This according to Wikipedia:

QUOTE

On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam [formerly Cat Stevens] addressed students at Kingston University in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."

Newspapers quickly denounced what was seen as Yusuf Islam's support for the assassination of Rushdie and the next day Yusuf released a statement saying that he was not personally encouraging anybody to be a vigilante, and that he was only stating that blasphemy is a capital offense according to the Qur'an.

However on March 8, 1989, while speaking in London's Regents Park Mosque, Yusuf Islam was asked by a Christian Science Monitor reporter how he would "cope with the idea of killing a writer for writing a book." He is reported to have replied:

In Islam there is a line between let's say freedom and the line which is then transgressed into immorality and irresponsibility and I think as far as this writer is concerned, unfortunately, he has been irresponsible with his freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again.

END QUOTE

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens%27_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie

According to the Herald Sun, State upper house MP Peter Kavanagh has written to Immigration Minister Chris Evans asking that he refuse Yusuf (Cat Stevens) a visa unless he denounces violence or threats of violence against a person for the expression of their views.

See: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/music/yusuf-islam-formerly-cat-stevens-should-be-denied-visa-mp-says/story-e6frf9hf-1225872454459

Should Cat Stevens be barred?

....the next day Yusuf released a statement saying that he was not personally encouraging anybody to be a vigilante, and that he was only stating that blasphemy is a capital offense according to the Qur'an.

Hypetheticals. Date unknown.

Jeffry Robinson asks Yusuf Islam (cat Stevens)

"What would you do if Salman Rushdie was in front of you now"?

Answer "Kill him"

Interestingly.. (but for GOODness sake..don't tell Pericles of his lap puppy CJ MOrgan this or we will never hear the end of it)...

..when Yusuf Islam said he was "only stating that blasphemy is a capital offense according to the Qur'an."

Now..coming from a Western Muslim who knows our traditions and culture.. to say that ? hmmmm..

Well of COURSE he didn't mean it..he was taken out of context.. he was misunderstood..and how dare we even think that "Islam" teaches such a thing..after all.. it's just that ratbag bunch of Bin Ladinites isn't it? who distort the true teaching of Islam.

Aaah well.. we can all make up our own minds on this one.... The facts are there for anyone to decide about.

To answer the question YES.. Yusuf Islam should be barred from Australia on national security/character grounds. Plain and Simple.

I'd also bar Walid Aly from speaking on the ABC.. but who am I :)
Judging from the text/sms messages John Fein received most other Aussies seem to be of that view. They seemed 100% against him.

Using this logic so should some of the neo-cons in the USA and Zionists be banned, who pushed for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the murder of 1.4 million Iraqis.

If Yusuf Islam still expresses those views, he's obviously a fundamentalist religious hater who shouldn't be allowed into Australia, on the basis that he's inciting violence.

Boazy: << I'd also bar Walid Aly from speaking on the ABC.. >>

Why on earth would you do that? I've seen him on TV several times and he seems to be an eminently reasonable young man.

<< but who am I :) >>

Another fundamentalist religious hater. Different religion, same hate.

If indeed the Koran advocates the killing of another human being then yes it is abhorrent and is not the sort of values system I would want to live by despite all those protesting the need for religious moral frameworks. This is just what the extremists feed off.

However this may be a beat up in regard to Yusuf Islam's views. From Yusuf Islam's website:

http://www.yusufislam.com/faq/3ed8ab9cb40dcd15dc38b7f0efc2f696

"I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini – and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that – like both the Torah and the Gospel – the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[1] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole.

The accusation that I supported the Fatwa, therefore, is wholly false and misleading. It was due to my naivety in trying to answer a loaded question posed by a journalist, after a harmless biographical lecture I gave to students in Kingston University in 1989, which unleashed the infamous headline above."

There is more to this statement on the website if interested.

We let Dick Cheney in didn't we.

Al your comments about Aly are unfair IMO. Waleed Aly has always appeared to be a moderate Muslim when interviewed or on the ABC. I don't follow his religion or his religious views but he has never advocated terrorism.

Thanks pelican. Obviously, he's not a fundy religious hater now, if indeed he ever really was.

Unlike some :)

In response to steven's question if Yusef was a fundy and was going around advocating killing, then I would support a ban, however before making these important decisions all the facts should be ascertained. That was my point in the last post.

In democratic and free societies we don't shoot first and ask questions later.

Here is a link to a contemporaneous account in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-cat.html?_r=3

QUOTE

LONDON, May 22 -- The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.''

The singer, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam, made the remark during a panel discussion of British reactions to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's call for Mr. Rushdie to be killed for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his best-selling novel ''The Satanic Verses.'' He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ''I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.''

''I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,'' said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments.

END QUOTE

I do not know whether Stevens / Islam still feels that way.

According to other contemporaneous newspaper accounts Stevens was not alone in voicing such desires. Iqbal Sacranie (Now "Sir Iqbal") had this to say:

'Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him .. his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah.'

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/1989/feb/15/salmanrushdie

And here's what the Bishop of Manchester had to say:

"And the Bishop of Manchester in the Church of England, the Rev. Stanley Booth-Clibborn, said the British blasphemy law is indefensible because it protects only the established Christian church. Other clerics have suggested that the law be extended to other faiths so Muslim objectors could stop offensive books through court order. Government Defenders"

(See NY Times link above)

CJ Morgan's relativism never ceases to amuse me.
<<Obviously, he's not a fundy religious hater now, if indeed he ever really was. Unlike some :)>>
Yusuf Islam's sins are immediately forgiven or even denied because Yusuf is a Muslim and therefore a victim of the haters;
ie anybody who criticises Islam and its obvious predisposition toward violence.
In other words, you can be a Muslim and call for the death of blasphemers and CJ will be your ally but if you are a non-Muslim warning of the danger of Muslims calling for the death of blasphemers then you are a hater.
CJ Morgan is your quintessential quisling.

Proxy, please don't cherrypick my comments to misrepresent me. I originally said "If Yusuf Islam still expresses those views, he's obviously a fundamentalist religious hater who shouldn't be allowed into Australia, on the basis that he's inciting violence."

On the basis of information supplied by pelican, it's clear that he no longer holds those views, which is why I posted the subsequent comment that you quoted in isolation.

I'm no fan of any religion, and probably least of all Islam. However, I don't fear and loathe Muslims as you apparently do, nor do I vilify them the way you do so often. I can sort of understand why fundamentalist Christians and even secular Jews hate Islam and Muslims, but you've professed not to be one.

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims?

Let's face it.There is not a shortage of religious lunatics no matter which religion is espousing their devine right to truth.They all believe in the one god, but their god has more gonads than anyone elses' god.

Religion is all about controlling people for the ego of mortal beings,who are too insecure to face the reality of their own finality.

I say we should ban him based on the views he expressed so far- and specifically cite his Fatwa against Rushdie as the reason why to the media.

It would send a very good message that we are NOT neutral ground for violent anti-free-speech/religious-blasphemy extremists (anymore that is).

Of course, chances are regardless of who our government is, they'll not give a toss and would rather not the headache of having to do something.

CJ Morgan,

<<Why do you hate Islam and Muslims?>>

Read what these Muslims have to say about your illusion of a moderate Islam:

Tawfik Hamid, an Islamic thinker and reformer who is the author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam. A one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt, he was a member of Jemaah Islamiya, a terrorist Islamic organization, with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaeda. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. is the President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). A devout Muslim, he served 11 years as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. He is a nationally recognized expert in the contest of ideas against political Islam, American Islamist organizations, and the Muslim Brotherhood. He regularly briefs members of the House and Senate congressional anti-terror caucuses and has served as a guest lecturer on Islam to deploying officers at the Joint Forces Staff College. Dr. Jasser was presented with the 2007 Director’s Community Leadership Award by the Phoenix office of the FBI and was recognized as a “Defender of the Home Front” by the Center for Security Policy. He recently narrated the documentary The Third Jihad, produced by PublicScope Films. His chapter, Americanism vs. Islamism is featured in the recently released book, The Other Muslims (Palgrave-Macmillan) edited by Zeyno Baran.

Read what they have to say and then tell me what are the chances of "moderate Islam" winning out against Islamism.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

You didn't answer my question, Proxy. Nor, incidentally, did you acknowledge your dishonesty - much less do the decent thing and apologise for it.

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims?

CJ Morgan,

You haven't disappointed.
I did not expect that you would bother reading what two Muslim experts have to say on the unlikelihood of Islam ever becoming moderate.
Why would you deliberately risk undermining your own uninformed weltanschauung?
If you had read the article you might have understood my viewpoint, which is that Islam will never be reformed and will thus pose an existential threat to Western civilisation forevermore into the future.
The only realistic response to that threat is isolation and constant vigilance.
Unfortunately, many Western governments are not even at the threat recognition stage.

PELLY

in your post you included one bit from Stevens as follows:

//like both the Torah and the Gospel – the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense.//

Just making a point of order that 'The Gospel' has nothing in it about unrepentant apostacy being a capital offence in THIS life.

That is the critical difference between Islam (which involves a 'State') and Christianity which can exist withIN any State.

You need only to refer to the links/reference provided by Proxy to see this.

But as to your point

"If indeed the Koran advocates the killing of another human being then yes it is abhorrent"

*shock* errr you haven't read it..have you :) just try this link and the picture will become abundantly clear within 5 verses.
http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe009.htm

Form your own conclusions.. take context into account, the immediate and the bigger..I can help with some historical background if you like... or this might help.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/maududi/mau9.html

I'd be quite interested in your conclusion if you do read the material.

Regarding whether Stevens 'once but no longer' espouses such views ? yep.. a labor or green bloke talking there :) they put terrorists and bombers into high office in left wing governments.. as if nothing had happened.

Check THIS OUT...

BILL AYERS..BOMBER
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974.

The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."

ANGELA MASON
We already know about the Lesbian terror supporter on the UK "equality" commission.

As I said..they are crackheads mate.

Let's look at some facts:

1) On feb. 21 st, 1989 Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)
delivered
an address at Kingston Polytechnic (now
Kingston University) in London in which he stated
that Salman Rushdie's book was blasphemous and that
under Islamic law:

"Salman Rushdie, indeed any writer who abuses the
prophet or indeed any prophet under Islamic law,
the sentence for that is actually death..."

2) Yusuf clarified that a death sentence can only be
carried out by the authority of a court in an
Islamic society and that he is opposed to anyone
taking the law into their own hands by murdering
Salman Rushdie.

That was over twenty years ago.

Let's look at Yusuf Islam today...

3) On 10th November 2004, Yusuf Islam was presented with
a "Man of Peace" award by the former USSR President
Mikhail Gorbachev for his dedication to promote peace,
the reconciliation of people, and the condemnation
of terrorism. The ceremony was held in Rome, Italy,
and was attended by five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

4) On 15th Feb. 2005, a British Court ruled that
both, "The Sun" and "The Sunday Times," (British
newspapers) had defamed Jusuf Islam by publishing
false statements about him. Both newspapers acknowledged
that Yusuf Islam has never supported terrorism and that
to the contrary, he had recently been given a "Man of
Peace" Award.

Yusuf Islam donated the financial award given to him by
the court to help orphans of the Asian tsunami.

Yusuf Islam lives in London with his wife and children
and has founded the charities, "Muslim Aid," and
"Small Kindness" to assist African famine victims.
Also most of his royalties from his available albums
are also donated to charity.

Should he be barred from Australia?
On what grounds? For something that was taken out of
context over 20 years ago - which he clarified?
I don't think so!

No Foxy.. not because of something 'taken out of context' but for the actual meaning of what he said...which you yourself quoted but obviously it flew over your precious head and right by you.

"In an islamic country..under Islamic law"

Now..foxy.. don't you find that in itself ABHORRENT ? because you (as with others) jolly well should!

We are talking here of KILLING a person in the most horrendous and blood soaked manner for simply uttering "May Muhammad be cursed" for example.

Now..would YOU like to have your throat cut for just one sentence?

That aside.. let's unpack Stevens treachery further.

a) He is a Muslim.
b) As such he is obliged to work toward the creation of an Islamic state.
c) If that Islamic state ever comes to be, Foxy would get her throat cut if she insulted Muhammad.

It's worth reflecting on Foxy.

ps..this is the point where you say "I'm not going to discuss this anymore" :)

Dear AG,

No this isn't the point where I say anything
of the sort. That's your reality, not mine.
And how can I discuss anything with you -
when all you want to do is preach. You Sir,
have an agenda. You always have had - and
discussing anything has never been a part of
your plan. When you continue with the same old
routine, over and over again - we all tend to
leave after a while. Change your technique,
or get used to it! If you keep doing what
you're doing, you'll keep getting what you've got!
Expecting different results, if you persist with
the same old routine - is not very intelligent!
Being weird - is not enough!

Foxy,
What ALGOREisRICH appears to me to be saying is that Yusuf Islam clearly implied that Islamic states are justified under Sharia law in applying a death sentence to blasphemers such as Rushdie.
Peace prizes notwithstanding, can you show where Yusuf Islam has repudiated this viewpoint?
If not, would you then also consider me justified in saying that homosexuals in those Islamic states where the death penalty applies should be executed for their transgressions of Sharia law?

Proxy: << my viewpoint, which is that Islam will never be reformed and will thus pose an existential threat to Western civilisation forevermore into the future.
The only realistic response to that threat is isolation and constant vigilance. >>

Thanks for answering the question. Pure Islamophobia.

