‘… pundits such as Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine, loudly castigated the “secular left”, but they were unable to cite anyone who actually defended the practice of female genital mutilation on “cultural” grounds, the key point of their critique.’

Exactly. And neither have I.

It’s time to push this disgusting culture-wars myth back into the sewers where it belongs.

"The separation of church, or mosque, and state is not supposed to imply a crusade against religion."

But what if a religion cannot separate islelf from the state?

Islam is a STATE AND A RELIGION.

We enjoy our secular and democratic freedoms BECAUSE of Chritianity and our fore-fathers principles.

All religion are NOT the same.

It will pay - for the sake of secular freedoms - to publicly expose the Islamic realities about integration and tolerance before making broad brush statements...

Multiculturalism has failed because (it) did not factor for the possibility of the NON-ASSIMILABLES!

"Islam is a STATE AND A RELIGION."

Garbage. Not in Turkey it isn't nor was it in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Regimes in Syria and Egypt (majority Muslim populations) have spent considerable time and energy killing Islamic fundamentalists because the bid to set up Islamic theocracies is a threat to their power. Islam may be the state religion in Iran, for instance. But it is not the case in many other countries where Muslims reside.

"We enjoy our secular and democratic freedoms BECAUSE of Christianity and our fore-fathers principles."

More malarky. It is where Christianity has been beaten back by secular, democratic forces you see the greatest freedoms. Spain was a virtual Catholic theocracy in the 16th to 19th Centuries. In the early 21st Century Spanish people have much greater freedoms than they could imagine as recently as Franco's time. Why? The power of the Church has lessened (not without a struggle). The Catholic Church in Spain also supported Franco.

Note also that the founders of Australian federation including the separation of religion from state affairs in the constitution. They obviously knew the possible disasters of religious outfits meddling in state affairs.

Perhaps a copy of this article should be specifically directed to Greg Barns, who has castigated Hirsi Ali in an extremely savage way. I admire this woman and her courage. How long before a fatwah is issued against her?

'"Islam is a STATE AND A RELIGION."

Garbage. Not in Turkey it isn't nor was it in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Regimes in Syria and Egypt (majority Muslim populations) have spent considerable time and energy killing Islamic fundamentalists because the bid to set up Islamic theocracies is a threat to their power. Islam may be the state religion in Iran, for instance. But it is not the case in many other countries where Muslims reside.'

Garbage yourself. Ever read up on how Copts are treated in Egypt? A state with a majority of Muslims is still a Muslim state, with Muslim laws. Ever heard of the aprtheid bumiputra laws of Malaysia? Heard of how difficult it is to for a Malay to change religion (from the automatic Islam) in Malaysia? Not heard of how Christians are treated in Turkey? How did Turkey and all these other Muslim (or Islamic, not much difference) states get to be 99% Muslim? The Fundamentalists merely challenge the rulers of the day, which is why they are persecuted, not because of their religious beliefs, which are very close to those self-same rulers'. Saddam was a little different, he protected the rights of minority religions, but was savage against Kurds and Shia.

Hirsi Ali is an apostle of liberal democracy and secularism, and the fact that she is a minority - black, a woman, and a Muslim, is why she resonates with so many.

Here is this 'third-worlder' telling us that the cowardly leftists who dominate our education system, shoving nonsense down our throats about the west being evil, decadent, racist, and not unfavourable to the odd genocide, are themselves the bigots - that our western values are to die for.

Many have succumbed to this mentality, a sickening self-loathing, nihilistic display of self-hate by weak pricks who are too scared to confront the value systems of non-western cultures.

Why? Because they know that such value systems ARE decadent, that those from such cultures ARE racists, ARE tribal, and ARE sectarian.

The writer tries to turn it to say that the vitriolic attacks Hirsi Ali has copped while in Australia, and everywhere she goes - by the cowardly leftist herd, are really just attempts to subject her to criticism!

