There has been significant debate of late regarding the growth of Islam in Australia, and throughout the world. Our media has painted Muslims as hell bent on dominating the world. I have a limited understanding of Islamic belief, but certainly the media has made me aware of Jihad.

So, are we destined to Jihad? Is there any way of building bridges prior to this happening or is it just something that needs to happen before we can move on to the next dimension of world culture?

Further, if this is the case, what are the ramifications? Where will this lead? How will it affect Australia and the wider community? Alternatively, what can be done to encourage coexistence or better still collaboration? Are there points of balance which we can leverage to achieve a common purpose?

You mean, it STILL hasn't happened?.

Maybe all that isn't as prevalent as they'll lead you to believe.

Dear Corri,

Whenever something new is introduced into our society we tend to look at it with mistrust. Especially if its something that is alien to our own culture. There has been so much negativity about Islam in the media, rightly or wrongly assumptions have been made encouraging bias.

A lot of the responsibility has to rest with the Muslim communities themselves. It would help a great deal I imagine if they would participate in the re-education of the public. If they would discourage their fanatics from airing their views to the media.

However all this will take time. We're still dealing with the horror of the Bali bombings, September 11th, the UK bombings and so on...

Will a jihad happen here in Australia? I certainly hope not. Only time will tell. However, in the meantime, we do need to build bridges with the Muslim communities and ensure that their leaders understand what Australians will and will not accept. They have to be part of the education program. It's not only the Australian public that needs to be educated. This has to be a two-way process.

Before worrying about whether Jihad is some bloodthirsty war that might happen in the future, at least understand that exactly what Jihad means is widely disputed, and relatively few Moslems these days see it as some mass uprising in which the whole world is converted to Islam by force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad is as good a place to start as any.

Dear Corri
"Jihad" is already occurring here.

Phase 1 "Jihad"/struggle with the inner person.. to strengthen it in Allahs ways, loving what Allah loves(the Muslims), hating what Allah hates.(thats us)

Phase 2 The nature of Jihad moves from the 'building up the community' to embarking on more aggressive overt struggle.

Example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

(If they are prepared to do the above while a minority.. what if they were a majority?)

If you wish to understand the 'pattern' of how Jihad moves from one phase to the other, please read this background report from Human Rights Watch, it is well researched based on first hand information.

Notice the factors involved:

1/ Increasing numbers of Muslims
2/ Increasing calls for more political power
3/ Increasing polarization of Muslim and non Muslim communities
4/ Armed struggle once the 'trigger' event has occurred.

The 'Trigger' event will always be portrayed as 'Christian/Western/Jewish/Crusade against Muslims' as here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMpMvEENdFc

That is exactly what happened in Central Sulawisi/Ambon... as I've referred to this information in other threads.

Main Article:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/indo1204.htm
Detailed report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/indonesia/

I truly hope you read that info....you will be much better informed when you do.

One theological element is not appreciated even in this report.. the idea of 'Muslim Lands' for this you need to read the Hamas Charter here..
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Read 'Part 3, Article 11 "Strategies and methods." (its only a paragraph)

Funny, Islam has been round since 622 AD and we have only now started to hear about it. What could possibly have stirred these Muslims up so much?

It's kind of nice to see that, no matter how hard Boazy blows his dog whistle this week about the supposed Muslim menace, even the mutts don't seem very interested.

Maybe they've worked out that he's all puff and no dog biscuit - more wacko than schmacko, so to speak :)

Thank you for your posts ... this was certainly intended to raise some of the issues discussed in other threads - with the hope that we may have seen a Muslim input as well.

There are two sides to every coin, and in this case, I am with those that hope that we don't have to resort to violence once again to sort out differing opinions.

Australia is a place of hope, though often unless you've travelled this is hard to register.

Redabyss... ask not 'what stirred them up'.... instead ask. "On what theological foundation do they manifest their disquiet"?

Only when you understand that, will you have the true picture.

There are many nations and people groups and religious groups who suffer persecution, and pressure from others.. PhaLunGong in China is one, do you hear them calling for a Jihad or.. just making the fact known in the world media?

Tibetan Buddists are another.. do you hear them calling for war against China ? Do you hear of roadside bombs against Chinese convoys?

You seem to view this issue through very 'western/liberal democratic' blinkers with little understanding of historical Islam.

