Secularism is deeper than skin deep my dear Dr. Shakira Hussein. No matter how clever you may be or how you can critique a book and spin its content, nothing is going to change what your beloved prophet thought of women subjugation under his religion of Islam.

The fact that you are born a Muslim gives you no freedom to change what Allah has dictated to his prophet: that you are worth HALF a man and you are deficient in all aspect of conduct, inteligence, and religion.

Women in Islam should cover themselves because they are a walking eye soar and a lump of wickedness that may soil men and nullify their prayer rituals to Allah.

The secular system as you well know accepts women and men as EQUAL (one man equals one woman). So tell me how can you expect us to believe your rant when your religiontells you that you are worth one half of a man and be one whole secular woman at the same time?

The reality is that you are following a counterfeit religion, an invention that may look like the real deal but cannot survive in the God's real world. Hte God who created man in His image.

This is why you have problems with the “other”. Islam can only exist in a bubble; it has no place in modern societies.

The only way you can change that is by starting to QUESTION your own beliefs. You don’t need “us” to do it for you – you don’t need the Arabic language to study your texts – just google it!

There is power in education – so educate yourself and stop following a seventh century Bin Laden just because he said so.

Thanks Shakira for the review. I'll be sure to look out for your work, there must be some challenging mental gymnastics in there!

Coach, only someone committed to "biblical inerrancy" would presume to speak so confidently about the true meaning of someone else's religion. While fundamentalism is popular amongst many "people of the book", it is not the case that one must follow slavishly the letter of a religion's holy book and medieval law to be an adherent.

It's very easy to debate an imaginary fundamentalist, because you can hit her with her own book and she must stand and take the blow. But it's more honest to debate real people, who have minds of their own and won't readily conform to your rigid mental caricature.

You seem to think that, somehow, the Islamic material to be found on the internet is free from the interference of Western scholarship or, for that matter, from error. But the net is as far from a stone tablet as anything yet devised by human minds!

Directing someone to "google it" necessarily carries an implied caution to filter the results selectively. I'm certain that Shakira Hussein's bulls hit filter is better attuned to Islamic texts, history and progressive Western influence than someone who regularly posts from a position of intolerant commitment to another religion with a different infallible text.

Shakira....the first step in having a conversation with Christians and Jews, is to have SORRY DAY..where you, and Walid Aly, Amir Ali,Kaysar Trad, Sheikh Hilali etc.. stand on a public podium and express:

a) Your deep and genuine regret for the anguish, pain, emotional suffering, trauma and fear generated in Christians and Jews for the various hate passages in the Quran and Hadith directed specifically at them. In particular surah 9:29 & 30.

b) Publically repudiate these texts, and disassociate yourselves from them. (Along with the repulsive 23:5-6 33:50 and many others)

While you are at it....Hilali can repent of his sinful bigamy, (4 wives and many children) apologise for breaking Australian law, apologise for not leaving the country when he knew he was only being kept here by Paul Keating for political reasons. Mr Trad can also repent of his questionable support for the above actions of Hilali. (I would say 'seditious' because he is supporting a high profile public figure who is self confessedly breaking Australian law, thus undermining that law and the institution which enacted it..ie.. parliament) that's my opinion.

You should be there also..and they can with one voice publically repudiate, deny, reject the idea that a Woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man.

Once we get to that point.. we can speak of:

Tolerance
Respect

If we don't arrive at that point, then we are stuck with the intolerance and misogynistic "hate speech" which I refer to above.

To us, the important point is not 'how' you currently interpret those things, but the simple fact of their existence.

Muslims must emerge from the gloom of circumambient Westophobia that appears to be holding them back. Westophobia within the muslim community seems to be spreading as fast as equine influenza. Just where does the irrational fear known as Westophobia come from?

Aly is not a poster boy for starting this “conversation”, he is a qualified promoter of Islam, period.

In HIS research, the women HE spoke with: none said they wore hijab on the instruction of men. But, if they were being oppressed or forced to wear hijab, they would be very unlikely to disclose this to a Muslim man. Let's just accept the facts: Muslim women want to wear the hijab. It offers protection from the evils of western-style sexual decadence.