It's laughable, but also deliciously ironic.

This is the very reason she even exists, as the leftist bigoted herd won't allow anyone to criticise any non-western cultures or religions!

This was meant to be a joke right?

Hirsi Ali reminds those racist leftists - by attacking her comments about the backward, intolerant, homophobic, misoginistic, nature of Islam, that all cultures are NOT equal, that western values ARE superior.

They already know this, but have decided to hide from it, so as to not offend those from bigoted, racist cultures and religions, that, for example, won't allow their burqa clad wives to swim in the same pool as the dirty kuffour.

They just accomodate that bigotry, wheraes enlightened people like Hirsi Ali, and myself, would use force to smash that backwardness.

And no, it is not hypocritical to espouse the values of tolerance, acceptance, equality, but then want to destroy systems that don't respect those values.

If so, we were wrong to use force to overthrow Nazism.

DOES "ISLAM" ALLOW sex with Infants?

Don't let ME tell you.. ask this Arab campaigner for human rights....
Let her tell the full, ugly story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb-EASDD7Mo&mode=related&search=

Look at what 'misyar' marriage is...Mutah marriage..

The quote of the clip "And you mean to tell me SHARIA law allows THIS"....

Not much more to be said.

Its time we have video recordings of every Muslim applicant for migration where they specifically DENOUNCE such practices in the Quran and Sunnah and hadith and Sharia.

I see that Boazy is still shamelessly rabble-rousing. Actually, I just looked up Mut'a and misyar marriage at Wikipedia, and they don't seem at all to be inherently objectionable practices - sort of Sh'ia and Sunni versions of Western de facto relationships. No mention at all of child sex...

More of Boazy's fantasies. Bigot business as usual.

On the actual topic of Hirsi Ali, I think that Mark Bahnisch is on the mark in his analysis. Disagreeing with Hirsi Ali is not a form of liberal heresy, as some commentators would have us believe. It's called freedom of speech.

That's why I support Hirsi Ali's right to say anything she likes - but I find the obsequious feting of her by the lunar right just a tad disingenuous.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali began with great promise for leadership in the Netherlands.

She was initially a member of the biggest left wing party in Holland. She was speaking mainly from a feminist view in support of women.

Increasingly her pronounements began to alienate the very women on the 'left' on whose behalf she supposedly spoke.

She switched over to a major conservative party with a platform to reduce migrant intake. Effectively making it harder for women like herself to escape cultural and/or religious repression. Making it harder for other women to a chance she felt she had a right to.

Her former conservative party is glad she has left the country, though she retained her citizenship. She is increasingly stridently atheist and many conservatives are also people of faith.

She stopped speaking for the 'left'. She is not speaking the language of the 'right'. she is no longer a representative in the political arena. Who is she speaking for? Only for herself. She is the author of an autobiography, she does not speak for women of her previous faith or indeed with her experiences.

In the Netherlands, there are other voices of Muslims. They question, but are not condemning of Muslims. It creates debate and reflection, not polarization.

David JS first.. (CJ, Ur next)

Two points Dave.

1/ When you describe "Islam is a religion and a State" as 'garbage' you make a common error mate.. you fail to distinguish between the 'practice' of some countries at this point in history, from the basics of Islam as a faith. I strongly recommend you persue some private study on the emergence and growth of Islam, and examine the concept of Sharia Law.
2/ Christianity was beaten back ? :) I always smile when people make the same mistake twice. No..not 'Chrisianity' but (again) the historical manifestation of human social engineering in the 'name' of Christianity.
Christianity is....'Christ'. So, rather than look at the failings of the Church or churches, look to Him, then..criticize them in relation to where they should be or have been relative to the One they claim to represent.
cheers.