You would benefit greatly from reading the Hamas Charter and the expansion of Islam.

http://history-world.org/islam4.htm
<<The Islamic state expanded very rapidly after the death of Muhammad
through remarkable successes both at converting unbelievers to Islam and by military conquests of the Islamic community's opponents. Expansion of the Islamic state was an understandable development, since Muhammad himself had successfully established the new faith through conversion and conquest of those who stood against him.>>

The ONE point you should note, is that the early history and its reflection in the Hamas Charter BOTH speak quite naturally about 'violent conquest'.

As it was 'then'......so it is 'now'...and will continue to be. The foundation is the same.

CJ... *Here's a bone* must be lonely out there in the doghouse.. another week will probably be enough, then... back porch mat again. :)

Corri

BOAZ_David tells you that "Jihad" is already occurring here.

And his evidence? Well, none really. But he does give you five links that suggest will reveal it all.

I've looked at all five since I've formed the view that BOAZ is either a fanatic or a charlatan.

Item 1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs) is a 2006 item about Muslims demonstrating in London about Danish cartoons lampooning aspects of Islam. The item was created and sponsored by an American organisation, NAFA (the Nine-Eleven Finding Answers Foundation) which is dedicated to anti-Islamic causes. Its funding sources are not stated. There is no reference to Australia.

Item 2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMpMvEENdFc) simply takes you to YouTube and leaves you stranded. There is no reference to Australia or to anywhere else actually.

Item 3: (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/indo1204.htm) is a 2002 American article about Central Sulawesi. There is no reference to Australia.

Item 4: (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/indonesia/) is more detail about Item 3. Again there is no reference to Australia.

Item 5: (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) is an undated pastiche called 'Selected Documents Regarding Palestine" from an organisation called The Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center. There is no reference to Australia.

So you see Corri, when David BOAZ says Jihad is already happening here, he really takes you to the heart of Australian life in 2007, doesn't he?

Dear Frank.... you can do much better than that mate....

I did not imply that any of those items were specifically about Australia, but I used them to demonstrate various behavior of Muslims in various place at different stages of 'Jihad'....

I also made the clear distinction between 'phase 1' and 'phase 2' so you are the charleton to misrepresent me. (there is room in Pericles/CJ's doghouse for one more)

I also pointed out that Jihad is not neccessarily only 'violent' (jihad of the inner person). Hmmm you missed that ?

I'm glad you took the trouble to view or look up the sources, at least, to your credit it shows a willingness to enquire.

The item about the Muslims protesting in London is very valid.. the funding or origin means nothing, you saw it, you saw the signs.. tantamount to a declaration of sedition against Britain.

To view all the sources from Youtube, you need to open an account, and log on. Some items are very graphic and tragic, but they need to be known by those of us on the outside.

One aspect of testimony is 'corroboration' and there is ample for the HRW report from other sources, including anthroplogists who have worked in the area of Poso.

So, let me recap.

1/ Jihad is happening here (Phase 1..and partial phase 2 (13 on trial in Melb. 11 in Sydney)

2/ We can learn what to expect in behavioral terms from the radical elements based on what has happened in other place.. (note..OTHER).. hence the broad refernces.
cheers.

In the dog house with Frank and CJ, how cool is that?

Boaz, it doesn't matter how hard you huff and puff, there is simply not enough meat in your argument to sustain it. At some point, you will need to come to terms with a couple of truths:

1. Australia does not have a "Muslim problem"

2. There is no "Jihad" happening here, or any evidence that one is likely to surface in your or my lifetime, or even in that of our children and their children.

3. By continuing to take your approach of "whack-a-mozzie" at every opportunity, even to the point of generating threads on unrelated topics that you then use to introduce the same anti-Islamic sentiments, you are becoming part of the problem. Indeed the fastest way to prove me wrong on point 2. is to double your hate-think output, and develop rifts in society where there presently are none.

4. The beach punch-up at Cronulla (casualties: nil) was not, as you try to maintain, evidence of deep divisions caused by Muslims, but an isolated incidence of the "mods and rockers" style of pseudo turf-wars . If it really was sectarian violence, it would have escalated as in Northern Ireland, with one atrocity leading to another, rather than subsiding as quickly as it started.

Face it, the best you can do is foment the same kind of fear and loathing in others that you personally feel about people who do not share your religious views. Will this be enough to bring about the holocaust that you so fervently wish for in order to prove yourself "right"?