Picking apart the Islamic worldview through the “Muslim secular feminist” glasses of Shakira Hussein, is unhelpful.

Should the West continue to insist Muslim women adopt western values? It is like asking a Muslim woman to strip off the hijab and go around in a bikini.

Western women have hit the top position in their organization,sure. But then there are the marriages that end in divorce, the glass-ceiling, the relentless grind, the feelings of guilt and inadequacy, the babies that never arrive, unmarried, financially-independent single women approaching 40.

Australian families are trapped in mortgages that one income cannot afford. The great ideal of western feminism has been debunked, and Muslim women are rightfully resisting it.

A Muslim exists to submit to a higher authority. Believe it or not Hussein and Aly, Christian women also strive to submit to God and their husbands, quoting from Ephesians, “Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord”..(5:22)

But our husbands have the harder task: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.” (5:25)

Yes, our husbands are asked to love us, even to the point of sacrificial death.

“In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself”. (5:28)

And we can do this, within the framework of western secular society, with equal rights to our men. So, Waleed, instead of focusing your research on Muslim women and parading your Western wife in hijab, I think it is Muslim men you need to turn your efforts to

Muslims want to 'start a conversation'?

Well, they can start by explaining two things:

1. the hate and violence against non-Muslims in the Quran and the accounts relating to the many vile things their did prophet did, as recorded in the traditions (and why the say "praise be unto him" after the name of this man, and copnsider him a great moral example, in view of his actions recorded by his friends and followers).

2. The situation of Muslim societies, or better, the status of non-Muslims and other oppressed groups in those countries where Islam dominates.

Before any dialogue is possible, these issues need to be explained and resolved. After all, why should anyone believe anything a Muslim says about "human rights", "secularism" or "separation of church and state" "tolerance" and other important, fundamental issues when the facts are that Muslims say and do one thing where they dominate (hate, violence, oppression) and do differently in places where they are a minority (sweet talk, respect us, Islam is peace, bla bla bla).

Muslims only want to talk about how the West can accomodate them. It is a one-way street. The give nothing, only make demands.

Muslims have no credibility on these issues. When Muslims renounce the hate and violence in the Quran and denounce the vile acts of their prophet and start treating non-Muslims like they want to be treated, then and only then can have a serious conversation.

Until then, when a Muslim talks about "dialogue", it is just cute words without any content, just smoke and mirrors.

Makes sense to me....

Kactuz

I see the 'whack-a-Mozzie' brigade's in full flight here.

If that's the kind of response that is directed towards articulate, reasonable Muslims in a reasonably civilised forum, then it's not all that hard to imagine where disaffected young Muslims on suburban streets derive their resentment.

You Islamophobes are very much part of any social problems we may experience in Australia with our Muslim minority. How is any kind of mutual respect possible when such rabid intolerance is present?

More to the point, how is any kind of meaningful conversation possible? The Islamophobes clearly don't want one.

xoddam,

>> It's very easy to debate an imaginary fundamentalist…it is not the case that one must follow slavishly the letter of a religion's holy book and medieval law to be an adherent.<<

Are you implying that the Shakira is not aware of the ridiculousness of her religion? Do you really believe that she is so naïve and innocent when waves a white flag? Common!

Islamic texts are a forgery – and not because the Judeo-Christian text are inerrant.

Islam claims that their Qur’an is the exact words of Allah (God).
So when the Qur’an says Jesus never died on a cross, or Jews are Pigs and Apes, no one dares to question it and lives to debate it. It is because Allah knows best!

The Bible is written by many mortals under God’s inspiration. BUT the Bible can be challenged historically and factually. That’s the difference.

Islam – if you care to know – teaches its followers to hate all non-muslims but especially Jews and Christians. Allah hates ALL unbelievers in Islam.

Christianity teaches to LOVE all people especially our enemies.

Shakira and all prominent Islamic leaders prefer not to reflect on this notion of HATE and play the victim minority game of wanting to converse WITHOUT the obligatory noxious teachings of Islam.