CJ. you rather fell into that one old son.. KaaaaaPloop! Now a bright person like yourself, who decorates his posts with uncountable flowery words :).. should have picked up on the following:

a) I raised the question "Does Islam allow"... and then the answer could have been either way.. for.. or against. Then..
b) I said "don't let ME answer it.. hear it for yourself from" .....
and.. did you actually watch that vid ? where the answer to the question is found? Apparently not, but you went to wiki and found something to your liking? hmmm then you describe it as nothing more than 'Western Defacto Relationships'... totally forgetting that Islam rants and raves, points spiritual bones at so many things it consideres 'immoral' one of which is 'fornication'. People are even stoned to death for such things.

In your zeal to pigeon hole me, you then neglected to see the most obvious problem with "Islamic moral purity" in that they DO the very things they rant against, but simply avoid self condemnation by giving it a different name. "Fornication and Adultery" are now 'temporary marriage'.

You also failed dismally to recognize that Islam/mohammad allowed 'sex with newly captured women'. (See Apocalypto)

"ISLAM IS STATE"

Waleed Aly (Islamic Council of Victoria) was on the panel (Issues Deliberation Australia) Camberra in February - advocating for Islamic Tolerance in Australia.

Waleed is also the voice of Hizb-al-Tahrir (interesting).

Their constitution:

http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm

A pamphlet:

(note the Islamic State date below)

O Muslims!

Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to mobilise your forces and rally your ranks to help and support it in its work to establish the Khilafah state, by which you will restore your glory, attain the good pleasure of your lord and destroy your enemy.

Let each one of you do that which he is able to do:

Whoever is capable to join in this work in the first rows as a front line supporter to help in establishing the state, let him do so and come forward.

Whoever is capable to work in the rear rows as a rear line supporter to help in establishing the state, let him do so and come forward.

Whoever is not capable to work, and will be around it for protecting the state and the da’wa, let him do so and come forward.

Whoever is unable to do so because of an excuse or a reason, let him support it by his heart and du’aa.

As for us, Hizb ut-Tahrir, we are proceeding in our work by the Will of Allah, to seek realisation of His promise:

‘Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth…’ [24: 55]

And to seek realisation of the good news given by His Messenger sallalahu alayhi wasallam:

‘Then it will become Khilafah on the model of prophethood’.

We do all this with true belief and we ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to let us meet Him with this belief, and with good deeds which we ask Allah to accept from us. We will work hard and hurry in our march rehearsing His subhanahu wa ta’ala’s words:

‘To help believers is incumbent upon Us’. [30: 47]

2 Jumada Al-’Awwal 1426 AH (09.06.2005 )

Boaz,

Marriage in Islam have 2 corners: Intent (intention to be with and raise and family with the chosen person) and announcement (ie 2 witnesses + public announcement). So anything like 'temporary marriage', 'secret marriage' is a disguised adultery that individuals chose to mislead themselves into and commit on their accord.
To understand marriage in Islam, visit:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5938#83823

CJ Morgan,

How is Boazy or Boozy or whatever the hell you called him spreading fear?

By showing a link to a video of a HUMAN RIGHTS activist furious at Islamic values?

Are you leftists so cowardly that you can't handle hearing anything negative about the ethnic other?

Islam is barbaric - it's treatment of women must be changed. How dare you, or anyone, try to say that spreading that message is hateful!

Are you a white supremacist? Believe that only whites should live good lives, under good value systems like ours, where women and men are equal before the law, where the law is colourblind?

Do you even know what Sharia mandates? Go read mate, then come back and apologise.

So ignorant!

Boazy - I watched the video. It seemed to be a Muslim woman being interviewed on Bahraini TV. She made various claims about the poor deal that Muslim women get from some Muslim customs, and also (without any evidence proffered) linked those customs to sexual abuse of children.

If one accepts the subtitled translation (there was no soundtrack), then she said many of the same sorts of things that were strenuously promoted by Western feminists back in the 1960s and 70s.

Like in our society a few decades ago, I have no doubt that in Bahrain women suffer from customary subjugation by men, and child abuse occurs under the cloak of religion.