Fortunately, I don't believe you are that good at it.

FrankGol: "BOAZ is either a fanatic or a charlatan"

Now I really must complain about Frank's deployment of a false dichotomy. Boazy is clearly both a fanatic and a charlatan, and what's more has identified Frank as a "charleton".

Is Frank the same Charleton as the author of the saying "Happiness to a dog is what lies on the other side of a door"?

In which case, Pericles and I are in good company, since the canine dispositions bestowed upon us by Boazy are impervious to his incessant dog-whistling efforts. I rather like being on the side of Bozo's door - the air is clearer out here, the company is good and both the silence and the retrievers are golden :)

1) “Our media has painted Muslims as hell bent on dominating the world” –Wrong!
Islam’s own media has declared it to be hell bent on dominating the world.
You can contend that it wont happened –but that’s a different argument.

2) “The horror of the Bali bombings, September 11th, the UK bombings and so on”
Such attacks are not new- they are only new to us few in the west. Many non-Muslim minorities have been subjected to such for generations.

3) “Few Moslems these days see it as some mass uprising in which the whole world is converted to Islam by force”
Perhaps this should read “few Muslims in prosperous western societies espouse mass uprisings”

David Boaz an a few others cop a lot of flack –much of it unfair.
Oft times because they dare to raise issues that polite multicultural society chooses not to see.

It’s a strange world .If one raises the issue of poor starving Africans, ones a campaigner for justice etc.If one raises the issue non-Muslim minorities in West Iran, Sulawesi/Ambon, Southern Thailand, Pakistan, ones ‘a fanatic and a charlatan’

Pericles, I would dispute that your claim that 'Australia does not have a "Muslim problem"'. However the problem is almost entirely with the non-Muslims who are unable to accept that occasional regretable examples of criminal or distasteful behaviour by a handful of Muslims make Muslims as a whole no worse than the rest of us.

It's also not unreasonable to see examples of Muslim extremists and especially terrorists causing real problems in other countries and to be concerned about the same occurring here. However it's almost certainly exactly the wrong response to start treating all Muslims differently (including not allowing them into the country) purely on this basis.

Horus

You say: "If one raises the issue of poor starving Africans, ones a campaigner for justice etc.If one raises the issue non-Muslim minorities in West Iran, Sulawesi/Ambon, Southern Thailand, Pakistan, ones ‘a fanatic and a charlatan’."

Not so Horus. Not so at all. It's not just a matter of raising these issues. That's a superficial issue. It's a matter of how you raise them and the quality of what you say that counts.

Campaigners for justice can be trite and ill-informed too. Fanatics, on the other hand, are invariably ill-informed - and often dangerous because they whip up hatred where none existed before or where differences co-exist peacefully.

Charlatans, by contrast, pretend to know something of holy importance when they are wholly ignorant.

Corri,

Jihad is holy war against non-Muslims. Period.

Quote: O Prophet! Jahidi (do jihad) against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh to them; and their abode is hell, an evil destination (Quran9.73)

If you want to learn about Islam and jihad, please read
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html#jihad

Have you ever heard of the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech? Here is the story:

In 1968, an unorthodox and very independent English politician and intellectual named Enoch Powell made a very controversial speech in which he warned the country of the consequences of continued unchecked immigration. Because of its allusion to Virgil's saying in ancient Roman literature that the Tiber river would foam with blood, Powell's warning was dubbed the "Rivers of Blood speech" by the press. The next day he was sacked from his cabinet position and never held another senior political post. Powell received almost 120,000 (predominantly positive) letters and a Gallup poll at the end of April showed that 74% of those asked agreed with what Powell had said in his speech. Even so, he was slandered in the press, academia, and even by popular artists. Even the Beatles inserted derogatory allusions to him in their music. He was also shunned by the "liberal intelligentsia" which denounced him as a racist and a bigot. British leaders and intellectuals said no such thing would ever happen.

Fast forward 40 years. We are in trouble. Tens of millions of Muslims are living in Western nations because our nations have allowed tens of millions of Muslims to enter - people with which we share nothing in common. Their values are not our values. They do not understand our freedoms and do not respect our institutions. They follow a religion of hate and anger. They love a man who - according to their own sacred writings - attacked, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and murdered to conquer and dominate. The worse thing is they are not honest; they cannot be honest. They want to live in the West, but not be part of the West.