Boazy: << let's unpack Stevens treachery further.

a) He is a Muslim.
b) As such he is obliged to work toward the creation of an Islamic state.
c) If that Islamic state ever comes to be, Foxy would get her throat cut if she insulted Muhammad. >>

More Islamophobia, with some vilification for good measure.

What "treachery" has Yusuf Islam pepretrated? How is it treacherous to adopt Islam?

While I'm at it, you didn't answer my question about why you want to ban Waleed Aly from the ABC. Are you advocating censorship of Muslims now? I thought you were an advocate of free speech.

LOL Foxy

You say Stevens' comments were taken "out of context"

Here's what the NY Times reports:

LONDON, May 22 -- The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT IT'D BE THE REAL THING.'' (Capitalisation added. See link above)

Difficult to see how a remark like that could be "taken out of context".

Expressing a desire to see someone burned for writing a book may not be supporting terrorism but it's still a terrible thing.

Foxy writes:

"On 10th November 2004, Yusuf Islam was presented with a "Man of Peace" award by the former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev for his dedication to promote peace, the reconciliation of people, and the condemnation of terrorism…."

Would that be the former president of the same USSR whose loyal servants tortured your father's brother to death and deported the rest of his family to Siberia?

Would it be the same president of the USSR who, in a last desperate bid to keep that repulsive regime intact, sent the tanks into Vilnius in January 1991?

This is the man handing out "Man of Peace" awards?

Just wondering.

CJ Morgan,

You really love the "I word".

I am not exactly a fan of Proxy's but please explain why it is wrong to be an "Islamophobe". As I have explained on another thread I am a "totalitarian-o-phobe" which automatically makes me an Islamophobe. Yes I know Islam is a religion but it is also a totalitarian ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact religion and totalitarian ideologies tend to go together rather well.

Dear dear foxy :)

You said:

You Sir,
have an agenda. You always have had - and
discussing anything has never been a part of
your plan.

But don't you see what you are really saying ? "If you don't agree with me.. you are..." etc.

Discussion works this way

1/ Thesis/prooposition. (facts or opinon presented)
2/ Discussion is when the facts are challenged as either 'false' or 'true'.. it might entail "how they were interpreted" which in turn leads to the issue of HermanYutics :) how documents would be interpreted in a court of law.

As Proxy pointed out.. I was imply highlighting the implications of what Cat Stevens 'said'...

I'm happy to discuss this point with you.

POINT "Did Cat Stevens say or not say..'In an islamic state' such punishments are law"? (Paraphrase)

It is a yes/no answer. You may wish to counter "But perhaps he himself does not believe that is appropriate", and I could counter, that "his position relied on the Quran..not just his opinion" That is discussion.

I have no other agenda than to discuss matters to a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

It seems though that when the evidence does not support your view.. you quickly morph into an ad homimen against me.

"You have an agenda.. always have, blah blah" but not a syllable about the issue. "Did Stevens justify his position by the Quran...or not?"

From StevenLMeyer's opening post

He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."

Would you care to discuss 'that' ?

-Misquote?
-Personal view but not based on a correct understanding of the Quran?
-Steven(LMeyer) made it all up?
-Steven is just an Islamophobe?
-Steven has an agenda?

Feel free :)

About having "an agenda"

Yes I do have "an agenda." My agenda is to make as many people as possible aware of the totalitarian nature of contemporary Islam.

Of course all religions have totalitarian tendencies. Note the comments of the Bishop of Manchester that I quoted in my second post. He wanted UK blasphemy laws extended to include Islam!

Thankfully the UK Parliament repealed the blasphemy laws in 2008.

Now if a bishop were to plead for "respect" for his religion most Lefties here would be up in arms. Lefties have been mocking Christians and heaping scorn on Christianity for as long as I can remember and I'm 64. I've done a fair bit of debunking Christianity myself.

But when it comes to Islam some Lefties - notably those who claim to be atheists - discover this thing called Islamophobia. If you treat Islam in the same way we have treated Christianity for decades we are "Islamophobes".

Well, here's the thing. Despising Islam is no more reprehensible than despising Christianity. A loathing for Islam is no more "racist" than a loathing for Stalinism.

Islamophobia is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Modern anti-Semites hate all Jews irregardless of their religion. Many of the people in the Nazi death camps were actually Christians of Jewish ancestry.

Heaping scorn on Islam is not an incitement to violence. Nor is dissing Muhammad who, in any case, may not have existed. Calling the koran a compendium of seventh century codswallop is no more "hateful" than the many things I have heard Lefties say about the bible.

I suggest that if you do not despise Islam you:

--Don't understand it; or

--Support a totalitarian ideology (that also happens to be a religion); or

--Have some mixed up idea that loathing for Islam and racism are equivalent.

Steven, from where I sit Islamophobia is every bit as much a threat to peace as is Islamism (as opposed to Islam per se). The only possible outcome of your exaggerated fears of Islam is escalation of conflict.

You can be critical of an outmoded and silly religion without having to participate in a campaign of hatemongering and vilification that includes its moderate adherents as objects of scorn and hatred. I manage to do so frequently, and I don't restrict myself to just one silly religion.

Boaz, I see you're up to your old tricks and making ridiculous and mendacious statements and then running away when challenged.

Yusuf Islam may well have been a religious nutter 20 years ago when he made the stupid statements about Rushdie, but how does that make him "treacherous"? Why do you want to ban a Muslim moderate like Waleed Aly from the ABC?

Dear Steven,

To answer your questions:

No. it is not the same USSR whose loyal
servants tortured my father's brother and
deported the rest of his family to Siberia.
That was done under Stalin as you well know.,
whose draconian system raised torture,
suppression, and murder to a science.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev did not become
the leader of the Soviet Union until 1985.
He tried to make changes in his country and
its relations with other countries. He tried to
make the Soviet political system more open and
democratic. He called for the reduction in the
power of the Communist Party (that's why a
coup was staged against him in 1991). His
programme of economic and political reform -
"perestroika" and his call for more openness
"glasnost" ended up opening the door for
Lithuania succeeding in re-gaining her Independence.

People in other Eastern European Soviet occupied
countries increased their demands for more freedom
as a result.
Once the ball started to roll it could not be
stopped.

Gorbachev worked also, to improve relations with Western
countries and to reduce tension and conflicts worldwide.
In 1987 Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan signed
a treaty that called for the elimination of all the
intermediate-range nuclear missiles of the two
countries. In 1991, Gorbachev and US President George
Bush sent to their national legislatures a START
treaty. The treaty reduced the number of nuclear missiles
by about 30%. In 1988 and 1989 Gorbachev withdrew all
Soviet military forces from Afghanistan. In 1990 he won
the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to world peace.

I cannot understand your
insistance at blaming someone now for something that the
media twenty years ago made a big fuss over. Yusuf Islam
(Cat Stevens),
released a statement the following day denying that
he supported vigilantism and he claimed at the time
that he had merely recounted the legal Islamic
punishment for blasphemy.

His record since then has been
blemish free. He has received numerous awards from
various institutions world wide for his work with people
and various charities. Do your research!

CJ Morgan

The trouble is that what you seem to regard as "Islamism" mosque-attending Muslims appear to regard as a mainstream part of their religion.

Take for example the question of punishment for insulting Muhammad. ALL mosque-attending Muslims I have questioned agree that Islam mandates punishment for insulting Muhammad. Most agree that the mandated punishment is death.

The two Australian Imams I interviewed were unequivocal. The mandated punishment for disrespecting Muhammad is death. (The names of the two Imams were supplied by the Islamic Council of Victoria. They are not fringe Imams)

Where Muslims differ is the circumstances under which the death sentence may be "executed" – pardon the pun. In the 1980 - 90s many young Muslims thought it was the duty of Muslims to take the law into their own hands. Today, a few hotheads aside, Western Muslims adopt a more cautious tone. At least in public they emphasise the need to obey the laws of the land. This was the position of the two Australian Imams I interviewed.

However ALL mosque-attending Muslims I have spoken with are adamant about the need for laws that outlaw what they call "defamation of religion". The two Australian Imams were especially emphatic on this score.

In other words, they want blasphemy laws.

I would guess that most atheists would protest vigorously if, say, Cardinal Pell called for the introduction and enforcement of blasphemy laws? But somehow this bit of MAINSTREAM Islamic ideology gets ignored by atheists who keep professing a belief in democracy and free speech.

Foxy,

Stalinism did not die with Stalin. Gorbachev inherited a Stalinist system and did his best to perpetuate it.

As for Cat Stevens, I am old enough to remember him saying he was disappointed that Rushdie was only being burned in effigy, that he wished it was "the real thing".

The ENORMITY of wishing to see an author burned for writing a book seems to escape you. Subsequent denials, explanations, clarifications and other efforts at spin are really besides the point.

Spot the difference:

"Islamic states are justified under Sharia law in applying the death sentence to blasphemers"...Yusuf Islam
"Islamic states are justified under Sharia law in applying the death sentence to homosexuals"...Proxy

Answer:

Yusuf Islam is a man of peace.
Proxy is a hateful homophobe.

No offence, stevenlmeyer, but I don't attach much credibility to your amateur field research, given your blatant bias when it comes to Islam. Most Muslims I meet keep their religious ideas to themselves, as do most Christians. Rest assured that if blasphemy laws are mooted by any religious organisation in Australia, I'll be vociferously opposing them.

Proxy, the only difference in those statements is their objects. They're both idiotic twaddle.

CJ Morgan,
Given that Yusuf Islam does not appear to have repudiated his view that blasphemers should be executed in countries where it is lawful to do so, how does his view differ from those calling upon the UN to push for such laws globally?
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/grant-death-for-blasphemy-islamists-to-un/623435/
After all, if it's done lawfully, why would he object?
More importantly, how do his views differ from Muslim university students in Britain, where:
-40 per cent support introduction of sharia into British law for Muslims,
-One-third back the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia law,
-40 per believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely,
-24 per cent do not think men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah,
-25 percent have little or no respect for homosexuals,
-53 per cent believe killing in the name of religion is never justified (compared with 94 per cent of non-Muslims), while 32 per cent say it is,
-57 percent believe Muslim soldiers serving in the UK military should be able to refuse duty in Muslim countries,
-One-third don't think or don't know if Islam is compatible with Western views of democracy,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70673
Admittedly, neither the above or stevenlmeyer's interviews are as rigorous as your personal, anecdotal, in-depth research which concludes:
<<Most Muslims I meet keep their religious ideas to themselves, as do most Christians.>>
I'm in awe of, and defer to, your expertise.

Is contemporary Islam a threat? It is only the fundamentalists that pose a threat. Lets deal with real threats not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Steven, an older family member married an Austrian Jew and was forced to flee Europe when the writing was on the wall and Hitler started what was to be a very tragic anti-semite campaign. This was despite the fact that she was raised a Catholic and at that point had not converted. Anyone who helped or associated with Jews were equally persecuted. My relative did later convert in the US.

Is it not possible that this anti-Islam fervour is the same?

I agree we should do all we can to avert the course of fundamental Islam and totalitarianism, and to preserve the separation of Church and State. We should also be careful that we don't become what we want to avoid.

Foxy..I see you have retreated into your foxhole.

I gave you a cordial invitation to discuss an issue of factual accuracy..but you have elected to ignore it. (*Foxy* "that's not my game" no?)

Proxy. the main value of your posts is their contrast to the drivel of CJ Morgan. I know of no one else who can express so eloquently the *brilliance* he comes out with .. for example... he seems to know in detail

a) The methodology of StevenLMeyer's research techniques.
b) He knows also how Steven's bias has influenced the result.

all without a shred of information in front of him other than Steven's conclusion.

I think the psych's call this 'projection'.

Steven.. you are doing a great job (as is Proxy) in keeping us informed of things going on.

CJ..back to you :)

Your reasoning.

-A Jew interviewing a Muslim cannot have an objective conclusion.(becuse his findings don't concur with your views)
-It follows then that ever Jewish judge on the federal court cannot make objective or unbiased conclusions. (except when their finding do not concur with your prejudices)

It seems pretty clear to me, Steven does not come across as the type of bloke who would deliberately misinform us of such things, nor that he would not have the wherewithall to conduct interviews which are accurately recorded.

Pelican,
Your analogy between objections to Islam and Hitler's pogrom against the Jews is the ultimate inversion of the truth.
Islam has been waging a 1400 year pogrom on Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims.
<<Is contemporary Islam a threat?>> Yes
<<It is only the fundamentalists that pose a threat.>> Where are the moderates?
Try informing yourself, by reading what Muslim experts have to say about the contemporary existence of a moderate Islam:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Pelican,
"Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today"
Walid Shoebat, former PLO Terrorist.

Dear Steven,

You stated that:

"Stalinism did not die with Stalin.
Gorbachev inherited a Stalinist
system and did his best to perpetuate it."

That's wrong!

Stalin ruled by a reign of terror during a
24 year reign. He died in March 1953.
Things began to change under Khrushchev.
In Feb 1956 - Khrushchev began a
programme to dishonour
Stalin called "destalinization." The government
destroyed statues and pictures of Stalin
and renamed many places that had been named after
him. Khrushchev did not rule by terror as Stalin
had done, and Khrushchev reduced the power of the
country's dreaded secret police.

The older generation of Soviet leaders, who had been
trained under Stalin, had nearly died out by the
mid-1980s.

When Mikhail Gorbachev became head
of the Communist Party at the age of 54, he was
the first member of a new generation of
Soviet leaders to head the country.

