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)