(Continued)

Continuing...

Muslims want our liberties and prosperity, but do not accept the essential elements that generate that prosperity and guarantee that liberty. They lie about their religion and their attitudes. They tell us they believe in freedom and equality then say "Praise be unto him" after the name of a man that murdered his critics and enslaved his opponents. There is no soul searching and no questioning as to why this happens. There is no need to; it is always the infidel's fault.

In the words of John Derbyshire, we - the West - "we have executed policies of staggering idiocy." We have taken 800 years of enlightenment and learning - the Magna Carta, renaissance, the reformation, the counter-reformation, the French and American revolutions, the bill of rights, the industrial revolution, ideals of equality, the fight against slavery, the emancipation of women, and the struggle for human rights, and in one generation we have sacrificed all of these on an altar of political correctness that says that these ideals are no better than a poisonous ideology the teaches hate, destruction, oppression and death.

Under the doctrine of multiculturalism we have let people fleeing from the injustice and oppression of Islamic societies come to our countries. They have come and they have brought their hate and violence with them -- and then our leaders we tell them their ways are as good as ours, or perhaps even better. Our officials and intellectuals tell us we should respect them but do not require that they respect us, our customs or even our laws. These same institutions also tell us, when conflict occurs, it is our fault because we are not doing enough to make them happy. No demands are made on them. We are racists and bigots; they are just innocent victims.

"For if there is a sickness in the soul of Islam, there is a corresponding sickness in the soul of the West. As the darkness, cruelty, and obscurantism of jihadist Islam descend on our lands, our souls rise joyfully to greet them."

Kactuz

PS: Immigration is jihad in slow motion.

kactuz

This is semi-literate twaddle. Your sources are selective, unreliable and lack authority.

Relying on Enoch Powell's discredited 1960s bigotry shows how desperate you are. As you say: "He was also shunned by the 'liberal intelligentsia' which denounced him as a racist and a bigot." They were right. He was on about skin colour not religion.

You say: "Immigration is jihad in slow motion." Exceptionally slow motion, kactus, given that Immigration has been with us always. "Migration IS the history of the world...The story of migration will never end as long as the human race continues." (Russell King ed., "Origins: an Atlas of Human Migration", ABC Books 2007)

Get a life, man.

Hi Frank... and Wizofaus...

Wiz is showing distinct signs of wisdom there.. which I'd not detected earlier.. well done!

You said:

<<occasional regretable examples of criminal or distasteful behaviour by a handful of Muslims make Muslims as a whole no worse than the rest of us.>>

DEMYTHOLOGIZATION TIME.

Wiz.. in order to bring you up to speed on the essense of the debate about Muslims I need to make a few points on your comment.

1/ "Criminal/distasteful behavior" = 'Western judicial value judgement' and hence, are not very helpful in understanding violent or seditious behavior by some Muslims.
2/ To understand 'which' Muslims are the real cause of the troubles, one needs to understand/research 2 words:
-Wahabism
-Salafism

3/ MUSLIMS WORSE THAN US.. No..it is not about "Muslims" so much, it is about "Islam" the religion itself. I don't know anyone who supports the activities of the 'Children of God' of the 60s, where sexual/intimate relations between old adults and young children was taught as 'quite normal'. So.. a close examination of a 'religion' to see what it teaches/practices is not only justified but imperetive.

A better question would be "How would Muslims act/behave if they used the same understanding of their texts as their prophet did, and acted as he did?" THAT...is the crucial question.

Now.. immigration levels aside, the simple fact that out of approx 400,000 Muslims, we have:
-13 on trial in Melbourne for allegedly planning explosive terrorist acts.
-11 in Sydney for the same reason.
-Muslim youth violence in Sydney which is linked to their 'Islamic' background. (Cronulla was part of it)

....should....say something about this religion as a social force.

Those apprehended in Melbourne and Sydney are of the Wahabist flavor.

Some study of this might be in order.

STUDY TIME....

From Wikipedia on Wahabism:

<<Wahabism is a conservative 18th century reform movement of Sunni Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, after whom the movement is named.[1] Wahhabism formed the creed upon which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded[1] and is the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria and Mauritania.>>

IMPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION. At the very least, given the nature of Wahabism, it is incumbent on our Immigration Authorities to ascertain if people applying for Australian residence from any of these countries subscribe to the Wahabist doctrines. If they do, then they should/must be declared 'Persona-non-grata'.