However, since your chief witness in this case is clearly still a practising Muslim, I don't really understand how the video strengthens your scurrilous attempt to further besmirch the Islamic religion. I would have thought that the fact that a Muslim woman can air such concerns on Bahrain TV is a positive sign for that society.

Benjamin - Having read many of your rabid posts about Islam and Muslims, I have no intention of engaging with you on this subject. Your comments make Boaz's seem almost sane in comparison.

Enough said :)

Benjamin, someone cannot be leftist AND a white supremacist. Leftie people are those who allow all sorts of other people into a country, black, white and brindle. They also have this terrible tendency to be tolerant of illegal queue jumping asylum seekers.

It is generally white supremacists who are right wing people who are afraid of anyone of a different colour to themselves. They hate asylum seekers who queue jump who country shop. Right wing people are also afraid of anyone of a different religion to their own. Sound familiar?

You should be scared to bits by someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is someone right wing people classify as an illegal alien, queue jumping to bring their barbarian cultures which will threaten Australian values.

That's why Ayaan was first a member of a left wing party. She is, or at least was, a feminist with outspoken views on the right of women to abortions. She is now an Atheist. I'm really curious how that fits in with her new friends in the USA.

Her statements increasingly became so extreme that she became more interesting to a right wing party. Until her statements became increasingly ridiculous considering her own back-ground as a Muslim illegal alien that it became embarrassing to her right wing party.

There is not a single conservative right wing person in this country who would have tolerated Ayaan Hirsi Ali if she had arrived here. Now they're her biggest fans. I've said it before. It is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

She is just the author of an autobiography. She was smart/lucky that she chose the Netherlands to illegally enter. Not Australia.

Mark, you place a lot of strawmen on the dry branches of your tree to make your morally and intellectually shrivelled argument against the intellectually and spiritually invigorating Hirsi Ali. Who of her supporters who accepts the canons of reason would ever suggest that to criticize Ali is to disrespect her freedom of speech, as you clearly imply? No argument could ever have any respect that doesn't accept criticism. And Ali's supporters, unlike you, would never put her argument in this intellectually shameful category.

Further, "equality under the law" also means-which in your one-sidedness you do not state-that one accepts unreservedly all the laws of the country if he expects to be treated as a citizen equally and without discrimination. The cardinal BREACH in your argument is that many Muslims breach the law of this country by widely practicing female genital mutilation upon their children. In what way would they therefore be treated "unfairly", as you suggest, if they were vigorously condemned for this abominable action, as anyone else would have been condemned who sexually violated his chidren, by the citizenry? One would expect the Left to be up in arms on this issue instead of running away from it on the silent feet of the rabbits, i.e. keeping their silence about it all in the name of not "breaching" the paper walls of multiculturalism.

You have created mythical arguments to make your case.

See:Australian Political Chronicle-http://ausiechronicle.blogspot.com

Why does nearly every discussion end up being a polarised debate about the 'Left' and the 'Right'? It's like watching a game of frikkin' ping pong.

I do not care what religion or political bent Hirsi Ali is. The most important aspect of her visit is that it again brought to the fore FGM and the fact that it is carried out here in Australia.

There are possibly hundreds instances of FGM carried out each year and, to our great shame, nothing is being done to prevent this.

Although medical staff are supposed to report cases, this is not done because it may discourage parents from seeking medical help for post FGM problems. Consequently, no person has ever been charged with FGM.

FGM needs to be stopped completely and this will only be acheived by taking the following action.

1. Much stronger laws with severe penalties need to be introduced in each state, all begining at a proclaimed date.

2. Much local publicity given to this and ALL prospective immigrants informed of this.

3. Insistance that the laws are carried out.

4. Stop immigration from those countries whose nationals carry out FGM here.

While we all pay lip service to the horrors of FGM, I wonder how many of us actually lobby politicians about the issue. I wonder how politicians can sleep at night knowing that they wilfully allow Australian girls to be tortured and multilated, when they are in a position to prevent it.

