Runner, Some day's it's just not worth chewing through your restraints is it?
Your comments aren’t even close to being accurate or refect reality.

IamJoseph.
Your point was lost in the inaccuracies.Just a few points to consider.

1/ Medieval period didn’t start until several hundred years after Islam.

2 / Have you heard of Context? Pope Pious the what said that? And under what circumstances?

3/ Pres Nasser Has been dead for over 20 years he made that statement before’67 war (I think). There has been a peace treaty or two since then. Again the Context defines the quote.

4/ Churchill said that in the at least 60 years ago, come on! Apart from him being the architect of the Gallipoli campaign, the man that authorized breaking radio silence to get the Lusitania sunk in order to get involve the Americans. The man that was prepared to sacrifice Australia to defend ‘mother England’. Denying us the troop ships to bring our soldiers home. Then diverted the ships and men to Malaya where they were killed or captured. Who cares what he thought.

5/The origins of Zionism go back to 1800’s in Russia and was heavily influenced by European nationalist thinking of the time.

6/Jordan was created well after the Jews had started to migrate to Palestine. So your point about "when they were at their most helpless" is supposed to mean.

7/Jordan is the peace maker in the area.

8/ Syria lost territory to Israel in the 67 war. They are hostile to Israel.

Your grasp on Middle Eastern history appears some what tenuous. I recommend you read historian other than those who are trying to create a National (fictional) narrative. (i.e. official Israeli line)

I think most Australians would agree that the following should be included in any minimal definition of democracy.

--The right to practise any religion or no religion. This specifically includes the right to evangelise for any religion or for atheism / agnosticism.

--Equality before the law regardless of race, colour, creed, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. This specifically includes the right to be openly homosexual. It also means that the state does not favour one religion over another.

--Habeas corpus*

--The right to examine critically any belief system, theory, ideology or political or religious agenda. This specifically includes the right to subject belief systems, theories etc to critique, analysis, satire and scorn. The critic should be under no obligation to adhere to anybody's ideas of fairness. Nor should the critic be obliged to consider the feeling of adherents of any belief system.

--The ability to bring about peaceable regime change – ballots rather than bullets. This includes the right to campaign openly and without fear for political parties and agenda.

Now:

--Would Mr. Laidlaw and those who think like him tell me which of these rights they would like to see abridged.

--How is Islam, or any other religion, compatible with these rights?

The truth is that democracy and freedom rose IN OPPOSITION TO RELIGION.

The difference between the West and Dar-ul-Islam is not that the former was once largely Christian while the latter was Muslim. The difference is that the West allowed secularism while, in Dar-ul-Islam, secularism was beaten down.

So far as I can see NO religion is compatible with democracy.

However Buddhism and Christianity have largely learned to live with democracy.

Islam mostly has not.

Hinduism is somewhere in the middle.

Laidlaw is welcome to live in an "Islamic democracy" (so-called) if he chooses. I think most Australians would prefer SECULAR democracy.

Will we be able to continue with our SECULAR democracy if Islam gains significant influence here? I doubt it.

*This right has been sadly curtailed of late.

It is interesting to note that in the UK, Sharia law, in Islamic democracy, and is openly understood as being practiced freely in communities in the UK, has removed "polygamy rights" to those Muslims intending to marry.

In Australia some profile Muslim leaders have outlined an argument for, polygamy rights.

I wonder if this means that all Islamic marriages under Sharia law, will have to be re-done in the UK and back dated?

I think this observation should be the other way round, Religion is an "expression" and Democracy is an "idea".

An "expression" can be less impressive, on a whole population, than an "idea".

YES Phil religion is a very good tax evasion check out a particular Australian cereal company raking it in that are affiliated with a church have you ever seen the Benny Hinn show to see what 'religions' are up to I'm not sure if this is comedy or tragedy? Maybe both. I'm not completely anti everything but I see so much hypocrisy coming out of religions it puts me off. The media also likes to stir the pot and the sheep follow in their thousands. Bleeting brain dead peaces of meat. OOps forgot sheep aren;t stupid it's humans.

Jewcat,

Even I am sometimes astounded by just how Jew obsessed are Muslims.

Consider this:

There has long been a controversy in Muslim circles about the start of months. Will astronomical calculations do or must there be an actual sighting of the crescent moon? Till now the prevailing view has been that there must be an actual sighting. Astronomical calculations won't cut it.

However two years ago the Fiqh Council of North America broke ranks. It announced the date for the start of Ramadan based on astronomical calculations rather than actual sightings of the new moon. This caused a furore in traditional Muslim circles.

I am passionately interested in the history of science so I asked a Muslim acquaintance for a reference. I wanted to understand the issues.

He directed me to the IslamOnline website.

The IslamOnline website carried the imprimatur of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi ranked third in a Prospect Magazine / Foreign Policy poll on who are the world's most important public intellectuals. IslamOnline is arguably the premier English Islamic website.

Here is a link to the relevant article:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Living_Shariah/ContemporaryIssues/ScientificDomain/2006/10/01.SHTML

The article contains the following gems.

"The mainstream scholars of Shari`ah agree that using calculations in determining the new moon is forbidden. …Only a group from the posterity, out of ignorance, has indulged themselves in that. This is basically changing the deen of Allah by misleading people and BY FOLLOWING THE MISGUIDANCE OF THE JEWS IN THIS MATTER. (Vol. 6, 590)

Here Ibn Taymiyyah seemed to be referring to the Jewish rabbinical council's decision to adopt astronomical calculations as the authentic source of confirming the Jewish lunar months.

AND


"… He [Muhammad]…intentionally stopped the Muslims FROM IMITATING THE JEWS by putting a stop to the use of calculations in the matter of confirming Muslim months.


(Emphases added)

21st Century Muslim 'scholars' are using "not imitating Jews" as a reason for refraining from using astronomical calculations to determine the start of Ramadan.

THIS IS BEYOND BIZARRE.

StevenImeyer,
Sadly your imprecision in what you write defeats your point.

1. During the western dark ages civilization (science, art, law, medicine, poetry, philosophy etc) was kept alive and advanced by Islamic nations.

2. In fact they had University towns.

3. Moorish Spain had Jews, Christians etc all living together and was able to partake in government.

4. Demographics don't support your argument. Population projections show that at the current birth rates the population of England will be prominently Muslim in the year 3200, and about the same here. Holland will become Muslim in about 500 years. That ignores the factor that 2nd and 3rd generation minorities usually tend to adopt the dominant cultures identity rather than that of their antecedents. Personally I doubt that I or the human race will be around then. Take your pick which doomsday scenario you wish.

5. No nation in the world has ever practised true democracy. You confuse democracy with rights. Democracy is a method of government not human rights. i.e. Greece who invented democracy had slaves and were religiously intolerant. So who's to say which perversion is best?

If you want something to worry about ask yourself how come non living non voting entities (corporations) have so much anti human influence in our democratic government?

By your reasoning the Muslims in Australia aren’t really faux Muslims in that they happily co-exist in our democracy.
In every group there are ratbags with axes to grind.