This is like someone carrying a deadly virus [knowingly or unknowingly – makes no difference]; it is in their mind, on their body, and in their blood.

The question is what should we do about it?

1) Ignore (it) and hope it will miraculously go away
2) Quarantine (it) until a cure is found and integration is declare safe
3) Destroy (it) by providing help to the carriers
4) Deport them and let it be someone else’s problem

The deadly virus (hate teachings) is here among us NOW.

I make no apology for this comparison as Islam is potentially more harmful to this nation than any virus left unchecked.

CJ,

Mutual respect, you say? The key word is MUTUAL! The problem is that your your Muslims friends do not respect others. They only want respect and dialogue on their terms.

Tell me, what is reasonable and civilized about people that refuse to be honest about their own religion? Is it unreasonable to ask about the hate and violence Islam teaches in its writings? Is is unreasonable to assume that the intolerance, oppression and lack of freedoms in Islamic societies might be a result of the Islam and its teachings?

About Islamophobia. There are two problems with the word (not counting the incorrect association with the word fear from the Greek phobia).
1. This term confuses hostility toward Islam as a religion or ideology with hostility toward Muslims as individuals. The former is a valid point of view; dislike of Islam because of its teachings and how it is practiced is a completely understandable and intellectually valid position based upon its doctrines and current events
2. The use of this word provides an excuse for Muslims to blame others for their problems and to avoid critical thinking. To consider the actions of Muslims, or even more so, the doctrines of Islam, as a source of Islamophobia would require that Muslims consider each of these and evaluate these in terms of moral values and basic human rights.

I am always ready for 'meaningful conversation' with Muslims, but these have been few and far between -- but not because I haven't tried.

kactuz

IMPORTANT MESSAGE....

I'm posting this message from Patrick Soockhdeo here also .

He is a gentle, reserved, quiet, loving Pastor, who was originally brought up in Islam.
He speaks with truth, wisdom and balance and compassion.

He was involved in fighting the 'Hate Speech' laws in UK which he believes will come back. (The Muslims openly admitted they would have protected Mohammad/Islam from any criticism)

His knowledge is probably unparalleled in the West today about the history and growth, and mindset of Islam/Muslims, hence he is an international speaker on the subject. He was brought to Australia under strict secrecy and security, but this talk was given in the USA...please note the questions and answers.

http://www.chbcaudio.org/podpress_trac/web/276/0/04-09-07.mp3

Boaz, a good post indeed. Worth listening, all 1hr 10 min of it. Although he is not a Christian, Ibn Warraq (ex-Pakistani Muslim) came to the same conclusion as Patrick Soockhdeo about fundamentalist Islam.

“The root cause of Islamic fundamentalism is Islam. What on earth has American foreign policy got to do with the stoning to death of a woman for adultery in Nigeria?”

“Western Liberals are used to searching for external explanations for behaviour that they cannot comprehend; but I can assure them that Hitler’s behaviour cannot be put down to the Treaty of Versailles or the economic situation in the twenties or thirties. Evil is its own excuse.”

“Or one might ask why Saudi Arabia allows no Christian churches on its soil, when the desert kingdom feels free to pump some $3 billions a year into building mosques and subsidizing Imams and proselytizing their puritanical Wahhabi sect of Islam.”
http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Islamic-Enlightenment.htm

Conversation between a Muslim and a non-Muslim can start only when Muslims can share a meal of pork ribs and drink beer with non-Muslims without feeling they are un-Islamic. Otherwise, close down all the mosques and madrasahs which is the fount of all the venomous hatred of non-Muslims

Thanks BD for the audio link - very timely indeed. Let's hope many will get a chance to hear it and digest it. I am personally circulating it to all my key contacts.

Patrick's prophetic messages have fallen on deaf ears before... from the military to foreign aid etc… often with dire consequences.