Under Gorbachev, the Soviet Union changed even
more rapidly.
He did not perpetuate a Stalinist system as you claim.
On the contrary. In March 1989, the Soviet Union
held its first contested elections in history.
These elections, to the newly created Congress of
People's Deputies, resulted in the defeat of many
top Communist Party officials and several top generals.
The Communist Party's role was further reduced in
March 1990, when the Soviet government voted to permit
non-Communist political parties in the Soviet Union.

It was Gorbachev who promoted a reduction in the role
of the Soviet Communist Party. It was Gorbachev who
created the new policy of openess called "glasnost."
This policy made it possible to discuss political
and social issues critically and with more freedom
than ever before in the Soviet Union. It was under
Gorbachev that a new freedom of expression in literature
and the arts occurred and books by opponents of
Communism were available in shops.

You may sweep all this aside as irrelevant.
But it certainly wasn't irrelevant to the people
living in those countries at that time. And as
I stated previously - once the ball began rolling -
there was no stopping it.

Pelican

As I have said on other threads, I do NOT regard Islam as a significant threat. Perhaps I should have explained again but I've said it so many times before that it gets tiresome.

To repeat:

ISLAM IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT THREAT

The threat emanates from the attempt to APPEASE THE UNAPPEASABLE. You cannot appease a totalitarian ideology. If you attempt to do that you will be forced down a rat hole from which there is no escape. The true believers will ALWAYS demand more.

What does the word Islamophobe actually mean?

Whatever the formal definition it has come to mean someone who expresses negative views about a particular belief system with the implication that such a person is inherently bad, "prejudiced", a "bigot" a "racist" and someone who "incites hatred". That is certainly the sense in which CJ Morgan and Pericles use the word.

Look at how twisted it's become. Cat Stevens expressed a desire to see an author burned for a book he wrote. The facts are actually NOT in dispute. The expression of such sentiments should put someone beyond the pale. Yet well meaning people try and find excuses for this pond scum or to deny, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that he said it. Or if he said it he didn't really mean it.

--When since the blasphemy laws fell into desuetude has the right to subject a belief system to critique, analysis, satire and scorn been controversial?

--Why is attacking Islam any more "evil" than attacking the policy of the Liberal party.

--Why are the feelings and sensibilities of Muslims more deserving of consideration than those of Christians, Zionists or astrologers?

The correct response to all this is a robust defence of free speech including the right to draw cartoons of some dead "prophet" who probably never existed in the first place.

I don’t anticipate Rudd ever being that courageous.

BTW I am NOT in favour of barring Stevens. Even pond scum has a right to express an opinion loathsome as it may be

Boazy, given your very recent deceitful performance on another thread ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3686 ), you're hardly a reliable referee for anybody else's integrity.

Steven's reported methodology and his findings have about as much validity as your 'research' with young people about communism. While I don't expect that you understand why, Steven really ought to know better. My anecdotal experience is of similar value, which was my point.

Both of you, along with Proxy, regularly post much of the most hysterically Islamophobic garbage on OLO. Why on earth would any reasonable person take any notice of your purported amateur 'research' with anybody?

David Irvine was banned from entering australia because he expressed a particular offensive political view.

Cat Stevens also espoused a particularly offensive political view - that Salman Rushdie should be killed because of what he wrote.

How can any nation hold value to a belief and then let intolerant people like Cat Stevens pollute the environment in which the values of "freedom of expression" grow?

Allowing intolerant Muslims in is like fertilising your vege patch with round-up

Well, I have tried.

For the past few years I have attempted to point out to the fearmongers that the greatest threat to their well-being is themselves.

I have tried to hold a mirror to their fear and loathing, in the vain hope that they will try to see that we are talking about real people when we talk about religions.

That people can be religious and good at the same time, regardless of the label they choose to wear. Equally, that people can be religious and evil at the same time, regardless of the label they choose to wear.

That fanatics and terrorists exist at the fringes of every walk of life, and it is they who should be targetted, irrespective of whether they believe they are killing in the name of their particular "loving" god, or purely out of a sociopathic need to cause chaos.

Unfortunately, there has been little point in appealing to their common sense, their intellect, or their humanity. Their creed includes hatred of people who don't share their beliefs, and they will not be shaken from it by any argument from rationality, reality or reason.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we might approach this differently?

I've run out of ideas, frankly.

Even though the daily outpourings of the fear-and-loathing merchants is a constant reminder that we are in danger of becoming complicit in their hatred, simply by letting it through to the 'keeper.

And is it my imagination, or are there more of them (hi, Stern) appearing every week?

Dear Pericles,

No, it is not your imagination. A lot of the joy
of previous discussions has disappeared from
this Forum. We used to have some heated debates
in the past but always managed to agree to
disagree, and respect each others points of
view without resorting to innuendo and personal
attacks. Now there seems to be a
meanness and nastiness that's growing.

Proxy I am not saying the two experiences are the identical but there is, historically, a similar hate element ie. Fear, distrust, loathing and blame.

Steven
There is nothing wrong with criticising Islam, Christianity or any other position. In criticism there should be an expectation of response. It is only when there is widespread criticism or prejudice against one group, that might lead one to investigate the basis of the disfavour.

One can criticise aspects of any religion but acknowledge that most adherents are moderate and seek to do good, or at least cause no harm.

Proxy asks where are the moderates? If you are only looking for the extremists you will miss the moderates.

Pericles: << ...the daily outpourings of the fear-and-loathing merchants is a constant reminder that we are in danger of becoming complicit in their hatred, simply by letting it through to the 'keeper. >>

Yeah, I guess that's why I bother, I suppose. There certainly seems to be a lot of fear, loathing and hatred being expressed here lately.

I used to have a kind of professional fascination with the hateful views I encounter at OLO, but you're right, the sheer volume of them is a bit dispiriting. My main consolation is that I almost never encounter such hatred in real life, so I'm hopeful that the haters generally only act out their bigotry in text, anonymously.

The only "haters" who really worry me are those who hate - and therefore refuse to acknowledge - inconvenient facts. I encounter many of those in OLO and real life.

People who hate facts may have caused the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig catastrophe.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html

Among other things fact haters deny are:

--Evolution

--The impossibility of appeasing a totalitarian ideology - or even that the totalitarian ideology exists.

--The dangers inherent in pumping ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

Come to think of it fact haters really are the world's number one problem.

I agree CJ Morgan, Pericles, haters are a real problem.

Pericles,
The problem with your reasoning is that you refuse to acknowledge that Islamic “fanatics and terrorists” are acting in absolute accordance with the tenets of Islam.
Those “fanatics and terrorists” can be hunted down and neutralised but the Islamic doctrine will continue to breed more of them into perpetuity.
I am not the only person recognise this problem in Islam, one which I personally don’t believe can be resolved.
Below is a link to four experts on Islam.
Two are non-Muslims;
Two are moderate Muslims.
None of them holds much hope that Islam can be reformed in the same manner as Christianity was.
If they, being experts, can’t see a solution, what am I supposed to do?
Put my faith in the punters at OLO that everything will be just fine if we hold hands and sing Kumbaya?
I’m a realist.
Yours is a fantasy, based on your belief in diversity, multiculturalism, utopian ideals, etc.
I hope you’re right but I strongly believe you’re wrong.
I think that historical and contemporary reality substantiate my viewpoint.
How can I believe in the goodwill toward non-Muslims by people who believe in what the Koran states in black and white.
I am not that delusional.
<< they will not be shaken from it by any argument from rationality, reality or reason.>>
Funny, I was thinking the same about you lot.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Steven said:

//The threat emanates from the attempt to APPEASE THE UNAPPEASABLE.//

And of course he is absolutely correct.

CJ still persists in discussing his 'methodology' when in fact all Steven reported was that he 'interviewed' some imams.. seems like an entirely logical and reasonable approach to me.. CJ has not bothered to ask Steven ABOUT his actual methodology..so.. any criticism is emerging from a vacuum of information. Sounds like Stevenaphobia to me :)

Pericles..don't despair.. (I'm starting to feel sorry for you)
You bring it upon yourself. You have an 'islamaphobephobia' which is just as irrational as Islamophobia.. you are not able to separate the 'actual' teachings of Islam and the just criticism of them from the friendly muslim down the street, bless his heart.

For some strange and as yet undiscovered reason.. you appear to be one who would not condemn criticism of 'National Socialism' as a set of ideas.. as "tarring all Germans with the same brush"..yet you DO appear to have this approach when Islam is criticized.

This is at best inconsistent. DO YOU believe criticism of NS is to tar all Germans ?

If you do NOT...then WHY do you take that approach re Islam?

By your own words you know next to nothing about it.. yet you can ferret out fact to the level of incorrect consonant in my own material to damage my credibility over something I (and others) clearly know far more about than you.

You never engage on the level of 'facts' and interpretation, you just rip into those who are critical. As I said.. you bring it on yourself.

But as you have grown weary of 'protecting' them.. I also have grown weary of 'attacking' them (it) as Steven says

The threat lies elsewhere as I'm hoping by now you 'get'.

Which is what I am now focused on..

Appeasement is not the solution.. but attacking those who would undermine our sovereignty and independance is something I am relishing more by the day. *fixed bayonets*

Foxy self pity is never a good look.

Dear Al,

I fully agree - "self pity is not a good look,"

Neither is ignorance, arrogance, bigotry,
narrow-mindedness, self-righteousness,
effrontery, impudence, prejudice,intolerance,
fanaticism, bias, intellectual bankruptcy,
vulgarity, unknowingness, heavy-handedness,
graceless, gaucheness,unskillfullness,artlessness...

cont'd...

Dear Al,

Go visit your
local library, they can help you with
books on "self-help" and "self-improvement",
to overcome those problems of yours.
(smile).

C J Morgan, "My main consolation is that I almost never encounter such hatred in real life".

Excellent, isn't that the truth because because few people ever do encounter such hatred in Australia.

Refreshing to see it confirmed in print though, especially given there is the occasional prejudiced poster who would tar all Australians with the one brush:

"Australians are racists";

"Australians are homophobes"; and

"Australians are xenophobes".

Next time anyone stereotypes and sledges your fellow countrymen like that you might like to join with others and challenge the critic to use the qualifier 'some'. Good for you if you do.

LOL Foxy,

I completely agree with your post of Monday, 31 May 2010 3:33:02 PM

You're quite right, Cornflower. To characterise all Australians as racists, xenophobes or homophobes would obviously be incorrect - however, I don't think I can recall anybody at OLO doing that.

Where I disagree with you is that I'd use the qualifier "many", rather than "some".

For sheer, blind cheek, Boaz, this one rates right up there with your best. That's pretty rank.

>>you are not able to separate the 'actual' teachings of Islam and the just criticism of them from the friendly muslim down the street, bless his heart<<

While you, I suppose, are doing just that?

Your idea of "separation" is precisely the same as your dear friend Proxy's, is it not?

>> Islamic “fanatics and terrorists” are acting in absolute accordance with the tenets of Islam.<<

The entire argument being, that...

>>the Islamic doctrine will continue to breed more [“fanatics and terrorists"] into perpetuity<<

and

>>Islam will never be reformed and will thus pose an existential threat to Western civilisation forevermore into the future.<<

Please explain to us all, how that can be interpreted as "separation"?

Wait. There's more!

>>...you appear to be one who would not condemn criticism of 'National Socialism' as a set of ideas.. as "tarring all Germans with the same brush".yet you DO appear to have this approach when Islam is criticized. This is at best inconsistent. <<

You know perfectly well that not all Germans were Nazis, whereas all Muslims, by definition, follow Islam.

So the inconsistency is, I'm afraid, all yours, as you tar all Muslims with the brush of Islam, then spread your fear and hatred of Islam as if it doesn't involve Muslims.

Also, the fiction that addressing your expressions of fear and loathing is somehow expressing support of Islam, is simply pathetic.

Your logic reminds me of the kindergarten cry of "you like Miss? Why don't you marry her then? Ner nerny ner".

But then, when I think about it, kindergarten is precisely the level of logic and perception that you bring to the issues. You gang up on those who are different, like some kind of re-run of "Lord of the Flies"...

"By the end of the novel, Jack has learned to use the boys’ fear of the beast to control their behavior—a reminder of how religion and superstition can be manipulated as instruments of power." Spark Notes

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/flies/canalysis.html

Grow up.

"We used to have some heated debates
in the past but always managed to agree to
disagree, and respect each others points of
view without resorting to innuendo and personal
attacks. Now there seems to be a
meanness and nastiness that's growing."
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 10:02:21 AM

Less than 6 hours later.....

"Dear Al,
I fully agree - "self pity is not a good look,"
Neither is:
ignorance,
arrogance,
bigotry,
narrow-mindedness,
self-righteousness,
effrontery,
impudence,
prejudice,
intolerance,
fanaticism,
bias,
intellectual bankruptcy,
vulgarity,
unknowingness,
heavy-handedness,
graceless (sic),
gaucheness,
unskillfullness,
artlessness...
Go visit your local library,
they can help you with books on
"self-help" and "self-improvement",
to overcome those problems of yours."
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 3:40:22 PM

Fancy that...
innuendo,
personal attacks,
meanness and
nastiness,
followed by a disingenuous, self-exculpatory (smile).

Foxy: the voice of tolerance and respect.

Pericles,
I knew you wouldn't bother reading the link:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Interesting response Pericles.

//You know perfectly well that not all Germans were Nazis, whereas all Muslims, by definition, follow Islam.//

The question is... those Germans living in the towns near the death camps... might not have been 'members' of the NS party, but they would be the moral equivalent of the 'moderate' Muslim.

