"Islam is an ideology threatening the non-Muslims' liberal democratic principle of secular government which espouses the separation of religion and state."

oh yes. not like there are any christians challenging that "separation". no, sir. wouldn't happen. that whole gay marriage kerfuffle is just a figment of my imagination.

banjo, i'm inclined to feel the same way about the sexual separation thing. of course, i don't understand christians objecting to women priests (or gay priests) either. but, what if the practitioners themselves are happy with the situation? certainly some islamic women are decidedly not happy with the sexual separation, but what if most are? i'm not saying it's then an argument for ignoring it, but i do think one has to tread lightly.

mil-observer, it would appear that brevity is not your strong suit! but i think we're pretty much agreeing.

You're clearly dredging the bottom of the logic barrel, Boaz.

>>Reading Philip Tangs link, we have the following:
1/ 'Nadia Jamal is criticizing Muslims'
2/ "we bigots" are also criticizing Islam.
3/ Jamal and the 'bigots' are of one voice....
And Pericles regularly attacks us (i.e. the 'bigots' but not the Muslim critics of Islam<<

Nadia Jamal says nothing about bloody Surah bloody nine.

Nor that if you don't follow bloody surah bloody nine to the letter, you cannot be a Muslim.

Nor does she generally take it upon herself to promote fear and loathing of Islam.

Instead, she soberly points out a few of Islam's shortcomings when it comes to seating arrangements.

You, on the other hand, are constantly harping on about bloody surah bloody nine, and how it is the single rule that every Muslim must abide by, and how we could be murdered in our beds at any tick of the clock, thanks to bloody surah bloody nine.

So for starters, you and Jamal are most certainly not "of one voice".

And for main course, the reason I don't "regularly attack the Muslim critics of Islam" is because they are not intent on sowing discord, disharmony, fear, distrust and loathing.

(Incidentally, I heard that the Australian Cricket selectors were keen to select Nadia to play against South Africa in the upcoming Test. Apparently, someone told them "If you've seen Warne, you've seen Jamal")

" ... i.e., when warfare had so damaged traditional society and its gender balance that needs for repopulation compelled a return to ancient, Old Testament-style polygamy, or a “regeneration” by definition. ... "

We laugh about it now with family and friends but they are fond to tell me how they all peered out to see if I was going to start doing some dutch militant style goose step when I first arrived.

Local oral tradition holds that when the militants came, both dutch and japs, they simply arrived "killing the men from afar and took the woman off screaming and crying by force." The men that survived ran and hid in the jungle. Any who protested were summarily executed.

The woman took to wearing rice sack cloth and smearing their face in sh!t, preferring servitude in the kitchen to servitude in the bed.
This is still taught to the children as it was taught to my wife.

If there was a social security system here, I doubt there would be much polygamy. It is just a case of men behaving badly.

..

I have not viewed prima faecie evidence myself, nor have I read credible histories, but a friend of mine tells me that whilst the indos teach their children that they achieved independence in '47, that in fact that this only came about in '49, with the assistance of Australia and a few others to finally see an end to the dutch <snip>'s
(Is it any surprise that some Indos occassionally sport nazi symbols on their clothes out of appreciation at giving the dutch a bit of their own?)

And yet, they refuse to teach this and we remain all equally branded as "Bule" (Boolay)and attrocities committed by same are taught.

Billions of dollars are being poured in and siphoned off by the corrupt guvment in Jakarta by AUSAID and what do we get for it?
Are we recognised as mates who helped them achieve independence, a fact about which they are all greatly proud? Not so far, quite the opposite in fact.

<SCORN & DERISION>

They can say it better than I do, so let the ex-Muslims speak

Muslims: A Shackled People Enslaved by the Koran

“The severe dearth of creativity in the Muslim world has been revealed in another study by Hisamul Islam Siddiqi, the president of the Delhi-based NGO, Indian Islamic Council. In India and elsewhere in the world, Muslims, as a community, are most back-ward and top the list in adult illiteracy, infant mortality and poverty”

“Mr. Clovis Maksoud, an Egyptian scholar involved in preparing the report, blamed no historical event like Western imperialism, devastation caused by the Second World War or any other outside intervention for the present backwardness of the Arab world, and the Islamic world at large. He indirectly raised his finger to the creed of Islam itself for the said backwardness of the Arab world.”

