Fester. She wasn't saying it endangers her life, but that she'd give her life to defend Islam. The analogy she made was that she'd also die for her children. But she wasn't about to blow herself up to prove it.

I'm *not* saying I agree, but reverse roles for a second. She's seen friends killed. She's seen two Muslim countries, one of which she loves and desperately wants to return to, invaded. Imagine if New Zealand and then Australia were invaded by a Muslim country. One that wanted to save us, to free us. And as a result, our compatriots were blowing each other up in KMart. Is there a chance you'd feel under siege? Endangered? Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I do understand.

Basically, I agree with CJ. The first woman, especially, was one screwed-up unit who'd obviously embraced Islam because the Assemblies of God — or heroin — didn't get her first. Both women, psychologically, were looking for strict rules to contain the destructive, negative passions their upbringing had aroused in them. They were loony, but no more loony than BOAZ_David, who posts on these boards. (No offense Boazy, but if the shoe fits and all...)

I also thought there were some great insights. The second women's experiences of Afghanistan versus the Western backlash against Islam particularly. She made it real for me.

Ultimately, they were conservative, suburban, not overly clever women caught between cultures. Disenfranchised, for a variety of personal and cultural reasons. David Hicks was the young male equivalent. A lot of Westerners make the same points on "our" side. These women say you're either with us or against us. Dubya says you're either with us or with the terrorists. It's all so terrifically dull. So bland and childish - the goodies and the baddies. It depresses me, the lack of room for the complexities and prejudices of the human heart. The inability to understand layers of loyalty and the subtle dance of cause and effect.

For me, it's a pox on both their houses.

It's interesting. We've had a recent thread on this Forum - asking posters to speak out and vent their true feelings - not to be afraid
et cetera.

We've had another thread raging against human rights and
migrants and another on the curtailment of "Freedom of Speech."

Yet, when two women go on television and do say what they think - they're vilified.

I'm not saying that I agree with or support them. I found them both rather odd, to say the least.

But what happened to the "Freedom of Speech" theory and saying what you truly believe?

Or does that privilege only apply to a select few?

Foxy wrote:

"But what happened to the "Freedom of Speech" theory and saying what you truly believe?"

I don’t think anyone here is denying the "Jihad Sheilas" their right to have their say.

But the right to have your say is not the same as the right to have what you've said immune from critique.

The "Jihad Sheilas: can say what they like. That is their right to free speech.

And I can say that they are propagating a vile belief system. That is MY right of free speech.

Or is what the "Jihad Sheilas" say to be deemed immune from critique?

The above is not a rhetorical question Foxy.

CJ Morgan,

LOL

If you can see any similarity between the Jihad Sheilas and nuns then you really are desperate to be an apologist for Islam.

I have found interesting the reaction of my Leftie friends when confronted with the sheer horror of what the Jihad Sheilas said. They split right down the middle. One half try to excuse it or explain it away – the path taken by CJ Morgan and TRTL.

The others assert that this is not "real" Islam – the path taken by belly.

Only one among my Leftie acquaintances was prepared to concede that maybe, just maybe, CONTEMPORARY Islam really is a pathological a belief system that needs to be opposed with the same vigour that the Left opposed Fascism in a bygone era.

BTW I can see no reason why one of them should be forbidden from leaving Australia if that's what she wants

I found it fascinating how the woman was saying how the Aussies were all into child porn, drugs etc.. in fact.. I hereby LEAP onto that statement as a hungry lion does to a limping wilderbeast!.!.!

CHILD SEX in the QURAN.

Lets make NOOOOO mistake.. the Quran PERMITS sexual relations with pre-pubescent children. Surah 65:4 speaks of 2 things.

1/ Divorcing those who have not YET had there menses.
2/ The requirement of the IDDAH (waiting period to see if they are pregnant) for them.

1+1=2 ie. the marriage to the pre-pubescent child had been CONSUMATED.

This understanding is further supported by:

A. Islamic scholars who are looked up to by most Muslims (Ibn Kathir and Maulana Maududi)
B. By the Hadith of Bukhari also!

In short..it is an AIRTIGHT CASE..

and these women have the GAUL to judge "Aussies" as they did.

I have no problem judging Islam..in the name of God... because truth is there for all to see.

STEPHEN.. just a little hermeneutical point on your selected verses in Surah 9

That one..9.5 can in fact be connected to real world events of that day, and Muslims can argue so contextually.
A safer bet is 9:30 which specifically condemns/curses/calls for the destruction of Jews and Christians based on perceived core beliefs!!
Stick with that one mate it was used by the degenerate Iranian who drove his SUV into crowds in a mall in the USA to try to kill as many as possible "For the sake of Allah"

I would LOVE 15 minutes with those girls.. and a Quran..

The strange thing is.. this woman would defend it with her LIFE ?
Good Grief.

Dear Steven,

The entire reference to "Freedom of Speech" arose from a previous
thread - that referred to the case in Canada concerning the series of Danish cartoons and the lawyer Ezra Levant. I felt that "Freedom of Speech" did not entitle you to harm others. I was critical of the actions of Mr Levant.

You seem to agree - that someone's actions does not exempt them from
critique. I fully support your position with the ABC programme.

What I didn't support were the previous threads that tended to lean towards a double-standard in their logic.

Dear Foxy,

When I was younger I lived in Malaya - a Muslim country - for several years. It was a multi-racial and multi-religious country, however, the dominant culture was Muslim, and we respected this. If anyone attempted to convert a Muslim to a different religion, they were deported; we never wore skimpy clothing in case it offended Muslim sensibilities. We saw this as entirely correct as we were visitors in their country.

All Muslims, male and females, attended Islamic schools and were well educated in their religion The Malay women were very beautiful in their diaphenous form fitting kabya and sarongs, they wore makeup and their hair loose - perhaps a token piece of lace which enhanced them. They moved freely in society without male escorts. They regularly danced with Malay men - ronging. I found all Muslims devout, gentle, warm and welcoming. I was very fortunate to have friends from every racial and religious group.

Now these beautiful women are confined in traditional Islamic garb; recently a young woman was publicly flogged. This is not the Islam I knew. Recently, on checking a Malay website, I found an erroneous statement that women wore long-fitting corsets under their kabayas. They didn't. They wore bras, which were quite clear under the fabric. None found any offence in this.

I know a lovely family of Islamic Arabs, the wife is an anglo-Australian who converted; she wears Islamic clothing; the husband is warm, kind and generous. However, whenever I speak with them I feel I am walking on glass so as not to say anything which might lead to offence. Consequently, our friendship is necessarily superficial. When I mentioned my experience in Malay, I was informed that those early Malays hadn't been true Muslims, but animists. End of discussion. Their little daughter is very beautiful, and I caught myself just in time, as I was about to say that she would be a "heart-breaker" when she got older.

cont ...