Your post raised interesting questions.. it's probably the closest you have actually come to actually discussing the REAL issue of what Islam teaches.

I'm happy to have that debate anytime.. with either you or the RMIT Muslims in a public place..

Here is just one tiny morsel.

I won't say what "Islam" teaches here.. zippp..(that was my keyboard)

I'll let you demonstrate your integrity and open mindedness for all of us to see.

Please check this link.

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm

scroll down to where the Arabic in blue background has an English numeral 65:4

Read the English translation (and the commentary if you wish)

then scroll down to *13 and read the whole paragraph please.

You will then be in a position to know what "Islam" teaches.

Far be it for me to pre-empt your conclusion.

Now.. notice..I've not said a syllable of 'what Islam teaches' on this matter.. you are invited to share it with us all.

Then..we can evaluate your understanding....and possibly discuss it.

I'll say one thing though..which I'm sure won't escape your notice..i.e.-that scholar links his conclusions to a very lengthy and detailed discussion of the companions views and the schools of jurisprudence about the issue.(which I won't name)

-not a peep out of me.

I would rather see your considerable 'ferret' skills utilized in a more beneficial discussion about Globalization, Collectivization and the UK economy.

Dear Foxyness

Thank you for your just criticism. I tried to scale back my last post to Pericles.. I hope it is an improvement :)

Please let me know, and if I am still not meeting or approaching your standard.. feel free to further enhance my self improvement with more helpful advice *smile*

Pericles wrote:

"You know perfectly well that not all Germans were Nazis, whereas all Muslims, by definition, follow Islam."

That's incorrect and for ONCE Proxy (Boazy?) has a point.

Most "Muslims" I know are what might be called "social Muslims" or "cultural Muslims." They grew up in a Muslim environment. Their friends and family are cultural Muslims. They get together for breaking the Ramadan fast. They commemorate weddings, births, deaths and other events in an Islamic cultural milieu. But they are not regular Mosque-attendees and mostly do not take the koran or ahadith literally.

In other words they are like the many people who self-identify as "Christians" but who's Christianity is nominal. They know about as much about the koran as most nominal Christians know about the bible and they know even less about the ahadith. They have as much interest in bringing on a Muslim Caliphate as I have in rebuilding the temple.

That is why when reporting on my much-maligned research I am always careful to specify "Mosque-going" or "Mosque-attending" Muslims. At a GUESS I would say about a quarter of tertiary-educated Muslims in Australia fall into the regular Mosque-attending category. These people usually do take the koran and ahadith literally.

So at least among educated Muslims most do NOT, strictly speaking, "follow Islam."

Pericles,

On anther thread you asked me how many Southern Baptists I knew who take the bible literally. Since I don’t know any Southern Baptists the answer is nil. On the other hand I certainly know Christians who take the bible literally.

All those people who want to introduce creationism in the classroom aren't doing it out of scientific conviction. They're doing it because they believe that's what their holy books, usually the bible but increasingly the koran, is telling them.

If you doubt that the dogma of the Southern Baptists is biblical literalism I suggest you browse their website:

http://www.sbc.net/

And here is a link to their Muslim comrade in drivel.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

ALGOREisRICH,
It's all very well to quote from the Koran
but you know as well as I do that the true
meaning of Mohammed can only be revealed
by reading it in the original Arabic.
Even Mohammed's favourite wife Aisha could
have told you that, when 52 year old Mohammed
consummated his deep love for her at the age of nine.

Dear Proxy,

Any connection between your reality
and mine is purely coincidental!

Oi Steven

just a minor point. Many of those who would bring "Creation" into classroooms do so in the sincere belief that it is scientifically based.
Not all would share the same understanding or perspective.. there would be a mixture of young earth/old earth people.. but the huge amount of scientific material on 'Answers in Genesis' and other similar sites does try to argue for a scientific basis.

I am aware however that they are arguing science to prove 'Creation' so their conclusion is set before they start.... unlike the 'objective' secular scientists who would NEVER ever EVER 'begin' with a conclusion :)

Dear Foxy.. why not have a peek at that link I provided for Pericles...and see if you can get what the scholar is on about..and if you have any concerns about what he says as described in the information I provided?
It can't hurt can it? After all...I've not said anything about what "Islam Teaches" and the scholar is a highly reputed figure in the Islamic world.

A genuine approach would be this:

-See 'his' conclusion about the meaning of 65:4

agree/disagree..
If you agree, we can discuss that.

if you disagree with his conclusion...the genuine inquirer would seek alternative information from other sources and present that for our consideration.

That is called 'discussion' :)

You are quite right... I am sometimes way ahead of things..I begin with conclusions.. dump them on you all..then try to back them up with 'verse bashing'.. baddd me.. (true)... so.. we can try a better method no? (the above)

Boazy, why do you want to ban Waleed Aly from appearing on the ABC?

You stated earlier in the thread that you want to, but you haven't explained why, despite several requests.

Is it because he's a moderate Muslim who presents a reasonable and acceptable face of Islam in Australia?

C J Morgan, "You're quite right, Cornflower. To characterise all Australians as racists, xenophobes or homophobes would obviously be incorrect - however, I don't think I can recall anybody at OLO doing that.
Where I disagree with you is that I'd use the qualifier 'many', rather than 'some'."

For you even 'many' is a mighty concession. Congratulations!

Thanks, but I've never suggested otherwise.

Boaz, for the gazillionth time, I have absolutely no interest in discussing comparative religion with you, or anyone else.

I am an atheist, and as such I have no sympathy for anyone who uses their religion as a weapon against others.

But I am also an English-speaking Australian of moderate intelligence, and I can tell when people like yourself are attacking the religion of others, and when you refuse to understand that those attacks are being made from a position with no basis in logic.

And certainly, with no basis in humanity.

When you operate entirely from the position of preferring one fantasy over another, which is how we atheists view Christianity's spats with Islam, your views are entirely and completely without justification or meaning.

All that is visible to the non-aligned observer is bitterness, hatred and fear. None of which is obviated, or even diminished, by the use of one set of scripture against another. They are equally worthless as tools of argument.

With one exception, and that is when selected passages are used by extremists, to pursue their agenda of fear and loathing.

The obvious presence of which, is what I object to in your posts.

CJ

Granted, you are unique, a legend on OLO for your ability to detect racists, xenophobes or homophobes. Even so, your assessment that 'many' Australians are racists is a tough call, though you may have said previously that OLO is 'infested' with racists, xenophobes and homophobes.

However I can't recall you ever making a comment on OLO that was in any way supportive of, or positive about, the Australian people, especially those of Anglo-Saxon extraction. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Cornflower: << ...your assessment that 'many' Australians are racists is a tough call, though you may have said previously that OLO is 'infested' with racists, xenophobes and homophobes. >>

Not a tough call at all, because that's what I think. Fortunately, it seems to me that OLO has a much higher proportion of racists, xenophobes and homophobes than the wider society does, at least that part of it with which I have most interaction.

I'm not going to bite on the irrelevant part of your little trolling exercise.

C J Morgan,

I asked the question quite seriously and it is a reasonable one since you always single out the Australian people for your grievous insults.

You asked the same question yourself of another poster but it wasn't his attitude to the Australian people you were worried about. Were you trolling when you asked that question?

Cornflower - this thread's ostensibly about whether Yusuf Islam should be allowed to tour Australia, given some idiotic statements he made 20 years ago. One particularly Islamophobic poster extended that to wanting Waleed Aly banned from the ABC, with out giving an explanation. It's not trolling to ask him to explain himself.

I haven't said anything at all about "the Australian people" (whoever they are) on this thread. You're just up to your usual tricks, wanting to to divert the thread into your ongoing personal harrassment of me. That is trolling, and I'm not going to play. Ciao.

I tried but failed to find youtube footage of Cat Stevens wishing to see Salman Rushdie burned. However Mr. Stevens had successfully had most of the footage removed. (Why if he had nothing to hide?)

Where I failed Andrew Bolt has succeeded.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

You need to scroll down to find the video

Q: Would you go to a demonstration if you knew an effigy was to be burnt

A: I would have hoped it would be the real thing but actually no if it was just an effigy I don't think I'd be that moved to go there.

It doesn't look to me as if he's joking. Nor do I see how he can claim that he was quoted out of context.

But perhaps someone here can explain it to me.

Foxy?

Pericles?

CJ Morgan?

Anybody?

I guess some of this groupies will use the fact that I got this video from Bolt's blog to dismiss it.

Any excuse to avoid facing the facts.

CJ Morgan, Pericles aren't "inconvenient-fact-o-phobes" a problem

I have now watched that video a dozen times. It is beyond grotesque.

It is TERRIFYING.

Cat Steven is living proof of Steven Weinberg's wise words:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

My anger has subsided and I now find myself thinking of Cat Stevens as a victim. I do not know what personal circumstances brought him to this loathsome belief system. Perhaps some Imam trapped him at a vulnerable moment. Really I cannot begin to imagine how it happened.

But all I can say is this:

Mr. Stevens, save yourself. Reclaim your brain.

You poor, poor, sod.

Here is a better link

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54174770

I feel ill. I think the sight of Cat Stevens sitting there calmly expressing a wish to see an author burned for writing a book is going to give me nightmares.

This is one sick puppy talking.

I honestly don't know what is worse. Watching Stevens express such DREADFUL thoughts or the fact that ANYONE could seek to excuse or minimise the horror of it.

For once Godwin's rule be damned. In this case the Nazi comparison is all too valid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4_j4c7Bop0

"Where they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn humans" Heinrich Heine.

It seems that at least some strands of Islam ignore the book burning stage and go straight for the humans

Dear Steven,

I'm about to go to bed after watching
the news and I just popped in and I
can see how upset you are about this
Cat Stevens business - which happened
over twenty years ago. He may indeed
have been "one sick puppy talking"
at that time, as you put it.

However, what I found distressing was
what was on the news this evening.
How do you feel about what's happening
in Gaza?

In the spider web of facts, many a truth
is strangled.

C J Morgan,

It was a simple question which you yourself demanded another poster to answer regarding his views of a cultural group you continually show favour to.

However when the same question is put to you concerning your views of Australians, your fellow countrymen, you refuse to answer, claiming it is 'trolling'. It is highly relevant to this thread where you have levelled accusations of hate against others. Odd how it wasn't 'trolling' when you asked the question before.

A lot of hatred in this thread, Islam this and that ad-infinitum but does anyone of you Islamaphobic protagonists actually have intimate knowledge of a Muslim, as in a mate, a cobber? How about its history in Australia and its contributions to our society? I think not, for to me much of the vitriol farcically on show is derived from the US propaganda machine which is religion-wise biased and racially prejudiced against any people coloured other than white. Don’t tell them that when Jesus walked the earth he had brown skin, black hair a beard and spoke in Aramaic. Much of the US authored demonisations are horribly regurgitated in clichéd examples of pathetic monkey see, monkey do emulation’s of grotesque loyalty and adoration of all things USA. Doesn’t it make you want to chuck chunder? Doesn’t it? Ho hum....!

I grew up in the seventies with the music of Cat Stevens whose lyrics embraced tranquil philosophical introspection of ones self and the world at large but universally his message was of peace never war nor avarice leading to the subjugation of third world countries to facilitate the theft of their natural resources. But I guess that as “plutocrats” you would see his behaviour as threatening your world, but guess what else “tough”!

In my country, Australia, secularism was written into the constitution by the federation founders whom had witnessed the terrible consequences of religious fervour in Europe and so decided that in this new land at the bottom of the Asia Pacific region, religion would find no dictate in the affairs of politics and state. Although there have been some religious transgressions into the affairs of state, mainly sponsored by divisive members of the Liberal Party (under foreign influence? Maybe I dunno), Australia on whole remains a secular nation. All Australians are free to worship whatever or whoever they wish without any interference from the state.

So can Cat Stevens come here to Australia to sing and speak to his fellow Muslims on peace and Gods message? Yes....he most certainly can and much more he is welcome with open arms.

Dear folks... including Pericles, Foxy, CJ and now.. Westralis.

You blessed folk have been accusing Steven, Proxy and myself of "Islamophobia"...

We have sought to justify our position (which is not a 'phobia' based on irrational fear) by reference to documented information which would shed light on that position.

I've hardly made any actual 'assertions' in this thread concerning Islam. But Proxy and Steven definitely have. I've taken a different approach..in the context of 'should Yusuf Islam be barred'...I've approached it from a 'look and see for yourself' standpoint.

But rather than engage in a genuine exploration of 'why' we 'gang of 3' are opposed to Cat Stevens coming here.. we get..

*drum roll*.....

1/ CJ MORGAN "Boazy, why do you want to ban Waleed Aly from appearing on the ABC? (Classic CJ "attack when cornered)
ANSWER.. see the information I provided in the link..and it will show you "WHY"
2/ PERICLES "Boaz, for the gazillionth time, I have absolutely no interest in discussing comparative religion with you, or anyone else."
(Standard Pericles when cornered "denial and obfuscation")

Then this deuzy

//"those attacks are being made from a position with no basis in logic."//

at which point.. (given its' just afer 4.00am) my Milo went SPURRTTTTT all over my crappy BENQ monitor) Why did my last skeric of milo have to be needlessly sacrificed in this way?

3/ CORNFLOWER picks Morgans Australophobia like the proverbial nose.
*hi5>cornflower*

Because, put simply

a) Pericles is left wanting.. claiming "No basis in logic"
b) But I won't discuss (or research, by the look of it) the issue or reasons.

