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?