I cannot think of a more important issue for our community.

If all people reading this thread took the time to write to their local politicians, State and Federal, it may just help to save some little girls from the pain and suffering of FGM.

'While she was in Australia, Hirsi Ali called for immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa to be compelled to sign “assimilation contracts”.....
To make this suggestion is to totally fail to grasp the meaning of equality under the law. A liberal democracy is not worthy of the name unless it treats all its citizens, and those who aspire to citizenship, equally and without discrimination.'

In a liberal democracy the rights of the INDIVIDUAL are pre-eminent. Therefore, a Western liberal democracy should demand the compliance of a particular immigrant community to abide by basic human rights. That is, the human rights of the individual supercede the cultural rights of a community. Therefore, a cultural practice like prohibiting a Muslim women from marrying a non-Muslim man is completely unacceptable if it goes against the explicit wishes of the persecuted couple.

I have just finished listening to an ABC podcast where Rachael Kohn interviews Hirsi Ali for 'The Spirit of Things' programme. From what I can gather Hirsi Ali's view are admirable and perfectly acceptable to any free-thinking liberal democrat.

I would say that the Muslim and Leftist attacks on her is unsubstantiated malevolence born of irrational fear and a defective world-view.

Mark says the separation of Church and State does not imply a crusade against religion. For the left, it does, such as the crusade in the US to prevent the display of the Ten commandments.

Not against Islam, though. The left are culturally sensitive. Any criminal practices by non Europeans, or non Christians are entitled to be approached with sensitivity, as part of the culture.

Mark had some mistaken idea that the left were accused of condoning female genital mutilation. He gained this by refraining from reading critics, and disingenuously asserting that they accused the left of defending the practice.

Comments by the critics to whom Mark refers related to treatment by the left of Hirsi Ali. The left were mentioned only in the following extracts.

Miranda Devine says of Hirsi Ali: “her criticism of Islam as a religion in need of profound reform, and of multiculturalism as another religion which condones Islam's repressive practices, has made her enemies among the intellectuals of the liberal-left establishment”

Janet Albrechtsen:” Would they (the left) hail Hirsi Ali's expose of the inequality and mistreatment of Muslim women? Or would they defend cultural sensitivities? They opted for the latter, a choice imbued more with anti-Western sentiment than logic given that the past 40 years have been devoted to fighting for all sorts of freedoms…”

Mark considers that Hirsi does not understand the concept of equality before the law,evidenced by her assertion that people of beliefs which condone criminal practices, should be constrained to sign a reliquishment before being permitted to live in Australia.

Mark’s quaint notion is that this deprives them of equality before the law. I am pleased to say that I do not understand the basis of Mark’s thought process, but I am confident that he should desist from describing it as logical.

He mentions blogger Kim Jameson, another extreme offender against logic and clear thinking, who considers that there should be no denunciation of Islam’s backing of female genital mutilation, but only efforts to have the practitioners see that it is wrong. This apparently makes sense to her and to Mark.

Nick Lanelaw...*welcome* mate..

COACH.. thanx for that link to Hizb's constitution.. you mentioned Waleed Ali is their spokesperson? err.. do you have some documentary evidence to that effect, it could be important for the 2 dannies case.. esPECially when I find THIS in their constitution:

Article 7
The State implements the aHkaam shar’iyyah on all citizens who hold citizenship of the Islamic State, whether Muslims or not, in the following manner:


a. The aHkaam shar’iyyah is implemented in its entirety, without exception, on all Muslims.

b. Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.

c. Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam ARE TO BE EXECUTED according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam. (emphasis mine)

With regard to point"b" I STRONGLY recommend all readers view THIS video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXchg9MgPug&mode=related&search=

and see what this luminary of Islamic jurisprudence has to say on the matter of Christians/Non Muslims and 'practicing' their faith.