Interesting point about how our very freedoms and democracy are the thing working against us. We cannot control the infiltration nor the propagation of Islam into our system, from the immigration departments to education, and of course the mushrooming of mosques and madrassas everywhere... not to mention boot camps and youth gyms…
Cheap housing loans are also offered here, Islamic schools are free to run their own curriculum, hospitals and Universities have to comply too (ablution, dietary, no crosses or symbols in chapels, etc)

I believe Shari'a is alive and striving in Sydney South/West. You mentioned Hillali's polygamous existence - I heard it before and believe it to be true.

Polygamy is a well known fact in Islamic circles, same as inheritance law, divorce, all done in the mosque under our noses… I was told by a politician that as long as they obey our laws we don’t want to know how they run their affairs. For example as long as they are “legally” married to one wife at the time, we can’t enforce the law.

Why is our government so inapt in rectifying that problem?
Have we become like the UK and conceded defeat to Islam?
Are we being betrayed by our own government for the sake of dollars and votes?

Join me all in prayers in this holy month of Ramadan

Coach,Kactuz,Boaz-david,and Philip Tang.

The references and the well articulated commentary provided, should be propogated far and wide. The Ibn Warriq recent speech provided by Philip T is quite excellent.

I can personally attest to the fact that having an intellegent debate with them about their cultish "religion" is impossible, because they shut it down. They dont mind proseltysing, but having an intelligent debate is not on. It is case of just listen and accept.

To Coach's question, " are we being betrayed by our own Government for the sake fo a few dollars.." the answer is Yes.

Just ask Downer for his views on whether we should be providing higher edcuation to Saudi students and thereby take some the billions that are on offer, when these students will arrive here with their heads full of hatred of us, courtesy of their own governments high school curriculum and the wahhabis.

Having a sensible conversation with these people is impossible for all the reasons canvassed above, and the sooner this is more widely understood the better.

It is they who have to change not us, and until they do we should be mimimising our exposure as nation to them.

Hello-o-o-o? Pot here. Hey Kettle!

>>I can personally attest to the fact that having an intellegent debate with them about their cultish "religion" is impossible, because they shut it down. They dont mind proseltysing, but having an intelligent debate is not on. It is case of just listen and accept.<<

Sounds so much like the proselytising Christians we atheists have to put up with on this forum. Intelligent debate? No chance. Our way or the highway, boyo.

We happily put up with it, because we are aware that there is a certain type of person who needs bone-deep religion, in order to give their lives meaning. We know enough to avoid denigrating that religion, however misguided it might seem to us to be, and confine ourselves to drawing attention to the various unpleasant behaviours that it can lead to.

The vast majority of both atheists and believers-in-God, by the way, tend to avoid ramming their own particular "truth" down the throats of all+sundry. It's simply a form of politeness.

Talking of bigotry, how about this from Philip Tang:

>>Conversation between a Muslim and a non-Muslim can start only when Muslims can share a meal of pork ribs and drink beer with non-Muslims without feeling they are un-Islamic.<<

Philip, does this rule also prohibit a conversation with a vegetarian? They don't eat pork ribs either. Or with an alcoholic, who won't drink beer? It is a very totalitarian world that dictates what people can and cannot eat and drink.

The general idea of living in a free country is that we do not allow such attitudes to infect our laws. The kind of country that does feel the necessity to impose such restrictions is, ironically, exactly the kind that you zealots affect to despise. How creepy is that?

I know from experience that there is no point in discussing this with you bible-bashers, having an intelligent debate about your cultish "religion" is impossible, because you simply don't want to hear how similar you are to those that you rail against... now where have I heard those sentiments recently...?

Pericles,

News flash:
(your words)
>>It is a very totalitarian world that dictates what people can and cannot eat and drink.<<

This is the world that is being imposed on us Mr. Pericles, Sir.

>>The general idea of living in a free country is that we do not allow such attitudes to infect our laws. <<

So what are you going to do about it Mr. Pericles? have another beer and whatch the tube next to your vegeterian church-goer catholic wife while our standards are being compromised daily?

Someone has to do something about the threat to this country - you seem not to care much... except criticise those who do.

SO I ask you politely: "Get a life my poor poor miserable man."

Pericles,

Where on earth did you get the idea that I am religious.