WIKI ARTICLE.
"Wahhabi theology treats the Qur'an and Hadith as fundamental texts, interpreted upon the understanding of the first three generations of Islam and further explained by many various commentaries including that of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. His book Kitab al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya are fundamental to Wahabism."

NOW IT GETS INTERESTING..... (From Wiki)

Some Wahhabist books and pamphlets teach that Muslims should reject absolutely any non-Muslim ideas and practices, including political ones. A study by the NGO Freedom House found wahhabi publications in a number of mosques in the United States preaching that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way," but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake," that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century," that Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslims were infidels, etc

Plenty of reading needed by the following:

-Wizofaus
-Pericles
-CJ Morgan
-Frank Gol
-Bugsy
-Botheration
-Foxy
-Various others :)

Frank,

Excuse me for selecting sources that relate to my arguments. The next time I will not be selective but include very known aspect of all fields of human knowledge in my 700-word essay.

My sources lack authority? Are you referring to Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell), the two quotes from Derbyshire or my opinion? Or perhaps it was the statement that Muslims love a man who attacked, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and murdered to conquer and dominate? Is that it? Or was it the subject of jihad? Please be clear so I can give you a few ‘authoritative’ sources.

Yes, Immigration has been around, and migrations, too -- but massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena that has only occurred in the last generation. Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping discrimination they suffered under Islam.

Understand also that the rules have changed - 100 years ago a family would move and they had to integrate. Now with multiculturalism, welfare and technology, this is different. A group can live, work, worship and even hate, and live side by side with another group. When people praise past immigration they are talking about a world that no longer exists. Things have changed.

Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility. Multiculturalism makes them immune from OFFICIAL criticism and discourages integration. Modern technology means they can live in the West like they never left home (they can watch their favorite Imam in Arabia on TV telling them to hate the infidels). It is a whole new world. The effects of globalism, new communication technology and mass migrations are so many and so deep that they are beyond any individual's understanding. This is a dangerous mixture, one day and it will explode. Boom.

The problem is not immigration, it is the values of the people that immigrate. Muslim values are not our values, unless you love/respect a person that murdered, looted, enslaved, tortured and raped. What do you think?

As far as I can tell, Powell pretty much got it right.

Kactuz

kactuz,

Nobody with any integrity (or intelligence) quotes Enoch Powell these days. He was wrong in the 1960s and he's still wrong now. His sentiments were racist then and they're racist now.

You are simply wrong to claim that “…massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena [sic] that has only occurred in the last generation.” I think you are talking about the very small period of time from the 1960s when racist groups in the West have organised protests against Islamic people.

A broader reading of history would reveal massive migration e.g. of Islamic Moors to the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th Century onwards with Muslims from Africa and the Middle East.

In later centuries, the colonization of Muslim Africa by various European countries led eventually to a somewhat free flow of Islamic colonials and former colonials (after the colonies were emancipated) to Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, UK and Germany.

See: J. D. Latham’s “From Muslim Spain to Barbary: Studies in the History and Culture of the Muslim West”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1988).

Your lecturette on multiculturalism is ignorant and riddled with errors of fact and unsustainable interpretation.

e.g. You say: “Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility.” How so? There is no evidence for this.

e.g. “Multiculturalism makes them immune from OFFICIAL criticism and discourages integration.” What do you make of Immigration Minister Andrews comments on Africans just prior to the elections? Come down to Footscray and I'll show you integration aplenty.

Your understanding of Australian Muslims is blinded by your baseless fear.

e.g. “…they can watch their favorite Imam in Arabia [sic] on TV telling them to hate the infidels.” Arabia?

e.g. “Muslim values are not our values, unless you love/respect a person that murdered, looted, enslaved, tortured and raped.” Who? When? Where?

I think your education and knowledge of the real world of Multicultural Australia are sadly deficient.

I've found this thread enlightening and somewhat alarming ... though it has achieved its purpose: to guage the feeling of Australians to Islamic belief and practices.

The fact remains Australian culture has been built largely on British / European traditions, with a British system of government and the inherent cultural bias.

Nobody likes change, and Australia is changing. We have broadened our migration intake (for quite some time now I hasten to add), we have allowed freedom of religion, belief and encouraged a multi cultural approach. Some of it may have gone too far (just like political correctness) ... but what a country we live in!