Does CJ 'see' point 'c' there above ? Pointing this out is HOPEFULLY spreading A LOT of fear, which I am hoping will translate into action to raise public awareness of this in every way possible.
http://www.islammonitor.org

The only final thing to be said.. is to draw attention to the fact that they use 'DAR UL KAHFIR' (land of unbelief) rather than the word DAR UL HAAB (land of war/struggle to implement Islam)

The true picture is from this Islamic website/document.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/politics/nationalism.htm

There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam), and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari?ah is the authority and God's limits are observed, and where all the Muslims administer the affairs of the state with mutual consultation. The rest of the world is the home of hostility (Dar-ul-Harb). A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar-ul-Harb: peace with a contractual agreement, or war. A country with which there is a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam.

Says...it all.

CJ Morgan,

I ask just for a minute of your life, please.

Rabid posts? Yes...I can see how they sound that way. If I may be so bold sir, I used to be like you.

I was told about Islamic values and customs and didn't believe it.

I thought those who told such things were bigots.

I thought there was no way a billion people could follow a mass murdering paedophile.

But I was repeatedly told this on a number of occassions by good, decent people, and began to look into Islam myself.

This is all I ask of you.

Don't believe me, you would be stupid to.

You don't know me, so go read about it yourself.

Now, this is where it gets scary because I am going to tell you to read the MOST sacred Islamic texts, the Koran and Hadith, but...

...there are Hadith which only some Muslims use, then there are others which ALL Muslims rely on. It is these you should read.

You should be thinking, "this guy wants to bag Islam with his rabid posts, but he is telling me not to go to some book by an Islamophobe but Islam's Holy Texts themselves!"

Now, listen to the speeches - not of backward clerics like Omran, but the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, a very learned scholar. Read the sermons of clerics who have positions at Al-Azhar...THE most prominent place for scholars of Islam to study.

It is here that you will begin to understand why I am so rabid about Islam.

Watch the sermons of such learned clerics at MEMRITV.org

After this, although you will need to persist because it does seem insane that so many people could follow such a man, but then, once it hits you, once you realise that it isn't really a choice - that most are brainwashed from birth to hate 'the other', you will see it.

You will see that there can be no other way than violence for Islam, and can see how people beheading infidels while chanting 'Allah Akbar' actually ARE following the Prophet Mohammed.

Yvonne,

You should really read what I wrote to CJ Morgan as well.

One can be a leftist and a racist.

I'll quickly explain it to you.

Leftists believe in cultural relativism - most do. This means they believe there is no truth, that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

This means they effectively think African tribal societies where children are married off to elders, people get hacked to death for having spirits in them, is literally no worse a system to follow than what we have - equality for all under the law, religion relegated to the personal sphere, and so on.

To me, if one thinks children born into a society that is that horrible shouldn't be taken away and brought to the west - incidentally most of them want to come and live here too, which is why they all flock here...and why I believe this gives the west a mandate to smash every system that is indifferent to life.

Such a person is a racist because they see that the black child should live in that environment even though they wouldn't want their child to.

I see a world where every human being is equal in value, before the law, and just in general. Any culture that relegates women, minorities, to slave status (as Islam does) must be destroyed.

It really IS that simple.

Good day all.

Benjamin, if you're going to set up a strawman argument about relativism, the least you can do is get your cliches right. "Cultural relativism" is the anthropological doctrine that an individual's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of their own culture. I can only presume you actually meant "moral relativism". However I suspect that one wouldn't have to be any sort of relativist to find your suggestion that "this gives the west a mandate to smash every system that is indifferent to life" repugnant, illogical and impossible to achieve.

So many ridiculous arguments have been mounted on this thread, that I find it difficult to know which to tackle. But I can't let Nick Lanelaw's shot about the "crusade in the US to prevent the display of the Ten commandments(sic)" go without comment. Of the ten, only 3 are relevant in a secular society (murder, stealing and false witness). False gods, graven idols, and blasphemy simply have no place in a court of law or school. Adultery (unpleasant but not illegal) honouring your parents (laudable but hardly a matter for the law) etc etc. A secular society should be our protection against meretricious nonsense like this.