I keep telling you P.. OTHERS can read that stuff :)

4/ FOXY However, what I found distressing was what was on the news this evening. Gaza?

Foxy must not have any regard for the 'poor Nazi's who had 'weird' ideas umpteen decades ago'..... because afterall..that was so long ago...

But Foxy.. you wanted "discussion" yet you deliberately avoid examining factual, documented information which might shed light on our position. That is bigotry I'm afraid "Don't give me facts..my mind is set"

THENNNN.....we have WESTRALIS jumping in like a hyena onto our bleeding half dead bodies.... after our 'logical and reasonable' mauling by the 'pride' of Pericles the Marauding Morgan and the Ferocious Foxy.. Westy tries to tear chunks of flesh off (even though he has not worked for it) with...

//A lot of hatred in this thread, but does anyone of you Islamaphobic protagonists actually have intimate knowledge of a Muslim?//

ERRR...to answer the question..'YES' emphatically.
But.. I fail to see why you BEGIN with the term 'IslamoPHOBE' without yet having examined 'why' we might have reservations we express.

WESTRALIS..let me try with you please.. you seem to feel the so-called 'hate' as you put it is unfounded correct?

I'll see if you are any more reasonable than the cabal of PericlesMorganFoxy

IF....(and it depends on this) you are SERIOUS and wish to know and understand WHY some of us are expressing such reservations....then please...demonstrate your good faith and intentions by examing one of the primary reasons.... You can see it for yourself. *values*

Follow this link please.

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm

Scroll down to the blue backed panel with Arabic writing, and the numerals 65:4

Scroll down (or read the whole discussion might be better if you have time) to the place indicated by *13

Then read just ONE paragraph from *13 on...and have a look at the conlcusion the author reaches concerning the meaning of that verse.

I invite you to present your findings here...and perhaps then you will recognize that this 'value system' is one which some people might find a bit unsavory.

STEVEN... if you don't know this already.. why not join in the exercise? It will be very educational.

PS..you will realize by now that no amount of evidence, reason or logic will penetrate heads like those you are seeking to reach :)

Hence..I am limiting my input to providing links rather than making outright assertions on this matter. It's the best way to highlight true bigotry.

STEVEN.. you did'nt report Yusuf Islam's most telling words

"Id try to phone Ayotollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is"
Game...set...match -no ambiguity there.

Westralis? he is still welcome ?

A lot of hatred in this thread,
Westralis,
Yes ! If we want to curb this hatred then it must start with the people who cause it. What is this man's reason for coming to Australia ? A simple holiday or promoting his beliefs ? If he had an ounce of integrity then he should be aware by now that his visit is disconcerting for many Australians, so why not be considerate & consider the feelings of Australians & do the unselfish thing & not come here. He might have the individual right to come here but he also has the responsibility not to cause the division his visit is causing. So, what would make him a better individual, to insist on his right or to consider the feelings of others ? It's selfish but more than likely an agenda. When countries like Iran, Indonesia, the Arab nations etc. permit westerners to buy land & settle there & promote western culture then Australia should do so also. Presently, it's a heavily exploited one-way street with Australia constantly at the receiving end. Isn't it time Australia exercised it's right to stipulate who comes here ?

So, a seven-second snippet from a programme called - what was it? Oh yes, "Hypotheticals" - is now confirmed as justification for a never-ending tirade of whack-a-mozzie fear and loathing.

Where does that stand on the Gavril Prinzip scale of provocation to universal hatred, I wonder?

>>Watching Stevens express such DREADFUL thoughts or the fact that ANYONE could seek to excuse or minimise the horror of it.<<

Oh, the horror of it all.

Does anyone here remember the threats made to life and limb by the IRA in the 1970s? Many of those who made them have since become respected politicians. That should give stevenlmeyer the vapours as well, should he care to dig into it.

Yes, Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam said a couple of very stupid things. Whether or not the statements can be justified within the concept of "hypothesis" we can argue about forever. But taken as a whole, it is hardly sufficient to justify the perpetual tirade of hatred that some would like us to consider reasoned argument on this thread.

Understand, Boaz, that your religious stance has precisely the same - no more, no less - validity in my eyes than any other. So any appeal to scripture, yours or anyone else's, is entirely and utterly pointless.

You may describe it as "denial and obfuscation" if you wish. But that is only because you see it through the eyes of your own one-dimensional view of life.

Dear oh dear, stevenlmeyer's got it bad.

<< I have now watched that video a dozen times. It is beyond grotesque.

It is TERRIFYING. >>

I only watched it once, and I found Yusuf Islam's comments idiotic rather than terrifying, although as Pericles said it was in the context of a "Hypothetical".

Nobody's denied that he made some stupid statements 20 years ago as a new convert to Islam. The question is whether or not he should be permitted to visit Australia on the basis of that single incident. He's clearly modified his position in the intervening couple of decades, has broken no laws anywhere, and is hardly a preacher of hatred.

That some haters (the execrable Bolt included) want to utilise his visit as an opportunity to vent their fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims is perhaps unsurprising, but from my perspective their hyperbolic reaction shows them as the problem for Australia, rather than some old has-been singer who said something stupid a couple of decades ago.

Boazy - so you want Waleed Aly banned from the ABC because he apparently ridiculed the dingbat politician who blew the dog-whistle? Do you want Jon Faine banned too?

And there I was thinking you were an advocate of free speech.

WESTRALIS

Just to clear something up.

I posed the question:

"Should Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) be barred from Australia?"

My post was triggered by a report in the Herald Sun that State upper house MP Peter Kavanagh had suggested Stevens be refused a visa unless he met certain conditions,

My personal answer to my own question is, emphatically, NO.

I do NOT think Stevens should be denied a visa any more than I thought David Irving should be denied a visa. Freedom of expression is about ANYONE being allowed to have their say.

For the same reason I signed a petition protesting the attempt to silence David Hicks.

I find it an endless source of fascination that the same "progressives"
who can easily accommodate an Islamist publicly calling for the death of a blasphemer
condemn as Islamophobia any attempt to highlight the connection between Islam and barbarism.
Some of them would even try to shut you up, eh Foxy?
We can only guess which side they would be on if push came to shove,
but I think we already know.

Proxy
You are being disingenous again.

Would you like us to draw a contrast between Christianity and pedophilia just because a continuing bevy of priests continue to
molest children? In fact should we ban all Christian immigration in case they are pedophiles. It is that silly...

Criticising the actions of the man (if accusations are found to be true) should not immediately transfer to a whole religion.

What is progressive or new about inclusion and love? Christ was the first to practice it.

Put it down to a total lack of imagination on your part, Proxy.

>>I find it an endless source of fascination that the same "progressives" who can easily accommodate an Islamist publicly calling for the death of a blasphemer condemn as Islamophobia any attempt to highlight the connection between Islam and barbarism.<<

I guess that they might be of the same mind as those "progressives" who can accommodate the fact that Martin McGuinness went from second-in-command of the Provisional IRA, to Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2010/02/ireland-ira-believe-due-doing

Accepting that McGuinness is now a respected - and peaceful - politician does not require that you approve the murderous acts carried out in the 1970s by the Provos under McGuiness' command. You don't have to change your mind. You just have to open it a tiny fraction.

Unless, of course, like the few remaining rumps of IRA fanaticism, you regard McGuinness as a traitor to the cause, and continue to incite murder and mayhem at every opportunity.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270860

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3682

It's easy to see that Proxy is in favour of making sure that absolutely no progress is made, on any front, so that his fear and loathing may remain intact for as long as is humanly possible.

Sad, really.

Former IRA fantatics..now "respected" Politicians ? u are kidding Pericles right?

Firstly they BOMBED their way into parliament.. your English mob would never have even dreamt of raising these people to the level of respectability had they not targeted the Palace and/or 10 Downing street with bombs or mortars.

Give us a tiny weeensy bit of credit for at least some awarenes.

SECONDLY... the IRA was not founded on religious ideology but historical brutality carried out by Pericles ancestors and company as they defiled and raped the countryside for every bit of wealth they could scrounge from it.

CAT STEVENS has never bombed anyone.. but in the name of his correctly interpreted ideological basis.. many have.

WHICH...leads back to the ONE issue which PeriMorganOxyCan are all avoiding like the plague.

ie.. "ARE" Stevens outbursts based on a correctly interpreted Quran?

I'll leave others to explore that..but the blatant (not even veiled) bigotry of Pericles especially who "would not dream" of actually discussing 'comparative religion' (which, it just so happens, is the core point of this thread) makes that bigotry and prejudice even more visible.

I've provided a link to an Islamic Scholar.. to see IF...his views are cause for concern about the teaching of the faith.

I've not given Christian...or 'hate site' links.. nope.. only Islamic.
So.. if PeriMorganOxyCan were sincere in their desire to discuss the issue...they would actually look at it, and in good faith..discuss it.

I'm happy to be shown that my concerns are GROUNDLESS... but the 'GANGofFOUR' seem not to value 'discussion' as much as simply harassing people personally.. making groundless ad hominems.

I can only conclude they are closed minded and prejudiced to the degree of "lost cause"

PELLY.. did you see the link ? are you prepared to discuss the issue ?
surely you are not as prejudiced as PeriMorgOxy?

Don't display your ignorance quite so blatantly, Boaz.

Remember Barking?

>>Firstly they BOMBED their way into parliament<<

It didn't suddenly happen, you know. Sinn Féin has been active in UK politics since before WW1. I would have thought that you would at least have done some cursory research on them before putting such a ridiculous notion into print.

>>the IRA was not founded on religious ideology but historical brutality carried out by Pericles ancestors and company as they defiled and raped the countryside for every bit of wealth they could scrounge from it.<<

Oh. So it was purely incidental that the violence was between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants?

Where do you get this stuff from?

Try the reality of being a Catholic in Shankill Road, or a Protestant in Falls Road. That would open your eyes to the "religious ideology", quick smart.

And your attempts to divert the discussion to fit your own whack-a-mozzie agenda won't wash either.

>>the blatant (not even veiled) bigotry of Pericles especially who "would not dream" of actually discussing 'comparative religion' (which, it just so happens, is the core point of this thread) makes that bigotry and prejudice even more visible.<<

This thread is not about "comparative religion", Boaz. Much as you would prefer it to be. It is instead a discussion on whether to allow into this country a peaceful, if somewhat superannuated, singer.

There would be no fuss allowing Martin McGuinness into the country, despite his openly murderous history, would there.

>>the 'GANGofFOUR' seem not to value 'discussion' as much as simply harassing people personally.. making groundless ad hominems.<<

"Groundless ad hominems", Boaz?

Hardly.

Valid commentary, I'd say, based entirely upon your contributions here.

And this is really funny.

>>I can only conclude they are closed minded and prejudiced to the degree of "lost cause"<<

For the master of single-track thinking to consider me closed-minded, can only be viewed as a compliment to my arguments. If you agreed with me, then I would start to worry.

No chance of that in this lifetime, though.

Or quite possibly the next three or four.

Dear Pericles yes...I remember Barking..and I remember that I invited you to discuss the UK fiscal situation.. which you appear to have run from.

As to your appalling description of Yusuf/Stevens as

//a peaceful, if somewhat superannuated, singer.//

I call you on that and raise you a "why" we might bar him.
The answer of course is found in the nature of his beliefs today, and an examination of whether his former murderous inclinations are likely to be valid on the basis of those beliefs now.

You, in your prize PC manner chose language which was intended to portray him as a 'harmless kindly old soul' which was to assert your view entirely in the absense of evidence. It is based only on your 'impression' which in turn is colored by your neo Marxist PC leanings.

You indulged in unceasing adhominems to try to deflect us from the fact that you are clearly exposed as a bigot... sad but true. A bigot is one who will not even consider facts....and that is how you have postured yourself.

In regard to why a person should be barred.. whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu.. their 'beliefs' form an essential part of any serious assesment.(ask ASIO)

PELICAN... you ask (to Proxy)

//Would you like us to draw a contrast between Christianity and pedophilia//...

I would LOVE you to do that. Because it would expose the core issue which is...."what does a religion teach"
Why not indulge me just for once and check out the link and steps in a previous post...and see what you find?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3683&page=0#89182
Do you observe anything which might be a cause for concern?

More priceless waffle, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles yes...I remember Barking..and I remember that I invited you to discuss the UK fiscal situation.. which you appear to have run from.<<

The point about Barking was... well, actually, there are two points.

The first is that in typical Boaz fashion, you pretended to open a discussion on "British politics", when your true purpose was to laud and hail the British National Party, and its policies.

The second is that you chose an angle that you thought you could sustain, so long as no-one actually had a clue where Barking was, and what it is like to live there. I called you on that point, and your fantasy disintegrated.

If you would like to discuss "the UK fiscal situation" - which I take leave to doubt - then open a thread in an honest and open manner, preferably with some semblance of relevance to life here in Australia so that it may be widely discussed.

As for your attempt to categorize Yusuf Islam as a clear and present danger...

>>The answer of course is found in the nature of his beliefs today, and an examination of whether his former murderous inclinations are likely to be valid on the basis of those beliefs now.<<

That is a desperate, but futile, attempt to insinuate that because he is Muslim ("his beliefs today"), he must by definition have murderous intent.

As I said, it is highly unlikely that you would object to Martin McGuinness, despite the fact that he remains to this day a member of Sinn Féin.

And you never fail to produce a chuckle, Boaz.

Thanks for this.

