individual and their willingness on how they choose to interpret. We are all responsible individually and then collectively. One does not excuse the other.
I am not responsible for the tenor of your post but, if what troubles you is real and a prevalent social negative then I do share a collective responsibility.

Dear Aqvar....I didn't mean to be trotting out a 'party line' there bro.. sorry if it sounded thus..but I ask you... is the RC church fine with the idea of non RC churches which are not under its spiritual wing? if yes.. can you possibly demonstrate this with some documentation? If the RC church IS comfortable with Protestant denominations, then were are much more on the same page.

BAULKHAM HILLS 'Positive Muslim Integration' (apologies to Brushy)
Over 5 THOUSAND letters from local residents saying they don't want a Muslim prayer hall in the vicinity and the council said:

*(In rejecting the application) "the proposed house of worship would impact on the rural-residential character of the area and cause social unrest and antisocial behaviour. Also
the prayer centre was not considered to be in accordance of the shared beliefs, customs and values of the local community".*

Yet.. Abbas Ali the man behind the hall says:

"Mr Aly disagreed that a majority of residents opposed the development, saying there were just a vocal few who were against the prayer hall being built in the area."

COMMENT:

5000 letters of protest is 'a vocal few' ?

The appeal JUDGE said:

"While I recognise there is strong community opposition to the proposal and that the residents have real fears, these fears must have foundation and a rational basis, which in this case is absent,"

Rational fear is absent Judge? "MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM" (Christians and Jews) Quran 9:30 ..is what I call the 'MAGNA CUM LAUDE' of rational reaons.

It was absent, because they did not know the Quran.. rest assured.. THEY DO NOW! Truth...is sometimes just a phone call away.

Brushy.. the 'Emperor' still has a job to do mate. (Romans 13)
Once he has done what is needed for state security.. the people can live in harmony. You don't have to 'glare at and swear at' people you are gently and lovingly deporting in the interests of community harmony:)

BOAZ David, there has been for the past twenty years that I know of a ecumenical unification between Catholic and Protestant Churches and has been extended to include Judaism, except for the various orthodoxies(?), I'm unsure of whether they are involved or not. I'm also aware that both the Catholic and Protestant Church are reaching out to Muslim leaders with an interest in bringing them into the greater "relations" of Churches.

It took years of good will to bring the Christian Churches together and more to include the Jewish faith. We can not expect the Muslims to come on board with out allowing for an equal period of consideration

Religion is a way of living and a path for living, aqvarivs, for the followers if religion is in place.

MichaelK., yes it is, but unfortunately like all things human there is the dark side that one must be for ever vigilant. Religion has been used by the few to beat up the majority and is still used by some for that purpose. Which is why the west has developed a separation between the Church and the State. To protect both from the interference of the other.
Muslim integration is a basic understanding and acceptance of this principle. What we are witnessing is Muslims meeting this dividing line and pushing against it to see how far it will bend in favour of Islamic social rule. The backlash against this pushing is Muslims learning that that line dividing church from state is more of a bow string. Pluck at it and it reverberates until it gradually subsides. However if you keep pushing the line, or plucking at this bow string that divides church from state, the noise will continue until people become so tired of the noise violence erupts. Pluck carefully. Two world wars have been fought by the west to ensure that line exist and is an integral part of democracy. No one should be surprised if a third world war is fought to keep all democratic principles alive and well.

What are we to make of Malaysia- a person ther CAN'T stop being Muslim? What does this mean to Muslims in Australia- can they change their beliefs without persecution?

Dear Aqvar....regarding your 'ecumenical' post.. mate.. you are referring to 'organizational' unity.. the only unity which counts is 'spiritual'... and we have that already between believing Catholics and Protestants.

Jews ? well the biblical view of them is extreme compassion and tenderness.. there is no reason to include them 'organizationally' into some huge super ecumenical movement. Just plain luv em as others.

Muslims.. now that's where it gets difficult.

Jews have no specific teaching against Christians, they simply interpret their own documents in ways which suit their racial, religious, cultural and nationalistic views.

Islam specifically condemns both Jews and Christians. I see no reason whatsoever to 'include' Muslims in any spiritual Biblical event, save that of to evangelise them about the true Grace of God as expressed in Christ Jesus ..Son of God, Messiah and Lord.

It is possible for 'nominal/cultural' Muslims, Jews and Christians to spend time together, to enjoy social company, but only where the spiritual foundation is put aside.

So, connecting this to the topic... it is possible to integrate "nominal" Muslims socially, but there will always be the danger of them becoming 'fair dinkum' about their faith.