Benjamin says "I see a world where every human being is equal in value, before the law, and just in general. Any culture that relegates women, minorities, to slave status (as Islam does) must be destroyed"

Perhaps what he really means is that "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Several comments. Secular is defined as "the state of being separate from religion". From Wikipedia CJ, your bible. Can anyone here tell me one government that does not claim God as their own? Howard does it, Rudd does it and he's not even there. Bush uses it every day.

Any government. Just name one that is secular. Please. There aren't any are there as none of them are "spearate from religion"? It's just a matter of degree which ones are more rabid.

CJ. You accept that Bahrain does indeed subjugate women in the name of Islam. What's different about how Muslim women are treated in any country? Again, it's just a matter of degree. Name me one Australian woman who would choose to wear what Muslim men try to make them wear? Yes many say they love it but women do not love having their hair covered, or wearing drab robes. Historical fact.

If Islam doesn't subjugate women why do they have one rule for men and one for women? It really is just a matter of how extreme a society let's these people be. In some countries stoning to death is practised. In Australia Muslims say everything is hunky dory. Again, one rule for men who dress and do what they like. And another for women.

Mind you I see little difference between Islam and the Catholics here today. Match Pell's outbursts with Hillaly's. They are startiong to sound identical aren't they?

The whole Christian faith uses Eve as the bad one as she bit the apple. Given that stuff is fiction why is it that a woman is the evil one? No coincidence she was name Eve is there? Evil. Eve. Blatantly obvious.

Secular, smechular. Doesn't exist.

And yet another item referring to "the left". It's gone people. Left and right are 50's terms. Today there are simply rich and poor. Nothing else counts if you follow politics ar all.

BOAZ_David, Benjamin, coach, Themistocles, TR and Nick Lanelaw, how many girls have been spared the ordeal of FGM as a result of your spluttering comments on this thread? Has there ever been a single case of a girl or young woman being saved from FGM, arranged marriage, etc., as a result of Australian and American bloviators blathering in cyberspace about the evils of Islam and "the Left"?

BOAZ_David,

"COACH.. thanx for that link to Hizb's constitution.. you mentioned Waleed Ali is their spokesperson? err.. do you have some documentary evidence to that effect,..."

You’re welcome – interestingly no one else commented on this but you.

Sorry I don't have more proof - but all I know is that W. Ali, a lawyer, has no problem with the practices of Hizb el Tahrir (or Wassim Doureihi’s views) in Australia .

From previous press interviews he indicated that he is mainly vigilant about terrorist groups in Australia but has no problem with the political views and agenda of the Hizb. (words to that effect)

Which I find very disturbing - for a lawyer, in his position, in Australia - to close his eyes to such an organization knowing very well how (they) are bluntly recruiting and openly promoting a Global Islamic State which by their own definition Must Supersede ALL other States and Governments.

Dr. Paul,

FGM is only one of the ugly facts in Islam. It is up to Islamic leaders to promote change within their sects and up to Islamic women to wake up and stop accepting male subjugation.

I know it is difficult for you, Johnj, to understand the point I was making. Your mind is grabbing for smart answers before it understands what it is attempting to answer.

Mark’s point was that separation of church and state did not mandate a crusade against religion.

I simply pointed out that for the left, in relation to Christianity, it does, and I gave an example. The point is the desire of the left to attack Western religion, juxtaposed against its refusal to attack Islam. You strayed way off the point, by discussing the Ten Commandments.

The point is that the left will attack the display of this icon of Christianity, but shows respect for a religion that maims and tortures little girls.

A pointless assertion by Mark, in any event, because the criticism of Islam is not based on separation of Church and State, but on the criminal actions against young women and girls, condoned by that religion.