>> It is based only on your 'impression' which in turn is colored by your neo Marxist PC leanings.<<

Neo Marxist? Gotta love that one. I had to look it up though - which clearly, you didn't bother to do.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-neoMarxism.html

http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/neo-marxism.php

Do you do *any* research? Ever?

But it does beg the question: what colours your "impression" of Yusuf Islam?

Pelican,
<<Would you like us to draw a contrast between Christianity and pedophilia just because a continuing bevy of priests continue to molest children?>>
There is a minor problem with your analogy which has apparently escaped you.
Islam specifically calls for the death of blasphemers, not to mention all infidels,
whereas Christianity does not call for priests to molest children.
The "killing (of) apostates is a fundamental part of the Hadith of prophet Mohammed."
Tawfik Hamid,
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Please try to assimilate the above.

<<Criticising the actions of the man (if accusations are found to be true) should not immediately transfer to a whole religion.>>
Why do you insist on reversing cause and effect?
The dictates of the religion have transferred to the man.
Yusuf Islam’s call for Rushdie’s death is 100% consistent with Islamic doctrine.

<<What is progressive or new about inclusion and love? Christ was the first to practice it.>>
Whether he did or not, Mohammed certainly didn’t…

* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

…and Yusuf Islam is merely following Mohammed’s exhortations.

Proxy
You are right in saying the Bible does not teach child molestation, but nevertheless throughout history religious teachers and minders in various children's homes, Churches etal have continued to molest children.

I don't pretend to know why this happens, it might have something to do with the Church attracting those predisposed to this behaviour (as well as sincere folk) where there is authority and access to children.

The point is despite the teachings the Churches have, until lately, done nothing to stem the tide. It is not only the book that identifies a Church but the standards of behaviour upheld by the highest authorities within those organisations.

I did read most of your link to Surah 65, and as an Atheist I won't be converting to Islam anytime soon. There are parts of the Koran that are concerning if read literally, but the difference is I don't judge all Muslims by a book written centuries ago. Perhaps, like the Bible, the Koran needs a re-write to fit into the modern world. As an Atheist I don't pretend to understand the primary differences between the New and Old Testament but have been told that the Bible is a progressive revelation. Most Muslims I have met have been peace loving with families looking for the best life for their children. If Muslims were really looking for ways to kill infidels I would naturally be fearful, but they appear not to have done so despite many 1000s living in Australia since the 80s and 90s.

There are some religious lunatics out there, US is pretty scary in those Bible belts and some of the cultural restricitions in Muslim countries are reminiscent of medieval times. But to paint that as the norm is misleading.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." --George Bernard Shaw

Pelican,

I did not link to Surah 65.
That was ALGOREisRICH.

I linked to Muslim experts discussing the possibility of
<<the Koran (getting) a re-write to fit into the modern world.>>

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/27/symposium-the-worlds-most-wanted-a-%e2%80%9cmoderate-islam-%e2%80%9d/

Their prognoses are not particularly comforting:

"The majority of the ulemaa (scholars) of the “House of Islam” are controlled by Islamists who use an authoritative shar’iah which is incompatible with the ideas of liberty and the separation of mosque and state."
Jasser

"My main point is that, what people generally mean as Islam (Tafseer, Hadith, Sira, Jurisprudence, Sharia) is certainly not peaceful. However, peaceful understanding of the religion is possible. Moderate Muslims such as Jasser and others do exist because they do not practice the traditional dominant theology and alternatively they have developed their own personal interpretations for the religion. Until these personal interpretations become the mainstream type of teaching within Islam, I have to agree with Robert Spencer that moderate Islam does not exist."
Hamid

"The obstacles to the predominance of modern Islam over political Islam are many– frequent death threats, blind corruptive tribalism, societal and financial power of Islamists, and Muslim illiteracy. This is not to mention the facilitation by western media and government of Islamists due to political correctness."
Jasser

"If we defined Islam in terms of what is being taught and promoted in mainstream Islamic books such the Tafseers and Fiqh, then Robert Spencer is absolutely correct is saying that moderate Islam does not exist. The problem is that this form of Islamic teaching is not counterbalanced by a theologically based peaceful interpretation of the religion. Until today, all main schools of jurisprudence in Islam accept violence in some way or another."
Hamid

Well I suppose you could hide under your bed while he's here. Somebody will tell you when it's safe to come out.

It's ridiculous.

I see far more self-righteous religious hatred in these posts than anything some B-Grade celebrity is supposed to have said.

How about "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" for a quote from a well-known US commentator. No problem there. She'd be allowed in and treated as Alan Jones' honoured guest. I'm sure most of you would agree with the sentiment.

Wobbles wrote:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" for a quote from a well-known US commentator. No problem there. She'd be allowed in and treated as Alan Jones' honoured guest. I'm sure most of you would agree with the sentiment."

No I wouldn't.

ON the other hand I'd be in favour of anything that could be done to persuade religios to stop taking their "holy" books seriously.

There is a little unwelcome turd of inconsistency in the swimming-pool of your argument, Proxy.

>>Islam specifically calls for the death of blasphemers, not to mention all infidels, whereas Christianity does not call for priests to molest children.<<

If this were true, it would leave you in a rather odd position.

Christians who molest children are, according to you, going against the strictures of their religion.

Muslims who are peaceable are, according to you, going against the strictures of their religion.

In both cases, however, it is entirely appropriate to describe those involved as "Christians" or "Muslims".

Which - as many people have tried to explain to you - makes the label itself entirely pointless, when discussing their behaviour.

Have a great day.

Dear dear Pelican.. you have just risen by a large degree in my 'respect' scale..THANKyou for taking the trouble to do a bit of digging. (Oh that Pericles and CJ would follow your wise lead)

It was most refreshing.

You expressed agreement that if it was taken literally it would be a problem...and you do not judge all Muslims by a book written centuries ago.

I quite agree. Simply because those most of us term "Muslims" are culturally so and have just enough religion to get themselves and families through the hatching matching and despatching parts of life.

Could we take this just a tiny step further and would you mind telling us exactly what would concern you from *13 if it was a fair interpretation and if that was taken literally? (last part of the first paragraph of point *13)

That's quite important for the discussion.

We can haggle over where it all fits later :)

I await with renewed interest.

Just a minor point of accuracy on Proxy :)

The Quran does not actually call for the killing of "all Infidels"

The specific call is to 'fight' until all non Islam is under Islamic rule. That is the only 'generalized' command which is also the most dangerous,(9:29) and is a valid reason for barring Cat Stevens unless he is prepared to publically denounce such calls.(after reading it allowed or course)

Even earlier in the same chapter references to "kill them wherever you find them" have a contextual limit which cannot legitimately be used to suggest 'kill all infidels'

Knowing what we now know about National Socialism and how it was applied to a rather sizable number of Jewish people... would we be comfortable with a represenative of that 'ideology' having a regular spot on 774 with John Fein ? I doubt that fein would be..given that he is Jewish.

Pelicans suggestion of a re-write is uttered from an "atheist" perspective and from that standpoint it probably doesn't matter much, but to a person of faith.. it would be impossible. Imagine asking Christians to revise John 14:6 "I am the way, truth and life, no man comes to the father but by me" to

"I am just one of many ways.. "

Or John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, He gave His only son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life"

We could remove the 'offensive' bits as follows:

"God loves the world, and showed us his love in his son Jesus, so all the people will have a happy life" :)

Errr.... somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Except if Bishop Shelby Spong gets his way.

Steven and others,
Glass houses folks,
Look at the issue from another way.
- Should we allow Israeli/Jews in to the country who advocate killing.
- advocate political occupation of another country like um PALESINE.
- advocate Apartheid government.
- How-a-bout Propagandist for the above country
- those who advocate breaching International law and human rights.
- Or those who advocate that abuse 3rd Party Passports for their extra territorial murder.

Why do we allow fund raising in Aust for groups that practice the above but ban the other side's needs?

Oh for crying out loud people. Don't you realise the Koran and Bible were written in **ANCIENT** times, with culturally applicable terms that apply to those **ANCIENT** times. There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran. Does this mean that Christians are obligated to go out and main, kill and invade? Of course not! ! ! Exactly the same applies to Muslims.

So by quoting **ANCIENT** phrases in the Koran, and then extrapolating that Islam is bad and violent is inaccurate in the extreme. Muslims are no more a danger to you than Christians. The people who are a danger to you are - - - - - - - **EXTREMISTS** and **FUNDAMENTALISTS** ; people who (1) commit terrorist crimes for political reasons under the guise of religion and (2) those who literally interpret violent phrases in ancient holy books and apply those interpretations to modern times.

Dear Benq

you said:

There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran.

Superficially this might seem true.. specially to one who only goes by what other people say rather than drilling down to the kernel of it.

Rather than dispute with you.. let me ask for further clarification.

Are you actually asserting that the Old or New Testament (more importantly the New) include 'generalized' commands (this is most important) to Christians (which are exclusively a NEW testament body of people) to go to war against non Christians ?

If you are asserting that, please back it up with a clear unambiguous, contextualized well exegeted passages.

Just to pre-empt you.. Matthew 10:34 is not applicable.

A "command" is in the form of "Go.. do.. kill...invade.. attack... "

It has an originator...
It has a subject "you"
It has a target "them"

Are you aware of the thing called "The Great Commission" in Christianity? You will find one form in Matthew 28:19-20
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28&version=NIV

There is another form in Luke 24:44-49
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NIV

That last passage is very encompassing. It captures the intent of all the Old Testament.

-Law
-Prophets
-Psalms

So..whatever follows this 'all encompassing' connection to the whole of the O.T. will then be representative of what can legitimately be described as "Christianity teaches" regarding it's self understanding and mission in the world.

To find the completion of Lukes account and his version of that Great Commission, you need to look at Acts, which Luke also wrote, and the continuation up to the day of Pentecost and subsequent events.

That final charge or commission of Jesus is recorded by Luke as follows:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1&version=NIV

8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts1:8)

So...the LAST words that Jesus (the risen Christ) ever spoke to mankind.... should be seen as the most defining for the Christian mission..and you may regard this post as part of that mission.

benq,
<<Does this mean that Christians are obligated to go out and main, kill and invade? Of course not! ! !
Exactly the same applies to Muslims.>>
bunq! ! !
You haven't been reading the Koran then?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary.html

<<Muslims are no more a danger to you than Christians.>>
bunq! ! !
You haven't been reading the news then?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

examinator

For the umpteenth time.

Though I posed the question my personal answer is:

NO we should NOT, repeat NOT, bar Cat Stevens from Australia.

GET THAT EXMAINATOR?

I am NOT in favour of barring Cat Stevens.

In another thread I posited two rules of internet discussion to rival Godwin's rule:

MEYER'S FIRST RULE

No matter what the original topic as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Israel being attacked approaches 1.

MEYER'S SECOND RULE

No matter what the original topic if an online discussion continues for long enough the proportion of posts devoted to attacking or defending Israel approaches 100%

I am now positing a THIRD RULE:

When confronted with inconvenient facts about the nature of Islam change the subject to Israel

I guess it is a pointless exercise, to yet again point out to you the excruciating double standards you exercise in the defence of your own religion, Boaz, merely in order to attack someone else's.

It is so obvious to the atheist bystander, with no axe to grind on behalf of any ancient scripture.

It is also obvious to the atheist bystander, that by their very nature, religions have within them a burning need to eliminate all other belief systems, simply in order to validate their own.

They cannot abide the idea that others may feel that they are "right", because to do so would be to admit that... hey, they actually could be.

Your latest offering is quite blatant.

>>"There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran." Superficially this might seem true.. specially to one who only goes by what other people say rather than drilling down to the kernel of it<<

Which means, as long as you see it the way I want you to see it.

>>If you are asserting that, please back it up with a clear unambiguous, contextualized well exegeted passages.<<

Which means, we'll play by my rules (errr.. please sir, what is a "contextualized, well-exegeted passage?"), or not at all.

>>Just to pre-empt you.. Matthew 10:34 is not applicable.<<

Which means, I have an answer prepared for all the dubious passages you can think of, so don't bother trying.

I guess it all comes down to this, really:

>>So...the LAST words that Jesus (the risen Christ) ever spoke to mankind...<<

You need to have a particular mindset, to actually take these words at their face value. They were after all written by someone who had never met the person whose words he "quoted". Or, in fact, met anyone else who had met him.

But I guess that's the whole point about these ancient documents. Like te meanderings of Nostradamus, they can be made to mean anything that suits your purpose.

Which is why they are so dangerous, in the hands of the unscrupulous.

Dear Steven,

For the umpteenth time...

No one is suggesting that the fundamentalists
of Islam, or any religion, are to be condoned.
Violence in any form should be condoned.
Raising the issue of Israel's actions should
not however - be a "no-go" zone. No one is tarring all
Israelis with the same brush, simply questioning
the actions of the government and the military.

If you are willing to raise the topic of what a
person said over twenty years ago - and you dedicate
an entire thread to the subject of whether or not
that person should be banned. Why do you object
to a poster raising the issue of Israel's current
actions that has cause global outrage at present - and
whether they should be ostrized for their actions
as well? It's a fair question to most people.

Perhaps you need to amend your laws to include:

"When confronted with opposing arguments about
the nature of Islam - make Israel a 'no-go zone.'

Foxy,
<<Violence in any form should be condoned.>>
Are you sure you're not an Islamist?

stevenlmeyer,
Islam and Israel are clearly related as illustrated below:

Is_a__

Steven,

Then why raise the topic in the way you did....stalking horse perhaps? it certainly appears that way.

