DreamOn
<<The doctrine of violent Jihad is like a lost, stray, wandering cat without a home, and in no way reflects the innate truth of Peace Loving Islam.>>

Would that be the same cat that Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is talking about here?

“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?
“Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.
“Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That’s why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.
“But when it comes to adultery, it’s 90 per cent the women’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it’s a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).
“Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.
“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: ‘If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.’ Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”
cont…

…cont:
“If you take a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?
If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.
If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.
If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it’s no use.
If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.
That’s why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.
Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you’re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons."

There's a problem with latching onto random soundbites without actually giving any thought to what is behind them, ALGOREisRICH.

>>See the UK election where it was estimated that the "minority" vote which includes blacks and Asians of various religions would determine the outcome of possibly 100 seats. (some estimates said 55)<<

You look just a little foolish, when you pick it up and scrape the racist dirt off it, and work out what it really signifies.

Let's see if we can deconstruct, post facto, how this calculation might have been arrived at - bearing in mind, of course, that it was a pre-election, not a post-election topic.

"Campaigners believe that voters from the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities could determine the outcome in as many as 100 constituencies during the May 6 elections."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/65068/record-number-asian-candidates-contesting.html

First of all, you write down the winning margins of the candidates who were elected last time around.

Then you count up all the "minority" vote in each electorate.

Then you work out that if they all voted in the same direction, they hold the "balance of power".

Hallelujah! You have just calculated that this application of block voting would determine the outcome of "possibly 100 seats. (some estimates said 55)"

Now can you see how dumb your follow-up statement now appears?

>>If one (any)group gains such a foothold.. I suspect it is too late.<<

Errrrr. Epic fail.

No "group" is gaining any "foothold" here, since you are only taking into account the delta between the winner and runner-up. Not, as you seem to think, using their combined vote to actually vote in their own candidate.

Look, I know it is important to you to have something to be scared of.

But at least try to get your arguments straight.

Oh, and many many thanks to Proxy, for his - somewhat predictable - regurgitation of the famous Hilaly sermon of October 2006.

I notice that you present this work - as evidenced by it stretching over two posts - as a mainstream view.

For the sake of balance (don't you just hate that word, Proxy?), I'd like to record the aftermath of his remarks - which I can only assume that you omitted due to lack of space.

First, his apology.

"I unreservedly apologize to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sheik-sorry-for-sexist-comment/2006/10/26/1161749243241.html

You may also notice, as reported in the same article, that:

"Sheik Alhilali has been widely condemned by Muslim and non Muslim groups for the Ramadan sermon he gave in Arabic to 500 worshippers in Sydney"

Not quite the mainstream Muslim thinker you make him out to be, eh?

Less than a year later, he "retired".

Given the massive credibility you seem to ascribe to him, this would have come as something of a shock.

Strange then, that it didn't.

The trouble with symbols of course can be that they mean different things to different people.

Maybe they are referring commonly to an unrefined, undisciplined, "animal" like mentality, that acts out its primal urges without thinking first.

I don't profess to know. I do not know enough about these people, their religion, their culture, their language etc.

..

Though I would say, and to quote *Bruce Lee* again,

" ... Absorb what is useful. ... "

&

*JC*

" ... but does it not (the dead dog) have beautiful teeth? ... "

Of course, young Ozzie chickie babes would be well advised to have an awareness of the prevailing local conditions before strutting about in their bikini costumes, so that much at least is a plus from hearing the raving of the particular Sheik in question, as more than one young lady has made that mistake in other parts of the world.

Right or wrong often doesn't come into it in the first instance, but rather the reality as it is at a grass roots level - and hopefully our own personal prejudice, misconceptions, misplaced idealism and or religious fervor does not cloud our perception to the extent that we make a habit of judging people by the "outer garment."

..

But *Proxy* it does leave me wondering why you attempt to wrestle with an "Angel" so to speak, for surely you must realise in your Heart that they are not all bad.

You can for sure make arguments of opposing triangles in the outer orbit ad infinitum, but deep down, surely you must sense that there is something of virtue in some of the people you constantly seek to take down and alienate as a whole.

If you take exception to certain aspects of the lack of morality as demonstrated by certain individuals then it is all well and good to point it out in a considered manner, but to want to alienate the entire people for the sins of a few, surely will lead to the loss of much of your audience, to say the least?

Pericles.. kind thanks for your valuable and informative perspective.

Nothing like a bit of greek wisdom to clear the brain of it's cobwebs.

I look forward to your intrepid efforts to clarify muddy and fuzzy thinking in future :)