My debate with the proseltysing muslim was about the relevance of it all, eg, why is the virgin birth anymore or less credidible than the muzzoes believing that their prescious prophet rode a white horse across the sky to Jerusalem.

Having a conversation with muslims is always going to be fraught, whilst they operate under a belief system that is still in the 8th century and is the most violent and delusional of them all.

Congratulations, coach. Everything I disagree with in one concise post.

>>News flash:
(your words)<<

That's the first mystery. Not my words at all.

>>"It is a very totalitarian world that dictates what people can and cannot eat and drink."
This is the world that is being imposed on us Mr. Pericles, Sir.<<

Who, exactly, is imposing what, upon whom? I have no idea where you live, but where I come from there are no significant restrictions on what I can and cannot eat and drink. It is complete fantasy to suggest that we are under threat from forces of totalitarianism - there is simply no evidence of it.

>>"The general idea of living in a free country is that we do not allow such attitudes to infect our laws."
So what are you going to do about it Mr. Pericles? have another beer and whatch the tube next to your vegeterian church-goer catholic wife while our standards are being compromised daily?<<

The surprising thing is - to you, at least - is that no-one has to "do" anything about an imaginary threat. It is like believing that you have to feed an imaginary friend; it makes sense to you, but looks thoroughly weird to those around you.

Your paranoia is of course self-feeding. The more people try to persuade you that your fears are illusory, the more you believe that they are part of the conspiracy against you. Sad, really.

>>Someone has to do something about the threat to this country - you seem not to care much... except criticise those who do.<<

Your idea of "doing something" is constantly vilify another religion. Presumably believing that your perceived enemies will then simply fold their tents and creep away.

Any idea why they would do this?

>>SO I ask you politely: "Get a life my poor poor miserable man."<<

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am miserable. It is not me who has the paranoid fear of being taken over by an alien force, after all, but you.

So might that simply be transference?

Yeah, Pericles - I agree with every word and sentiment of your last post. I've said much the same elsewhere.

Ultimately, I think that the extreme antagonism towards Islam - and by extension, Muslims - expressed by our friends here emanates from a kind of mindless, visceral fear; primarily fear of change, but objectified in the scapegoats of the moment.

In my frank opinion, most of the clowns in this thread are little better than Islamophobic trolls, who don't deserve serious attention. I admire and envy Pericles' seemingly indefatigable patience in trying to explain the obvious to the intransigent :)

I have no interest in a Muslim conversation.
Muslims come to this country, take full advantage of the benefits of our free society - then force their religious ideology on mainstream Australia, constantly repeating that Muslims and Islam teach peace - Do they think Australians are that ignorant? - In Iraq at the moment is a civil war, Shai against Sunni, the barbarity of beheadings and executions is their religious truth!...20yrs ago in this country we didn't have to worry about subversives in the suburbs?
Which is what Britain is experiencing - Home grown terrorists; Muslim youths(read male)'not happy' with their lot; plotting to blow up shopping centres and nightclubs? (5 sentenced to life in Britain in May 07 for just that intended crime)- Then we have researchers in the comfort of our Universities writing PhD's on a starting point etc...I for one don't want to start. When will our politicans stop pussyfooting around with this issue. OK, so local Muslims have a problem with the USA/UK/Aust foreign policy in Iraq? Solution - in future we'll just clear all foreign policy measures with those minorities first shall we?? - Pakistan seems to be the "Devils Mouth" - they export terror/and everything to do with it.
If Muslims do not accept our way of life, then they are no longer welcome, and should leave and go somewhere else where they feel more at home. The pending election cannot come quick enough. Why does our Federal Government continue to import Muslims into Australia? - Can't our Immigration Minister/Prime Minister READ?? or are they too busy bending over backward to get porked some more?.

CJ said:

"Ultimately, I think that the extreme antagonism towards Islam - and by extension, Muslims "-

Err...no. Now you made the same mistake there as Judge Higgins claimed about the 2 Dannies. You just lumped we 'Bible Bashers' into the category of 'hating all muslims' and this is a fundamental mistake demonstrating a lack of integrity and an attempt to simply smear mud on all anti Islamic posters. In short..its cheap and nasty $2 shop stuff.