I was attempting to show you without getting too doctrinaire the general logical inconsistency in your approach and the intended topic.
I thought you'd get it. my bad.

Dear Proxy,

My apologies for the typo.

Still, it should have been obvious
from the opening sentence where I
said that no one was condoning violence.
As well as from the rest of my post.

Did you not read it?

Am I an Islamist?
Now, you're just baiting me into
an inappropriate response.

Pericles.. you really are amazing.

You know you cannot really point to any significant negative claim or assertion from me about "Islam" since I began my posting history last month-

YET...you will still come up with this:

//guess it is a pointless exercise, to yet again point out to you the excruciating double standards you exercise in the defence of your own religion, Boaz, merely in order to attack someone else's.//

Hmmm...

STEVEN.. we need to add another law.

"When Pericles cannot find any anti Islamic assertions in my posts, he invents them anyway, and claims my defence of Christianity is in fact an attack on Islam" :)

Pericles.. you MUST be on the Human Rights commission ...right?
Only those mentally challenged bigots would come up with such strained reasoning as that.

OH..you are defending your faith ? ? ? aah.. YOU ARE ATTACKING (name the faith)

That is patently ridiculous. I made no comparisons or contrasts. Your words are empty and devoid of even the slightest bit of balance.

I keep telling you.. people DO read that bigotry.

I just roll my eyes when you mutter through the food scraps "As long as they see it your(my) way".

That is quite an insult to a theologically trained person.

On the specific of Matt 10:34 you would have to look long and hard for ANY Christian or even honest secular scholar who would not say as I did, because context is what determines what something means.
Of course....you could always do the unthinkable..and read it yourself.

My goodness, Boaz, you really do think that we have a short memory.

Or perhaps you would like us to gain the impression that leopards do, in fact, change their spots, and that pigs most definitely are seen regularly taking off from Tullamarine.

>>You know you cannot really point to any significant negative claim or assertion from me about "Islam" since I began my posting history last month YET...you will still come up with this:
//guess it is a pointless exercise, to yet again point out to you the excruciating double standards you exercise in the defence of your own religion, Boaz, merely in order to attack someone else's.//<<

Why did you assume I was referring to your assertions about Islam, I wonder? I didn't mention it.

I was simply noting that a) we have had this discussion so many times in the past and b) that the main reason you undertook the exercise has always been in order to highlight what you believe was evil in other scriptures.

You have history, Boaz, as you are well aware.

If you really would like me to quote from that history, I will be happy to do so.

No fair Pericles - didn't you know that Boazy has been "born again"?

As ALGOREisRICH, of course. All his prior sins are forgiven.

Pericles.. you also have a 'history' ...

CJ yaps in as an afterthought, but he claims Yusuf Islam can change.... but apparently I cannot :)

I've not changed, I have simply altered my strategy. This is quite deliberate. All that needs to be said to you and CJ and a few others has been said by me, it's also 'out there'.

My approach now, is to try to use the forum to see if it is possible to understand your mindset... and see if it is possible to gently draw you to look at specific information which forms the basis for my evaluation of that faith.

You have persistently rejected this, and avoided it, because ?

You comfort yourself with the idea that all I say is based on some kind 'irrational fear and loathing'.. but you do not try to understand where this comes from ..and plainly that is bigotry on your part. It always has been and always will be.

Most of what I've said in the past is based on, or is the opinion of members OF that faith. I think this is why you fear me so much.. to the point of relentless attack on 'me' rather than the message.

Why would you attack 'me' rather than the evidence for my position?

Simple..it's much easier to regard Jews as sub human and send them to death camps than to admit they are human. Same mentality Pericles, you just don't see it.

I provided a link to some information which would help you understand objectively why I and others have grave reservations about (and actual opposition to) Islamic values growing in Australia.

You choose to ignore this, and not even discuss it. That, again..is bigotry. You are a bigot... there is no question about this.
You could easily describe me as one...IF...you have examined the basis for my position..then demonstrated that it is untenable in the light of the facts.

But you avoid this like the plague. You must be afraid.

I am fascinated by your change in tactic, Boaz. It says more about you than you could possibly realize.

I'm particularly intrigued by your insistence that my objections to your consistent whack-a-mozzie antics amount to bigotry. You managed to call me a bigot three times in the one post - I assume you also somehow exempt yourself from the charge of using ad hominem in place of logic.

Fair enough. You have always insisted that the world must play by your rules, so at least nothing has changed there.

But it is the changed approach that is so interesting.

>>My approach now, is to try to use the forum to see if it is possible to understand your mindset<<

You would have been able to do that equally well, if you had wanted, in your Boaz or Polycarp personas.

The reason being, obviously, that I have not altered one iota my own position on the flagrant use of double standards that you employ in pursuing your objectives.

All your "altered strategy" has done is to expose you as being even more expedient in your selection of argument than before.

Let me gently remind you that your first foray in your new disguise was on Proxy's "Mohammed" thread, with a not-so-subtle reminder that the world is in danger of being overrun by - I wonder who?

>>The bigger concern for large numbers of "Mo" [Mohammeds] around is the possibility of electoral control in specific community interests... If one (any)group gains such a foothold.. I suspect it is too late.<<

This is an "altered strategy"?

Looks pretty familiar to me.

Ok, I'll agree that you are trying to be a little more subtle - but then subtlety has never been your strong point, has it? We all know that whatever your professed starting-point - Barking, Clause 61 etc. - your objective remains absolutely transparent to anyone who has followed you all these years.

I guess the only surprise is that you haven't worked that out yet.

It gets better, of course.

>>...and see if it is possible to gently draw you to look at specific information which forms the basis for my evaluation of that faith<<

Boaz, I need absolutely no education in your "evaluation of that faith".

I know what your views are, and I know how you have reached those views.

Your views are that Islam is evil, and that your unique version of Christianity is the dog's bollocks.

You have reached those views by seeing the world entirely through the prism of your religion, and by being highly selective in the evidence you employ by way of illustration.

>>You comfort yourself with the idea that all I say is based on some kind 'irrational fear and loathing'.. but you do not try to understand where this comes from<<

I have absolutely no interest in discovering the origin of your fear and loathing, Boaz. That's strictly between you and your shrink - although I have formed my own impression over the years.

>>Why would you attack 'me' rather than the evidence for my position?<<

Because you are "the evidence for your position". Your entire approach - including the careful selection of quotes from moderate Muslims - is devious, bordering on deceitful.

As I have said on so many previous occasions, I recognize that certain categories of people need a religion for a particular level of emotional support. I respect that. Sometimes, in some circumstances, I can even find it admirable.

But what I do object to, and have always objected to, is the use of one individual or group's view of God as a weapon against another individual or group's view of God. That goes as much for the rabid Proddy dogs and violent Micks of Northern Ireland as it does for Islamic terrorists and self-righteous Christian preachers-of-hate.

>>But you avoid this like the plague. You must be afraid.<<

Another of your new tactics seems to be a form of transference. Unfortunately, it is so transparent as to be laughable.

But have a great day anyway.

Father and Yusef

It was time to make a change
and his folks knew that it's not easy
to be calm when there's lots of Islam going on
so take your time, think a lot
think of all the religions we got
for they will still be there tomorrow, but we indeed may not.

How can Yusef Islam try to explain
when he does his hipocriciy shines through again
it's hard, but it's harder to ignore it
if he was right I'd agree
but the brain wash is evident for all to see
there's a way and he knows that his moneys gone away
he knows his moneys gone away

Boazy: << My approach now, is to try to use the forum to see if it is possible to understand your mindset... and see if it is possible to gently draw you to look at specific information which forms the basis for my evaluation of that faith.

You have persistently rejected this, and avoided it, because ? >>

Boazy, under your "former approach" you posted enough cherrypicked "specific information" for anybody with half a brain to ascertain that you rationalise your Islamophobia via very selective interpretation of ancient texts, combined with a paranoid view that the world riddled is dangerous conspiracies about which you regard it as your mission to warn us.

I certainly have neither a need nor desire to revisit that deranged territory, and I understand why you'd want to distance yourself from it. It's nothing short of nuts.

As for you of all people calling anybody else a bigot - take a look in the mirror, and google "psychological projection", which is what I think Pericles had in mind, rather than transference. Then take your medication.

Why do you want Waleed Aly banned from the ABC again? And why is Yusuf Islam "treacherous"?

typo correction: "a paranoid view that the world is riddled with dangerous conspiracies about which you regard it as your mission to warn us"

Dang.

CJ Morgan, as you know I am new to OLO.....who is Boazy, I look back to see who you are responding to and come up empty, no Boazy in sight, is it me missing the posts.

Hi sonofgloin. FYI, 'ALGOREisRICH' is the just the latest pseudonym of a long-term OLO user who used to be 'BOAZ_David', 'Polycarp' etc. He is a fundamentalist Christian member of an obscure sect called the 'Open Brethren', and post endlessly about the evils of Islam, homosexuality, the Greens etc etc.

Those of us who have dealt with his nonsense for years find it clearer to address him as 'Boaz', 'Boazy' etc.

Yes, it is confusing. Quite deliberately so, I believe. In a similar vein, 'Proxy' is also just the latest pseudonym of a serial troll who used to post as 'KMB', 'HermanYutic' etc.

CJ Morgan, thanks for the info, at least now I can put slur and counter slur together.

Hi Sonofgloin....

It might be possible for you and I (with no particular history between us) to have a reasonable conversation.

Notice what CJ said?

"you rationalise your Islamophobia via very selective interpretation of ancient texts"

What he did not tell you is this.. the 'interpration' of said texts is not 'mine' :) Why would CJ hide this fact ? because the "interpretations" I offer are not "mine" but those of respected Islamic Scholars. This is why they resent me so much.

Bear with me for just a moment. Let's try a bit of an exercise.. just between you and I.

How many chapters.. sentences.. do you think Mein Kampf has on 'liquidating all Jews' ? If I'm not mistaken..it has NONE. It does however blame them for everything but global warming which they did not have information on then..but if they did..I'm sure the strong willed child grown to manhood.. Adolph..would have blamed them for that as well.

On the other hand.. if there were specific references calling Muslims to kill Jews.. it would make such information rather dangerous and of considerable concern.

I'm not going to try to take that further here, so feel free to explore that if you wish.

In fact..I don't wish to make ANY "assertion" about Islam here.

But try this.

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm
I'ts all about "Divorce"

Scroll down to where the numbers say 65:4 on blue background with some Arabic writing.

Now.. have a read of the translation for that verse.. and see how after the phrase "who have not yet menstruated" is followed by *13

Scroll down further.. read the paragraph on *13 and specially toward the end of the first para.

Do you see anything of concern in this Islamic opinion ?

I'm happy to discuss it...but would prefer you draw your own conclusions.

If you do this.. it will be a way of identifying "IslamoPHOBIA" or.. a genuine concern for what type of values are being promoted in Australia.

SOG.. if you want some really edifying viewing :)

This is a vid of the man the Muslims of Melbourne considered worthy to come and lecture them at a major Islamic conference. (as in..mainstream)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SfUKGp4iMg

At around 7 min.. he is in the process of describing how 'long ago' customs allowed old men to marry children... then at 8.00 he rather ...'contemporizes' it all.

I'll leave it to you to make up your own mind...
Just remember one thing please.. this bloke is highly regarded by the Muslim community in Australa (and the world)
You might also like to compare 8.00 from this talk with the information provided in the links in my previous post.

Hi ALGOREisRICH, well it seems that you and CJ are natural protagonists, good on you both, go for it.
We are all selective in the fodder we use to qualify our positions, and the reason we are is because of the stance we take on that issue. That stance derives from the mix of emotional character prerequisites, and input we deem or manipulate to be factual to our sensibilities.

The best path to take when judging any issue is to start with "cause and effect", we should first satisfy ourselves that there is an effect, and that we are not being phobic. Then we identify the cause, and implement a remedy so the effect is not ongoing.

It sounds simple but it does not flow that way in modern western cultures. We give minorities rights above their station and above the common law. When these rights are tagged as "cultural" what we are doing is supplanting a foreign culture for the host culture. Middle Eastern culture is bound so steadfastly to a doctrine of religious and social behavior that was written 500 years ago that it's reformation into the modern world is more than doubtful.

So the western host nations led by the portion of the citizenry under the guise of political correctness are allowing their cultural heritage to slip away so the implanted culture may thrive. Social genocide and some do not see or understand this. These people pander to their emotional egos at the cost of all around them, excepting the implanted culture.

Re our Moslem orator’s qualification that because of life span our forebears married girls extremely early, I do not believe the girls were six. Christians seem to understand that at six the girl is still a baby. Roman girls married from twelve, and in Dark Ages Europe it was from sixteen. Do I believe my modern western society who treat smokers like lepers would turn a blind eye to child marriages in the Islamic embedded community in their midst, you bet I do.

Dear SOG...it's easy when we try isn't it :) I'm talking about 'discussion'... I offered some information.. you came back..not a hint of condemnation. just *discussion*.. aaah.. I rather enjoy this.
What a refreshing change.

You also went from actually looking at the video.. and came back with a considered opinion. I support that opinion, I rather doubt that Aussies would embrace or accept such values regarding child marriage.

This doesn't mean certain groups won't attempt to alter things in that direction...which is of course my primary concern.

You seem to have the nouse to know how politics works...which is never about what majorities want or approve of.. but rather how small interest groups (such as the Greens) can take advantage of proportional representation, and target marginal seats to gain power in the Senate....from their.. while they only represent perhaps 9% of votes (2007).. they control the whole agenda giving their royal green 'yay' or 'nay' as they deem fit.