My head is still spinning trying to get around the fact that Omar the 2nd Caliph, was married to Mohammad's GRANDchild and Omars own daughter was married to MOHAMMAD! (Yes I can source that)

BOAZ_David, there is no reason for there to be constructed a definitive demarcation between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All can be included in the greater 'relations' of Churches. This is what leads to ecumenical understandings and a positive cosmopolitan secular attitude. Defining exclusionary playing fields leads to social disharmony and acrimonious interfaith relationships. Australians ought to be encouraging the government to initiate and define legal means for the expression of Islam as a religion while augmenting and buttressing current secular law to protect the separations between Church and State. The idea is to be proactive while at the same time protecting social and religious boundaries. Building fortresses out of fear of change is what drives the anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Islam rhetoric. Which means we must in the face of no change build more fortresses and propagate the rhetoric of fear to build more fortresses ad infinitum. Eventually, we will inherit the violence championed by the few extremist because that is what will be needed to tear down that religious 'Maginot Line'. I don't countenance self-fulfilling Armageddon like prophecies. There may be one in the Bible but, I see no reason to ensure it comes to pass today. Or any time soon.

With all respect to your opinion, aqvarivs, I dare suggest that recent reinstatement of the institution of chaplains at Australian schools is not “pushing Muslims off the line”.

Absurdity of declaring separation of a state from a church in modern national-liberal Pleasantville – utopia of Australia has been highlighted with both this deed and with practical possibilities of non-Christians to be elected or even employed simply in so-called mainstream positions practically reserved for Anglo-majority only.

MichaelK., I suppose it's because I can tell the difference between what is knee-jerk over reaction to the perception of the Islamification of Australia and actually having Muslims become active inclusive members of Australian society. There are isolationist and fear mongers in all religious camps. That doesn't mean I have to join with them or attack them. I prefer what I consider a valid, reasoned, socially inclusive POV. One that sees all Australians as being responsible for the social environment in which they must live, and not having isolated exclusive communities scattered about the countryside like independent States warring for eventual domination. Naturally as a racist you would disagree.

Aqvar....
on the surface your post about

"Australians ought to be encouraging the government to initiate and define legal means for the expression of Islam as a religion while augmenting and buttressing current secular law to protect the separations between Church and State."

....seems reasonable.

This to me sounds just a little like the rise of National Socialism.. at the time they could not see where it would take them, but had they read Mein Kampf (and in the Islamic case the Quran/Hadith/Histories) they might have tweaked to the fact that allowing such a movement would take them to Dresdon, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the complete destruction of their states by those (us) who did not wish to have Mein Kampf as the foundation of their societies.

The Quran clearly and unmistakably sets the 'boundaries' between Muslims and non Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians who are to be 'destroyed'. (9:30) The also unmistakable call to 'fight' those who are not yet Muslims (confirmed in the hadith and histories) is also a serious barrier.

Ok.. lets put that aside and seek your 'legal' way of expressing Islam.

Here it is :)

Muslim leaders must:

Declare openly and in public that:

a) Chapter 9:30 in the Quran is ABHORRENT and 2b rejected.(Destroy Christians and Jews)
b) Chapter 9:29 is also ABHORRENT and rejected.(War with non Muslms)
c) Chapter 23:5-6 is also ABHORRENT and rejected. (sex with captive girls)
d) Chapter 33:50 (sexual privilege for Mohammad) is disgusting, and rejected.
e) Chapter 4:24 (prostitution) is immoral.
f) Chapter 4:34 (wife beating) is immoral.

The reasons these must be publically rejected is that by virtue of them being in the Quran "The very Word of Allah" they have been eternalized, there is no room for future change. Social conditions have no bearing on the eternal validity of the text.

Christians and Jews have every right to demand a public rejection of 9:30.

"all Australians as being responsible for the social environment in which they must live, and not having isolated exclusive communities scattered about the countryside like independent States warring for eventual domination" - looks nice, but a recent fight is to KEEP a status of an "eventual domination" where all others not assuming themselves biologically worse might be branded "racist" on this page for instance. And any growing number of particular co-believers brings about this feeling of heralded already seemingly esisting equity realistically.

BOAZ_David, 2000 years and the OT text has not been publicly rejected by Christians, and Christians and non-Christians still turn to those pages to justify or vilify. I don't think you understood my "legal expression of Islam and the augmenting and buttressing current secular law to protect the separations between Church and State." For verification, that would be protecting liberal democracy. The National socialist thing is too far out there in left field for me to pass back to you any reasonable response. Mohammad is not God to Muslims but, a prophet, and whatever he said can be restricted by definition to be the reserve of his lifetime and the trials and tribulations of a warrior statesman. It is not necessary to demean Islam or Muslims or to triumph over them, in order to have them understand the change of times requires a change of theological perspective. Especially those stanzas in the Koran that promote religious and racial prejudice and violence.