A person with integrity would say "Antagonism toward Islam and the radicals who promote its violent, aggressive or sexually disgusting aspects"

Those are the main targets of our opposition. I've shown proof in the past couple of days that Islam (the 'religion'.. the Quran) allows what our law describes as 'Paedophilia'. Now .. if that sticks to all Muslims, it is THEY who have to defend this charge. Unfortunately, the Muslim commentators are clear.

The reason for the waiting period is to see if SHE IS PREGNANT! Surah 65:4 refers.

Now..before Pericles goes off the deep end about "Selective verses which support my Islamophobia" I should point out that this whole chapter is specific teaching on the issue of DIVORCE. It is an outline of 'Allah's law' about it. There is nothing to interpret other than look at the plain simple meaning of the words as they stand.
There is no allegory, no word picture..they are COMMANDMENTS.. and this is exactly how Maududi and other Islamic scholars understand them.
Maududi is a renowned scholar because his rulings encompass reference to the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.. Maliki, Sha'afi, Hanbali etc.

He is also the theological father of Pakistan from what I gather.

As far as I'm concerned.. Muslims can do what they like among their own people OUTSIDE Australia. But here..they represent a growing community which has it's social/cultural values linked directly to the Quran. As such, it is not only a right, but a responsibility to defend our own values which would NEVER make intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl legal. Hence the severity of the punishment.

Boazy: "You just lumped we 'Bible Bashers' into the category of 'hating all muslims' "

No I didn't. I have never said that all evangelical Christians hate Muslims. Indeed, this thread demkinstrates that you don't have to be a tub-thumping Christian to be extremely antagonistic to Mulims.

At least an Islamophobe like originalaussie is honest enough to say "I have no interest in a Muslim conversation". Boazy bleats about "integrity" and then tries to hide behind the sophistry of supposedly attacking Islam but not Muslims, but in the very next sentence says "Now .. if that sticks to all Muslims, it is THEY who have to defend this charge."

Boazy is at best disingenuous when he attacks Islam and Muslims on the basis of his interpretation of their myth book. Given his record of mendacity in this forum, who but another Islamophobe would trust his interpretation of anything?

Pericles,

Sorry for my previous outburst.

I live (by choice) in the South-West of Sydney where half of Australia’s 300,000 Islamic communities conglomerate.

That gives me ample opportunities to observe the gradual changes in our hospitals, college campuses, schools, local governments, etc… deep permanent changes... a definite trend.

That begs the question: Where the hell do you live (under what rock)?

So the term “paranoia” should not apply because Islam is very real for most Australians (you’re the exception).

Lately it has become my passion to raise public awareness of Islam – especially among people like yourself who are in a deep slumber and who cannot grasp the severity of the eminent degradation of this country.

Islam has made it its business to purify the world from all non-believers in Islam. That includes you, me and all non-Muslims.

Now this is not my invention – it is in their Qur’an – the very words of their god and unquestionably the marching orders of every Muslim.

You must understand that Islam perceives “we-the-west” a desecration of their praying soil. The long term implications should concern you.

To venture an example here would be to imagine a nudist colony deciding to live among society and imposing restrain and adaptation from the rest of the typical people.

What you must understand is that Islam is NOT like any other religion on earth. It has very different sets of beliefs (and behaviour) that the rest of the world. No other religion has in its precepts the forcing of others to accept their ways. The key word is “force”...that's the norm.

According to Islam ALL humans are born Muslims – some deviate from the way of Islam and MUST be purified by 3 options:

1) get back into the fold voluntarily – i.e. revert to Islam
2) live in dhimmitude to Islam (the case in most Islamic countries)
3) be kille

Are you awake yet?

Coach,

Another good answer to which I would like to add.

Mr Morgan and his ilk would do well to improve their knowledge of the subject before shooting off their content free epistles. There is a mountain of material that is a testimony to the issues involved in accommodating Islam and Muslims into our secular societies.