So...from this concern, (as you say "cause and effect" etc.. I deduce that 'awareness' is a good thing.

When Bob Brown campaigns for certain laws to be altered (e.g. Marraige Act) we know he speaks from a very personal standpoint.
When he supports "Freedom of Religion" for Muslims... he really means 'More power for Greens with their vote' Otherwise he would not support something which if given free reign would probably hurl him off a building for his sexual practices.

Did you have a look at that literary reference I gave ? What did you make of that ?

Here's one to mull on.

Greens policy
http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance

1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.

In another policy..they say "We believe in self determination for all peoples"

Whereupon my 'small-a-rat-Ometer' went haywire.

cheers

PERICLES....you said/asked:

//Unfortunately, there has been little point in appealing to their common sense, their intellect, or their humanity.//

You have NEVER appealed to that list on matters re Islam.... you have demonstrated extreme phobia of all that "is" common and sensible.

//Their creed includes hatred of people who don't share their beliefs,//

Total rubbish of the most vile kind and.. unfounded, baseless and worse.. directly contradictory to John 3:16 "For God so LOVED the....WORLD"

//and they will not be shaken from it by any argument from rationality, reality or reason.//

You are joking...right ?

-Rationality "For the gazlionth time.. I have no interest in comparative religion"

-Reality: yes.. in the twilight zone.

-Reason: ? again.. you are living on some other planet. You could learn much from the balanced approach of SONofGLOIN... and actually "look" at reasons 'why' those you oppose hold the positions they do.

//Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we might approach this differently?//

Pericles.. it's simple.. try to understand peoples position rather than just condemning it out of bigotry and not taking the slightest bit of interest in seeing the reasons for..or discussing WHY they hold such positions.

//I've run out of ideas, frankly.//

I have a suggestion.

Look at what I provided.. be willing to discuss it.. and form your own conclusions..and then if they differ from mine.. just agree to differ.

Is it really that hard ? SOG did it in 2 posts.. but you can't do it in 1000 ? :)

I will confess one weakness. (though I have many)

In the past I have 'led' with bold conclusions and then sought to justify them. Now..I'd prefer to just 'nudge'... and see where it goes.
My son lectured me :)

ALGOREisRICH>> Did you have a look at that literary reference I gave ? What did you make of that ?<<

If you meant the surah passages, yes, there was nothing new. The dissertations regarding the social nuances to be followed in the Qurans is as relevant to a modern society as is the horse, it played a big part, but time moved on.

Here are two snippets regarding the status of women.
Genesis 3:16: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you completely".
Muhammadan poet "mothers of mankind are only 'vessels' which receive the children without leaving any impress on them"

Our forefathers from all sides of the bridge had a pre determined "worth" ascribed to women. They were there for "us", and there was no "them" they were a chattel. Things have moved on, except for the majority of Islamic countries when it comes to social engineering. They follow the same rules as the first Mohammadans did, and they will not be dissuaded from their cultural practices no matter what society they transplant into, and that is the issue.

Re Bob Brown, what can you say about an Australian who wants the U.N. to govern the world. Politicians of all persuasions have signed away our rights, along with the countries sovereignty over it's people piece by piece from the 70's onward with every U.N. resolution we have signed. I have no issue with the greens natural heritage policy as long as the land to be impacted is not privately owned. If it is the owner should be compensated adequately if they are impacted. Regarding carbon trading, it is another way to extract money from the consumer, to the benefit of brokerage houses and a handful of people in the Environmental movement

Dear SOG .. interesting points you raised about ancient documents and:

//The dissertations regarding the social nuances to be followed in the Qurans is as relevant to a modern society as is the horse, it played a big part, but time moved on.// (?)

The commentary you read.. was written in our lifetime :) the opinion he expressed was intended in his community to apply 'now' and 4eva....

Was that apparent in your reading ?

Could you be more specific about what you referred to as 'social nuances' ? :)

The Genesis reference is well noted. "Rule over them"... compare the New Testament reference
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,

Sounds similar right ? But the relationship is fleshed out further here

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

GREENS and our FREEDOM.
I'm sure you would enjoy the newly created thread about Green Parties...a lot of what you said is relevant.

I draw your attention to a document from the UN from 1976 on private property...

http://www.un-documents.net/vp-d.htm

Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements...

COMMENT.
The people pushing this the hardest.. are also the richest.

Gore..Strong..Soros and their multitude of 'foundations'

Awareness is the first step toward freedom.

CJ MORGAN wrote:

"Rest assured that if blasphemy laws are mooted by any religious organisation in Australia, I'll be vociferously opposing them."

I don't think you will. Because such laws would not be called blasphemy laws.

You frequently accuse posters of "Islamophobia" or of "demonising" and "vilifying" Muslims. So I think you'd be happy to go along with blasphemy laws labelled as "anti-hate speech" or "anti-vilification" laws.

There is a way of putting this to the test. What do you think about Victoria's "Racial and religious tolerance act" and the prosecution of Pastors Nalliah and Scott?

Steven, I'm on record at OLO as stating on numerous occasions that I don't support the Victorian legislation. I also think that the prosecution of the fundy Christian Islamophobes was a strategic blunder, in that it provided a rallying point for Islamophobic hatred and a couple of potential martyrs to their odious cause.

Who'd have heard of these clowns if it wasn't for the legislation and prosecution?

You're picking the wrong target here if you're arguing for freedom of speech - it's your fellow Islaomophobic travellers Boazy etc who have argued to "ban" various Muslims from the ABC, concert tours etc.

Do try and be consistent.

ALGOREisRICH;>> The commentary you read.. was written in our lifetime.
Was that apparent in your reading <<

Absolutely, I understand that deluded humans are espousing that these antiquated social caveats are relevant to their society now. That is not the issue to me, given that they are practiced in their countries of origin and not within a host cultures domain. Just a qualification, I am only refering to religious/cultural practices that contravine the law of the land.

You gave a NT example of a toning down of the female subjugation factor to the OT quote I offered. You are correct the NT is not fire and brimstone as was the OT. Time moved on and the message became softer.

ALGOREisRICH;>> Could you be more specific about what you referred to as 'social nuances'? <<

The social nuances I refer to are all the alien cultural practices that Islamic zealots bring to host countries. Childs rights, women’s rights, societal enclaving, Sharia law, Muslims have a differing value system to the west and they maintain it by adhering to these social nuances from 1500 years ago.

ALGOREisRICH;>>I draw your attention to a document from the UN from 1976 on private property.<<

Are you deliberately trying to make me ill?
It seems that 1976 was a crucial year in the U.N.'s planned downfall of western society. The Lima Agreement was implemented in 1976. That piece of parchment sent the first world from industrial giant to industrial dwarf in 25 short years. That bit of parchment is the reason the only cash cow we have is the mining industry.

I laughed out loud at the opening line of the plan”
"1. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals." We have managed to get by for 5000 years with a tenant or owner relationship to the land, now those communists in the U.N want to make us all tenants and themselves the land owners, and fools do not understand this is real and evolving.

CJ MORGAN

If you opposes Victoria's "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" then I withdraw my comment.

However I am interested in your choice of words:

"...I also think that the prosecution of the fundy Christian Islamophobes was a strategic blunder,..."

I would have thought the prosecution of Nalliah and Scott was a violation of their right to free expression. They have as much right to have their say as pond scum like Cat Stevens and slimeballs like Walid Aly.

What interests me about many of the posters here - this includes you Foxy - is that you have not defended Cat Stevens' right to free speech REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE MAY HAVE SAID IN THE PAST. Instead you try and pretend he didn't say it or if he did it was only a joke or it was 20 years ago or whoever brings up these inconvenient facts is a (shock, horror) "Islamophobe" or let's talk about Israel instead or whatever.

Get this CJ MORGAN, FOXY, EXAMINATOR, PERICLES

I defend Stevens' right to come to Australia even though I have no illusions about the nature of the man. Just as I would defend the rights of David Irving or Fredrick Toben and his "Adelaide Institute"

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/

I don't regard the prosecution of "fundy Christians" under the RRT as a "strategic error". I regard it as a human rights violation.

SONGOFGLOIN and STEVEN.. oh what a soothing balm your last posts were for me :) Soothing because without me actually 'stating' the issue directly.... (SOG here) you do manage to glean it out of the information..and.. AND come to the correct conclusion about the vileness level of that information.
*my work is almost done* :)

Now..if one person can... I wonder why 3 other individuals cannot?

They would be (The most notable)

CJ
FOXY
PERICLES

At least CJ supports my ubercall for the RRT to be dismantled.
When he gets up to speed on the Equal Opportunity Refrom Act passed just weeks ago....he will actually be on the same side as me.

That bill created a STAR CHAMBER of Soros "Open Society" functionaries and thought police in the form of the VHREOC commissars who can now INITIATE action against individuals or companies in the ABSENSE of a complaint.

StevenlMeyer.. this would be of interest to you mate..because we all know (specially Jews) what happens when such bodies are formed who are kind of 'outside' the main law of the land.

The characteristics of these STAR CHAMBERS of inquisition are.

-Hate speech laws
-Truth is not a defense.
-Selective application of such laws to the 'politically incorrect'.

OH.. on Cat Stevens ...he is having a concert (sold out) on the 16th of July here.. should be a GR8 opportunity to have a voice about certain subjects eh ?

Ok..here's the deal.

1/ Don't ban Stevens from coming here.
2/ Don't ban FREE SPEECH about his faith at his venues.
3/ Don't ban Walid Aly from the ABC.
4/ Don't ban public protest ABOUT his faith at the ABC.

Now... the 'inquisatioral commissars of the Human REICH commission would have us believe that only 1 and 3 are acceptable, but 2 and 4 are not.

SOG..this is specially for you.

Firstly THANK you for the info about the LIMA declaration.. I didn't know about it till your helpful post ! NOW I DO..and will use that also in my own work.

It simply re-inforces the basic premist "The UN is a cesspool of MARXISM"

//The Lima Declaration and Plan of Action calls for the redistribution of world industry so that developing countries would have 25% of it by the year 2000//

Just a final tie up thought about the commentator you examined on the Quran.

You said:

//That (antiquated social caveats )is not the issue to me, given that they are practiced in their countries of origin and not within a host cultures domain. Just a qualification, I am only refering to religious/cultural practices that contravine the law of the land.//

Hooray.. yes.. that's where I come from also...

[Parenthesis]
[[Just out of curiosity.. did you tweak to what Maududi was saying about "if the Quran teaches it..who are we to forbid it" In *13 ?
"Prepubescent marriage, consummation and divorce" ?]]

But my position is probably just a bit further "out there".

Given that
a)the bloke in the video (Dr Bilal Philips) was advocating unambiguously that a Muslim man in his 50s or 60s can marry a child of 8 or 9 is quite ok....
b)He was invited to lecture Melbourne mainstream Muslims at the Exhibition buildings.
c) Having personally spoken to a FEMALE Muslim at ISSNA in Coburg about the issue..and she adamant that such things are fine....
d) Keysar Trad trying to promote the 'debate on Polygamy' in 2008 (debate precedes attempts at changes to law usually)

I conclude that this sub section of our society would..if unchallenged, try to change the law in favour of their own values.

In the same way Bob Brown and company are trying to change the law about Gay Marriage.

So...you now have the background.

My method in the past was wrong... as I said..I started with 'headline conclusions' rather than cautious discussion :)
This method is proving much more effective.

STEVENLMEYER AND BOAZ -

WHY ARE YOU ISLAMOPHOBES ALWAYS SHOUTING?

CJ MORGAN

I can only speak for myself.

It's a habit from the days when I used to prepare notes for students. I found it helped to capitalise words and concepts I thought needed emphasis.

It nearly got me into trouble once when I was explaining a statistical technique called the JACKKNIFE. I wanted to emphasise its growing importance as a non-parametric method of data analysis. Unfortunately one of the secretaries thought I was threatening the students and reported me to the Dean. We had a good laugh about it.

Dear CJ..

when are you going to approach issues rationally.

In my last post I think there were hmmm about 3 words capped for empHAsis...out of 300ish....

You have eyes (and I think...a brain-jury still out).. you know why caps are used.. headings or emphasis for an important point.

You could still redeem yourself from the corner by approaching one issue I raised.. and discussing the links in a mature and responsible manner as SOG did.

Until then.. you are unfortunately relegated into the 'timeout' area :)

It is interesting that Australia is allowing Yusuf Islam to enter Australia to engage in Da'wah, which is Islamic proselytising.
There are several ironies in this.
The first:
According to Yusuf Islam, and Islamic law, Salman Rushdie should be put to death for criticising Islam.
Yet Yusuf Islam is given the freedom of speech to make this demand.
The second:
Yusuf Islam is here to make Da'wah and he is free to do so.
Yet under Islamic law, the penalty for proselytising any religion but Islam is death.

Connecting the two:
Muslims are free to call for the death of those who criticise Islam.
Muslims are also free to proselytise an ideology which calls for the death of those who criticise Islam
and which also calls for the death of those who proselytise a religion other than Islam.

Isn't freedom of speech wonderful when it can accommodate such apparent contradictions?

How long before Australia is operating under freedom of speech, Islamic style.

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3520:peace-train&catid=203&Itemid=59

Awww Proxy.. you are being much too harsh on this 'religion of peace'.

Pointing out numerous shortcomings, calls to war, to kill etc. are far outweighed by the 1 or 2 'nice' verses :)