In my naiviety I still hope we can encourage collaboration, even if it takes a generation. We achieved it with the Chinese, we achieved it with Europeans, we acheived it with the Koreans, Thai and Malay - so why not with the Muslims. In fact, I think most Muslims are integrated into our society. Look at Crazy John's ... did anyone walk into that shop thinking oh no, not a mobile phone from a Muslim?

As for extremists, why aren't we having similar discussions about the Brethrens and Opus Dei? These groups are having enormous impact on government policy now - not in the future. So how is this different to Muslim input? Why is it that extreme Muslim groups are terrorists, while the White Supremacist movement is ignored? I dare not spur this discussion beyond its current momentum, but why are we so quick to stab those that differ from our looks, beliefs, culture, but those from within our group we tend to ignore?

Ever dutiful, I follow Boaz's link to Wikipedia's article on Wahhabism.

And what do I find? The banner headline:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007). Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

The summary on the talk page is that "the whole article needs to be rewritten since the current one is POV and lacking reliable sources."

"POV", Boaz, is Wiki-speak for the innate bias on matters provided by someone with a single "point of view"

So it is with some regret that I must decline your offer of "education", based, as it is, on a simple extension of your own fears and prejudices.

As an agnostic, I might equitably engage the world of Islam, when I see churches and synagogues being built in Saudi Arabia et al at the same rate mosques are built in the western world?

Frank, You have called me a person without integrity and intelligence. Been called worse.

You use the phrase “massive migration” about the Moors when the proper term should be “invasion.” Note that you talk of the “colonization of Muslim Africa by European countries” but don’t apply the term to Islamic conquests (jihad) between the 7th-18th century?

You say Powell was a racist. Here is a quote: “the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority.” He knew he would be castigated for his words: “I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing?” yet he said what he believed.

My statement about “massive immigration” of Muslims is correct. Check out France.

Regarding your “Who? When? Where?” to my statement “Muslim values are not our values, unless you love/respect a person that…” I assume you are joking. I refer to Islam’s great prophet , Muhammad. Now that I have identified the man, would you care to comment on 1. If Muslims do not love/respect him, or 2. If he murdered, looted, enslaved, tortured and raped.

Corri, Oh my god, are the Brethrens and Opus Dei preaching hate and violence too? Please send pictures of them marching in the street calling for the death of non-brethern and non-opuscatholics.

This is a good thread. The issue is important and not going away. There are many challenges ahead, but one of the greatest and most lethal is Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is a total ideology of hate and domination. Things are worse in France, UK and Holland, but it will come to Australia and the US. Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of Muslims that loathe the West and that call on Muslims to kill for Allah
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece
These people are not nice people. Witness events among the Australian Muslim community. It is only a matter of time and numbers.

Kactuz

Corri - anything is possible - however if we conduct ourselves properly jihad is unlikely.

There are however latter day Koranic Scholars who irresponsibly insist on highlighting the text of the Koran that implies inherent violence and expansionary ideals - much in the same way Chritianity once worked ( now there's a brutal and blood thirsty history if ever there was one)

These same ding bats also jump up and down about the primitive nature of Islam and say how it is trapped in the dark ages - in same cases yes - but in many cases - in fact most this is untrue. The muslim world was once the most enlightened civilisation of its time - in much the same way we in the west claim to be now.

If we activley engage with Islam peacful co-existence is achievable - but if those who simply point to the differences between us and them rather than the similarities tension will increase.

The situation was not helped by our past leaders who insisted very publicly that Muslims needed to adopt our values or bugger off - they were singled out as being intransigent - what a great way to foster harmony in a population already feeling sopme what vilified.

sneeeeky....

The number of myths flying around that noggin of yours reminds me of flying ants and moths around a lone globe on a realllly bad hot summer nite.

I'm a gonna try to swat a few of them to save you from yourself old son.

"If we conduct ourselves properly" ?(by a few hundred) if ever there was a "fall down at their feet and pleaaaaad for mercy example of begging"...that was it.

5min later...

Ok.. my blood is off the boil..and can return to this post :)

"Latter day Quranic Scholars" ?
"Irresponsibly?"
"Highlighting?"

Mate.. if the cap fits..wear it. If there's dog on the pot.. its dog you eat.