Read, for example, the Ibn Warriq speech referenced by Phillip Tang previously

One snippet from the Warriq speach is especially relevant in the context of the topic of the author of this OLO piece.

The State of Baden Wurrtenberg in Germany has made it so that every application for naturalisation must accept:

1. Only the State ..has the power to administer and enforce the law.
2. The equality of rights of man and woman.
3. Acceptance of the Principles of Democracy.
4. Freedom of Expression- freedom to criticise religion,even though it may offend some.

The reason they had to do this is because 21% of Muslims living in Germany believe that the German Constitution is incomatible with the Koran, and that they hold a greater loyalty to the Umma, than they do the State.

As Warriq says " These are uncomfortable questions to pose in a liberal democracy But I do not think we can pretend that real problems of loyalty do not exist."

There is no grounds for assuming that the situation in Australia is any different. Perhaps we could begin by having a conversation along these grounds..but dont hold your breath.

For another slant this latest piece from Melanie Phillips is also informative.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=533

CJ.. the charge or allegation I have made is a serious one.

I am claiming that the Quran contains SPECIFIC permission for old men to indulge in paedophilia under the guise of marriage.

I went to considerable trouble to track down ISLAMIC interpretations of the particular verse, so as NOT to appear like a whacko just grabbing verses at random to prove his loony islamaphobic point.

That...is why I said 'if the mud sticks to muslims'... what I mean't by that is.... if such an allegation is made.... it should be defended.

If they choose not to defend it.. then it remains valid.

Why 'should' they defend it? because otherwise, an increased awareness of this sad fact will reflect badly on their whole community.

I would rather them FACE up to this, and either 'deny' the Quran, and their commentators, or try to give an alternative understanding.

I do not for a moment believe they can deflect this charge, apart from denying Mohammad and the Quran itself. I simply believe that VERY few of them are actually aware of what their faith dictates, permits.

I've said all along..that my issue is with Islam. If Buddhism permitted paedophilia..and was politically active, I would be on their case exactly as I am on this one.

You refer to my mendacity etc.. my interpretations.. how silly.. It was not MY interpretations..it was
a) Clear plain language from a clearly instructive passage.
b) Supported by high ranking highly respected Islamic scholars.

The background stated by said scholars is that 'these verses were revealed to answer as yet unanswered questions'....

At least you call them 'myths' sadly..they don't see it that way, and while you can dismiss them comfortably..I cannot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPdEjij2KoY&mode=related&search=

Don't believe me... believe this Muslim woman......I rest my case.

Is this gentleman a member of the same Islamic association that was involved in the VCAT action against religious free speech?

Funny starting point for a conversation?

In terms of dialogue, Islam sees no need for it. They may listen, but, they will not act as there is no compulsion to change.

End game here is that we either resist Islamic demands in our Western societies and make them comply with aspects of our legal and cultural tradition, or, we backdown in the name of 'tolerance' and eventually lose the numbers game when our democracies elect themselves into a Shari'a community.

This is the period before the Siege of Jerusalem, so we can run, pull back or make a stand. Chances are we could negotiate a submissive peace, lose or overcome, however, even the Inquisition couldn't eliminate the problem and neither can the Democrats in the US.

Non-Muslims are wasting their time trying to enter into dialogue with any Muslim who seeks to integrate their religious beliefs into western society.

Muslim beliefs are not rationally deduced positions – they are rationalisations of a neurotic and primitive approach to reality. All religious people indulge in certain behaviours in order to deal with elements of reality that cause them difficulty or pain. When they are frightened they pray. When they are angry they comfort themselves with the idea that justice will come in heaven. When this behaviour is challenged by non-religious people they rationalise it by claiming to be following religious beliefs. The truth is that the behaviour comes first and the rationalisations follow on. These rationalisations become enshrined in books like the Koran and the bible.

You cannot have a rational argument with people who are only concerned with rationalising their behaviour. To try and do so is to allow them to control the agenda and it gives their rationalisations a credibility they do not deserve.

We should just make sure that their behaviour does not impinge on the basic human rights of the secular society we have fought so hard to build. Entering into an argument about why they do what they do is futile.