MichaelK., I haven't branded you a racist. I have read your hateful posts against Anglo-Saxons and Australian culture. You obviously have a well entrenched victim outlook ("where all others not assuming themselves biologically worse"). I'm sorry for you. It must be difficult having to live in a society and not being accepted as Ruler because you decided to show up. All kinds of people are recognised every year for their outstanding contributions to society. Australians will only accept a fellow Australian as their leader. Start by making your local community better for all. If you can't be Australian and get out there and contribute to your society You can not reasonably expect to run the country.

Appreciating your seemingly balanced approach to discussing hardly understands sometimes your pirouettes-on on terms of English proficiency but context definitely:

“MichaelK., I haven't branded you a racist. I have read your hateful posts against Anglo-Saxons and Australian culture. You obviously have a well entrenched victim outlook ("where all others not assuming themselves biologically worse"). I'm sorry for you. It must be difficult having to live in a society and not being accepted as Ruler because you decided to show up. All kinds of people are recognised every year for their outstanding contributions to society. Australians will only accept a fellow Australian as their leader. Start by making your local community better for all. If you can't be Australian and get out there and contribute to your society You can not reasonably expect to run the country. “

Local Anglo-Saxons are various but a predominant stint is based on a ruling way of upbringing and living where not professional acceptance but “who you are” rules elementary qualification/employment possibilities.
What are you talking of “run the country” if police-system of “job assistance” , that is a profitable business of Labour leader’s wife, is only way of appreciating “Australia culture” ‘s acceptance by a “fellow Australian”.

Wake up to nazi Australian reality-and this “MUSLIMS as our people” topic to become completely senseless thereafter.

MichaelK., WOW. And I bet you there's no pill for that too. Right?
Having a hard time getting a job Mike or in your case what? Keeping one. Wont the boss let you tell him how to run his company?

I'll grant you your minority status but, an honest look at the numbers, Anglo-Saxons are themselves a minority. And last I heard Anglo-Saxons banned together for five years of war to defeat Nazism, where a lot of other nationalities joined the Nazi's hoping to be spared extermination like the Jews, or to rule as Dictators and be free to enslave the conquered.
Each and every person of legal residency in Australia or born in Australia must pronounce themselves Australian(their choice)and act accordingly to the best interest of Australia and Australians regardless of race, creed or colour. It's not up to those who have made that declaration to coerce you or anyone else into making such a pronouncement nor ensure your every need is seen to. Your fee to make your own way and maintain your own attitude. Thrusting that onto others is a rather reversed sense of victimhood.

We will know them by word and deed. (Not by race creed or colour)

Sounds nice and totally supportive by already segregated from "mainstream majority" :

“Each and every person of legal residency in Australia or born in Australia must pronounce themselves Australian(their choice)and act accordingly to the best interest of Australia and Australians regardless of race, creed or colour”.

By a way, how being officially segregated into “ethnic minorities” might act as a majority if segregation and “OWN way” already predetermines differentiation from tribal outsiders?

Like I said Michael, no one is forcing you to join with mainstream society. You are free to huddle up to your tribal fires and pray to your Gods and use the social systems developed and supported by mainstream society as your right. You can barricade yourself within ghettos or barrios or city apartment blocks or suburban estate parks. However, you do not have the right to then promote hate and advocate violence because your never considered for mainstream leadership. If you have excluded yourself from mainstream considerations, you are not a victim of mainstream society. Time you owned up to the choices you have made and quit blaming everyone else for your existence.
Integration Michael is that of an active participant not that of someone whom advocates the world revolve around them.

Your post is a mere tautology because institutional racism and Anglo-paternalism leave no space for non-Anglos/non-Christians in mainstream activities but a subversive niche where self-indulging feeling of being an Australian has not only been ostracized by self-proclaimed “Aussies”-that is Anglo-Saxons/Celts with a particular accent rather than even a birthplace- and de-facto by an existing system of “recommending” the dole recipients on ubiquitous job-providers’ requests if any, while modifying employment statistics to make a pitiful job-market situation more positive prior elections oncoming.

As understood, expressed repeatedly suggestions that non-Anglos cannot rule this Anglo-colonial appendix to an English crown, have been a perfect testimony to the above written.

Itself, interpretation of “rule a country” is too broad, because any VSI-short redneck might be offended by employing a skilled non-Anglos at any appropriate professional position.