You are even less capable of straight and logical thinking, than Mark.

Dr Paul, demonstrating the lack of capacity of people like you, Mark and Johnj to deal with these issues is a worthwhile exercise, as is supporting people who wish to decry this aspect of Islam.

You labour under the apprehension that nothing said by you or others on a blog will have any effect, but that may be an unsafe assumption considering the tremendous effect the internet has already had.

Dr Paul
I fail to see what 'how many females in Australia....etc' has to do with the basic reality in "Islam" of fgm as a practice?

That was a very flimsy straw man. Its about the standard of 'Show me where Jesus said "I am God, worship me".. which of course he did not say at all. Muslims, knowing this, often use it as some kind of weapon against Christians.

The issue must always be.."What does Islam teach"?

Well...according to Hizb Ut Tahrir, in the same constitution coach pointed out, there are some worrying things.

1/ Execution for Apostates.(i.e. freely choosing another faith.. you will BE KILLED) Article 7.c

2/ Arabic is the ONLY language of State. Article 8

3/ Article 179
Political manoeuvres are necessary in foreign policy, and the effectiveness of these manoeuvres is dependent on concealing (your) aims and disclosing (your) acts.



Article 180
Some of the most important political means are disclosing the crimes of other states, demonstrating the danger of erroneous politics, exposing harmful conspiracies and destroying misleading personalities.

So.. GEEE... what a confession and admission. Quite candid.
It means 'hide your true agenda' in dealing with people/states in Dar Ul Hab (conflict/war zone where Islam is in the PROCESS of taking over)

If that, and the existence of this group in Australia does not send shivers up your spine, I don't know what would.
There is ZERO room for socialists, Leftoids, Rightoids in Hizb's Islamic state. ONLY 'Muslims'.

So, your support/defense of them suggests:

a) You are Muslim and share their views/goals.
b) You are simply naive, and don't have a clue
c) You realize what they are on about, but... are in socialist utopian denial, believing that they would not 'reallllly' pose the threat we are claiming.

On every point, you are dangerous.
I'm just following Hizb's constitution and 'destroying misleading personalities' :)

Abu Boaz,

Wow, so now that Hilali is gone, Hizb El Tahrir speaks for Australian Muslims? How many people follow them in Australia Boazy? 200, 300 at best? Is that your new 'truth telling' or the voices in your head again?

Boaz, we started our on this forum 10 June 2005 (2 years ago), of which you had over 3500 posts pouring fear and hate towards Islam and I have tried everything over 2 years to reach out, promoted harmony and tolerance. If your claim to follow Jesus (pbuh) teachings, should it not be the opposite way around? : -) Whats wrong with this picture?

Peace my friend, I will invite you to dinner next time I am in Melbourne (are you allergic to halal food?)

Nick, I apologise if my puny brain cannot encompass the majesty of your argument.

I can certainly agree that the Ten Commandments example was off-topic, but it was you who raised it, not I. Not to mention that as an American phenomena it seems irrelevant in Australia. You'll obviously have to search for a better example, eh? Let me know when you've found one.

A global Islamic state almost upon us? More hysteria and garbage. Like reds under the bed, the yellow peril and the second coming. Heard it all before. Time for a new conspiracy theory, perhaps?

Hmmm... liberal democratic reasoning holds rights of the individual as prominent... perhaps.

Does this liberal democratic reasoning hold rights of individuals prominent when these individuals fail to comply with rules of the liberal state ?

Philosophically a liberal democracy is not worthy of the name unless it treats all its citizens, all its lawful residents, equally and without discrimination.

Obvious to all who honestly look we have a long way to go.

What is discrimination ?

IMHO there is no such thing as positive discrimination.

For liberal democrats to demand compliance from all sections of their communities to abide by these basic human rights will help if they can be written easier to find and read.

Particularly if these individual human rights supercede widely perceived "cultural rights" of other community member groups