The simple fact.. undeniable (but often disputed by those with an interest in 'taming' the reality of Islam for reasons of converting others)
is that in terms of
-natural meaning.
-Historical background.
-Standard interpretation (no great gymnastics involved)
-Corroborated by other equally valid Islamic testimony/Documents.
-Natural Context (including the order of revelation.. latest)

The 9th surah of the Quran alone....is blatantly 'warlike' against Christians and Jews. It had an 'immediate' context (those were said to have broken treaties) and an abiding context (where statements are made which apply irrespective of the circumstance of the day)

Now..feel free to call a duck a chicken.. but the rest of us will stick to truth :)

Regarding your little 'attack' on Christianity..I challenge you to find anything similar USING THE SAME criteria as above in any of Jesus teaching or example. The simple fact is....it doesn't exist. So please don't just throw mud hoping it will stick.

SapperK9, are you sure you are agnositic? If so, your degree in religious studies has certainly been well earned.

>>As an agnostic, I might equitably engage the world of Islam, when I see churches and synagogues being built in Saudi Arabia et al at the same rate mosques are built in the western world?<<

As an agnostic, why would you worry? What possible basis of concern could you have? Should you not respect the right of the country to conduct its affairs as it sees fit?

The fact that we, in contrast, respect individuals, and protect their rights to individual expression and freedom of speech should, surely, be a good thing?

Personally, I would find it difficult to live in a country that feels the need to place limits on these freedoms. Even more difficult, if the State were to insist that one religion is so much "better" than another, that it is virtually compulsory.

The absence of this exertion of power through thought-control is, of course, one of the really attractive aspects of Australia, wouldn't you think?

And Boaz, this comment says more about you than it does about sneekepete, at whom it was aimed:

>>"If we conduct ourselves properly" ?(by a few hundred) if ever there was a "fall down at their feet and pleaaaaad for mercy example of begging"...that was it.<<

Here you associate good behaviour, politeness, respect for another person's views - which I read into the phrase "conduct ourselves properly" - with abject fear and personal humiliation.

That is sad. Very sad. To live with that level of fear on a daily basis must be extremely hard on you.

No wonder you find it necessary to beat your children.

Ah Pericles how perfect must be your humanity. But can it be humanity if not subject to the failings of that very humanity?

The reason I beat my children, is because of the PTSD generated in service of my nation over a lifetime. Service fighting small minded people whom are convinced of their right to empire over others. What a puerile comment. Nonetheless, for such a mind, the simple...

I seek not perfection, I recognise my (our) human limitations.

I grant others that that they grant me. Equity is sufficient, neither perfection nor canonisation is demanded.

So, should a Muslim seek harbour in my house, it would be gladly granted. However, should he seek solace with my wife, I WOULD DISMEMBER THE BASTARD with a Semtex suppository!

I expect nothing less should I be at his hearth.

Hence, for every Mosque in Australia, a Church or Synagogue in the Muslim domain.

Yin - Yang is sufficient.

Hi Corri,

I have been following the thread for a while.
I do follow the Islamic faith and if I may, I would recommend a video
on youtube by Dr Gary Miller titled 'Basis of Muslim belief'.

It will give you a good insight of what Islam is and isn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw7hUkppT9c

Have a merry christmas and a happy 2008,

Peace,

Further advice for Corri:
If you are desirous of tasting halal cuisine, go straight to the original recipe, OK it may have some ingredients the Surgeon General or AMA wouldn’t endorse – but at least you’ll know when you’ve had a belly full of it.
The haute cuisine recipes’ some fellows have recommended, are so modified with artificial sweeteners and diluting agents , that they differ little from the hundreds of other insubstancial, soups-of-the-day, all masquerading as the main course.

Thanks Fellow Human, I have watched (listened) to part 1 of 7 and will get around to the others over the Christmas break.

Horus, as for Halal cuisine, I'll try virtually anything once ... though where would I find this in Sydney or surrounds?

Thank you one and all for your input, as a celebrator of Christmas, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Sneek

You must be kidding.
It is our country and what the past leaders said is right.
Welcome but dont try to change us.
If anybody must change its you.
Only good manners really.

In case you havent noticed- This is Australia.
A unique and kind country.
The elections are over and the Greens now have more power.
At least they are dinky di and not just floating for a paid position.
Thats got to be a good start.
Jihad will happen when they are ready.
There have been sleepers here for many years.
No doubt that one day upon command will attack the friends who helped them.
Its not If
Its simply when.