“All the above mentioned comments and opinions of the scholars who prepared the ‘Arab Human Report 2002’ leads one to conclude that, as a community, Muslims around the world are deprived of their right to freethinking and are intellectually enslaved by the creed of Islam. Or, more pointedly, they are a community of shackled people enslaved by the Koran. Can a community of slaves ever prosper?”

http://www.islam-watch.org/Brahmachari/Muslims-Enslaved-by-Koran-Islam.htm

I think maybe the semantics are going awry here.

I am talking mainly about "Islamists" i.e. the political/social/religious movement which has Islam in its "pure "form at its core.

A good proxy name is "Wahabbism", although Islamists can go under a myriad of other names, as an example "Hizb-ut-Tahrir".

British Muslims seem to be more anti-western than Muslims in other parts of Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432075&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/30/immigrationpolicy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

The problem from the newspaper articles is "How does one identify who are the Islamists and who are the moderates"?

With an increasing number of Muslims in Australia, this is the type of thing we have to look forward to.

This is why I say that we in the West must be very careful about allowing large numbers of Muslims to settle here. We must also take account of the fact that generally they out-breed us.

In Germany, prior to the Second World War, there were many Germans who opposed Nazism. Many others were equivocal: while they didn’t support Hitler, they quite liked the fact that Germany was regaining its pride in itself after the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore they did not sufficiently oppose Hitler.

The German resistance was undermined by Britain’s policy of appeasement.

By failing to draw a clear line in the sand, Britain simply encouraged Hitler in the belief that he could get away with whatever he wanted.

I believe a very similar situation exists today with militant Islam, even to the fact that we are appeasing Islam rather than clearly defining what is acceptable and what is not. We must resist this evil cancer before it becomes too strong for us.

Otherwise, we are simply leaving a great and growing problem to be dealt with by our descendants.

Heyyy there Dreamy :) thanx for sharing all that infor about yourself and spouse.

Now..I'm going to help you get 'lucky' tonight :) unless you already know this

Just whisper these words into your darlings ears k :)

"Oh Sayang yang ku kasihi.. aku penuh cinta yang manis kepada kau...Aku mau memenuhi segala mimpimu dengan hati yang penuh kasih sayang yang khas dan istimewa untuk mu sahaja. Tiada sesiapapun dalam dunia ini yang ku sayangi seperti kau. Aku memberi hatiku kepada mu sahaja untuk selamalamanya"

Now..if that does not do the trick.. come back and I'll try again :)

PERICLES.. you need a serve now:

You said:

"and how it is the single rule that every Muslim must abide by,"

Chapter and verse please..where I have said "every muslim must" in connection with that verse!

I've stated that "ISLAM" (ie.their holy book) curses Christians and Jews...and advocates that the Muslim ummah advance it's program of Islamic rule by violent warfare... if you want to be pedantic.. "Islam" itself says that 'every able bodied Muslim' must fight agianst invaders.

The point I make about Surah 9 is that it is OFFENSIVE in its posture.
It does not related to individual Muslims..it relates to the Muslim UMMAH..... the state...

I find no record of individual muslims in the Quran or Hadith (with the exception of leaders.. Mohammad and Umar the Caliph) using the 29th verse as it is written.

So....your ongoing campaign of misinformation, should stop here and now.

Fess up Pericles.. you are trying deliberately to misrepresent me in the most scurrilous manner.
But don't worry.. you are loved by the Almighty, and by me :) We don't have any such verses in our Holy Writ which call for your destruction in this world.

Ours is "For God so LOVED (Pericles) the world that He gave His only Son"