What I hear around only is “God forbid from working in a multicultural that is including non-Anglos team”, which is the beginning and end of an Australian “integration”.

Can somebody explain this to me-

In some strong Muslim countries, men wear white robes & women wear black- If the country is all Muslim, don't they trust Muslim men?-
Why do women in old age still wear the coverings- to prevent sexual attack?

In some other Muslim countries. men wear western clothes, women don't- Why the distinction?

In some muslim countries, leading business women wear western clothes-

Women wearing a headress is saying to all "I am a Muslim"
Fair enough- What if everyone walked around with a sign saying "I am a Budist, Hindu, etc etc- would their be any harmony?

Wear what you like in private or at worship, but wear the normal clothes which does not display your belief in public I say.

Imagine this- A boatload of "normal"people, from many different religions, get shipwecked- most clothes are lost at sea so all have to wear the same type of clothes- To survive on the island they all swim to, they have to talk and work together- no distinctions- After a month they are rescued- They feel a sense of sadness as they have realy gotten to know each other, and most promise to keep in touch.

Now look at modern life where people proudly display their "Religion" by wearing of clothing which sets them apart and says" I am different- and probably better than you- Do you see them talking to people not dressed the same way? Communication both directions-NIL

Work it out Australia!

MichaelK, My posts are needless repetitions of an idea?
Well, I suppose that is the best argument I'll get from a racist hater who believes he'd be ruling the world if it wasn't for his skin colour.
Do yourself a favour sport. Get over yourself and join the rest of the world. That is the subtle nuance behind the word and act of integrating.
Of course it means you'll have to drop the attitude and that isn't likely now is it. Better to blame white Australia for your personal issues and failures. Keep the tribal fires burning.

Dear aqvarivs,

Your last message is a pure nonsense-I am while, internationally acclaimed professional acquainted practically with Anglo-xenophobic racism of Australia definitely, toward which worldwide growing attitude is straightening up to date.

Well Mike then your issues are deep and you have a good grasp on them. Even white must integrate. I did when I lived in Canada and again when I lived in the United States. Actually twice in Canada because I spent three months working in Montreal, Quebec. It didn't hurt me and I lost nothing in accepting how things were done and allowing for different perceptions. Of course I wanted to be in those countries and don't hate anyone. I admit that does make a big difference. Approach people in their home country with a gigantic pissy chip on your shoulders and it's going to be an uncomfortable stay. It's best you keep yourself apart. All the better to convince yourself your special and deserving.
No matter what you say Mike I will remain adamant that it is up to you and your responsibility to integrate. Not everyone else's worry whether you do or not. That's part of the rights of freedom. That and your responsible for your own decisions.

Internet provides invaluable opportunity to communicate with variety of people to impossibly reach otherwise, aqvarivs.

“It's best you keep yourself apart” is a honest motto, explicit logo, a swan song of Anglo-thugs stealing resources worldwide, seeing not England-linked tribally as institutionally lower creatures - naturally existing for them slaves as themselves self-assured in their Anglo-superiority for only belonging to English-biologically-native-speakers.

Non-Anglo-Englishness of inferior outsiders that what is a "gigantic pissy chip on your shoulders" you had mentioned, and does it really matter hijab, jumper or tuxedo these SUBJECTS’ any-skin-color shoulders used be covered with in THIS case?

Surely, supposing to further deliberate “integration” should define grounds-“Australian values”, perhaps, - of such hypothetical to the Australian shores something

What do muslims think of the book "Because they Hate" by Brigitte Gabriel?

I could not believe this thread was still chugging along. Am I the only one here that has to work, mow the lawn, change the oil etc?

Absolutely bewildered that anyone would try to have a reasonable dialog with MichaelK, the self anointed, internationally acclaimed, professional tongue twister, and violator of a second language.

I guess it is just another example of Anglo-paternalism to attempt to make sense of his nonsensical ramblings which are sprinkled with randomly placed multi-syllabic words. There was I time when I was genuinely interested in what I thought he might be trying to say -- but his psychosis managed to permeate his convoluted claptrap.

Why can't you all just ignore him?

How ENGLISH it is - ignoring some lower primitive English-second-language creatures while, lacking of answers, pretending an absence of problem itself.

That is why islamists' bombs have been heard better than non-Anglos in Anglo-Commonwealth, pardon me, in a BRITISH post-empire.

Can somebody explain how a muslim woman can report a rape?

Well, she can - depending on a degree of her MUSLIMNESS and where reporting should be at.

Another website says a muslim must have another witness to prove rape?

Well, as mentioned already, it depends where-in some Muslim countries a victim is a criminal by herself.