Hi Corri... I'm jumping in here to give some balance to our resident "Da'wa" exponent FH :)

He suggests you listen to Gary Miller. I did, and wish to highlight a couple of things.

1/ He points to the Quran as 'the Muslims miracle' yet just this afternoon I read from the hadith about how it was compiled as follows:

//"So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:....//

Now.. after this young bloke gathered all the bits and pieces from chunks of palm, stones etc and the (credible?) memories of people.... he found ONE person who ALONE had 'ONE' verse that no one else knew of... hmmmm (suspicious look) and they added it. Then..all other copies and fragments were burned on order of Omar the Caliph.

Now.. Christianity could have done the same. Constantine could have chosen ONE version, had all the rest burned, all fragments papyrus etc..and then Christians could claim "Oh Look.. this was dicated from God... there is only ONE Bible..." see where I'm heading?

//G.R.. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active inChristian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soonbegan to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, hehappened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain amixture of truth and falsehood.

He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances//

ERR...yep.. since Omar burnt all the 'INCONSISTENT' copies of course he will find this result :)
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/garymiller.html

GARY MILLER continued.

//In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain amixture of truth and falsehood.//

Then...(boy, I sure didn't see THIS coming:) shock horror..he discovers it is perfect in every way.(paraphrase of his words)

But he neglects to tell you that the inconsistencies in the Quran are in fact 'handled' by the doctrine of 'Abrogation' where if Mohammad came up with a 'better verse' than one previous (and different) he simply says "Allah found a better verse".... so of course, with that presupposition...its all perfect to Miller.

Miller commits a very basic sin of reasoning.

1/ Claims the sign of God is 'scientific information in a holy book'
2/ Then claims all manner of 'scientific' info in the Quran,
3/ The inescapable conclusion= "Quran must be from God"

PROBLEM 1. The 'science' referred to is verrrrry vague, broad, and capable of many interpretations.
PROBLEM 2. Much of the 'science' about origins of the world are second hand, from Genesis. i.e. He plageurized it.
PROBLEM 3. Taken as true, this would make 'Allah'
-the approver of rape/abuse of captive slave girls,
-the approver of unspeakable cruelties, and the condoner of Mohammad disobeying the very document he claims is from God, in order to make life easier from himself. (Surah 33:50 and 51 are the classics.)
-the author of institutionalized domestic violence against women.
-The declarer of war against Jews, Christians and Atheists with a view to either subjugate and humiliate us, (as well as TAX us) and in many cases he kept on killing people, and after each person killed (Jews) repeated his offer of Islam to the tribe. (FH I found that on an Islamic site)

Motes and beams, Boaz, motes and beams.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7 1-5

>>Now.. Christianity could have done the same. Constantine could have chosen ONE version, had all the rest burned, all fragments papyrus etc..and then Christians could claim "Oh Look.. this was dicated from God... there is only ONE Bible..." see where I'm heading?<<

Boaz, you know - probably better than I - that the Bible contains only the most carefully selected writings of its time. The rest condemned, if not to destruction, then to permanent "memory loss".

Constantine chose the canon on advice from Eusebius, who was influenced by Irenaeus, who specifically rejected the Gnostic texts, who was in turn influenced by Marcion, who advocated a full separation of the Jewish texts.

Merely because the (veritable mountain) of discarded books were not burned does not indicate any greater authority adhering to the remaining elements.

When push comes to shove, you believe what you choose to believe. If someone chooses to believe in one book of stories over another, that should be enough for you - it is not your place to mock their religion.

Motes and beams, Boaz, motes and beams.

Thanks Boaz, but I remember learning about the Council of Nicea and subsequent councils where the bible and its meaning took a specific bias based on those in attendance - which is of democratic value, but not necessarily any reflection on the original teachings of Jesus. Equally, if Christians believe the bible is a book of God there are passages in the old testament that speak of and support war, murder, etc etc.

I agree with Pericles, that each persons beliefs are just that - their right to believe. Who am I to judge whether my perception of one religion is better than that of another?

An analogy of the Dalai Lama was that the major religions are like fingers, they all emanate from the palm, and therefore a similar base in their belief, dogma and practice. We are so much more alike than most care to admit.