Two former Islamists in the UK have produced a controversial report which essentially states that many Islamic organisations which denounce terrorism nevertheless agree with the terrorists end-goal of establishing a global Islamic caliphate.
Their main point of difference with terrorists is disagreement over strategy.
ie Terrorists seek global Islamic domination by violent means.
The non-terrorists seek global Islam by non-violent means.
How many Islamic organisations in Australia fall into either of the above camps?
Should we welcome Islamic organisations who ostensibly adopt the non-violent strategy?
What are the implications of having a growing percentage of the population whose apparent aim is to implement Sharia Law?
Does anybody think this is a serious enough issue to concern Australians?

Also, it has come to my attention that many Christian religions seek to establish some sort of "Kingdom of God" on Earth. It appears that the violent invasions and forcible conversions have been left in the distant past, but the non-violent methods of conversions and "missions" as well as state-sanctioned missionary work undertaken by Christian "chaplains" in our schools continue.

Does anybody think this is a serious enough issue to concern Australians?

"How many Islamic organisations in Australia fall into either of the above camps?"
Quite a lot I'd imagine, Hizb Ut Tahir being one that sticks out

"Should we welcome Islamic organisations who ostensibly adopt the non-violent strategy?"
I think we should NOT be welcoming ANY organization that advocates forcing an Islamic state, regardless of how "peacefully" they want to push for it, but BAN them and if possible, deport any members to their countries of origin and deny any members outside from setting foot in our country.

Something about surrendering liberty for safety comes to mind.
And I'm not about to roll out the red carpet for an (anti-western) extremist group just because I'm scared they might fly a plane into a building if they don't get their way.

It'd be like giving permission to the KKK to set up shop.
The implications is that we have a hostile minority the country could do without lobbying against the interests of broader Australia, raise children to be hostile to their host country, and being a likely security threat as many already radical members could easily be further radicalized. And it should be a concern.

As it is, most countries pathetically permit many terrorist organizations solely because they don't actually advocate violence HERE.

King Hazza

The KKK is here, has been for a while now. Check out the following:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/we-have-infiltrated-party-kkk-20090709-der4.html

Not hard to find more info.

As far as I'm concerned the Christians have the same agenda as Islam - they've just developed a softer approach.

However, I am digressing from Proxy's invitation to vilify Islam.

Please continue...

Heck, I should know better by now. But hey, I'll bite.

Let's start with some facts.

>>Two former Islamists in the UK have produced a controversial report<<

Who were these people? When did they produce this "controversial report"? Can we see it? What did it say - not that I don't believe you, just that some people have a way of exaggerating slightly, or leaning over a bit when they read... you know what I mean.

And when you have provided this information, we will be able to judge whether you are simply manufacturing a topic so that we can all stand around and watch another episode of "whack-a-mozzie", or whether there is the meat of a discussion upon which we might chew, in a civilized fashion.

Over to you, Proxy.

Pericles,
Is the Guardian sufficiently left-leaning to give this story credibility in your eyes?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/04/quilliam-foundation-list-alleged-extremism

Proxy,there is more chance of Bushe's/Obama's "New World Order" financed by global corporates happening than an Islamic one.All facists dream of world dominance be they religious,communist,or capitalists.

Presently we live in an oligarchy in which the corporate elites determine the nature and power of our Govts.This is more of a concern than an Islamic threat.Treachery and oppression nearly always comes from within.

Sadly correct Severin- I did some looking around and found quite a few branches of the KKK are permitted to operate here. I've found most governments around the world (ours being no exception) rarely ever ban a group unless it itself specifically functions as a terrorist group, specifically in contexts politically relevant to that government.

An extremist advocacy group, or the political wing of a terrorist group are usually left alone due to the difficulty (real or imagined) of trying to ban a group on less-direct grounds than actually organizing terrorist activity.

The Guardian is a perfectly acceptable source, Proxy.

>>Pericles, Is the Guardian sufficiently left-leaning to give this story credibility in your eyes?<<

Although what "left-leaning" has to do with it is anybody's guess.

Perhaps it is because they also reported that:

"In effect, Quilliam – a body funded very generously by the government through Prevent – are attempting to set themselves up as arbiters of who is and is not an acceptable Muslim. Their document specifically contains a McCarthy-type list of large and established Muslim organisations that they regard as suspect and smears them as being 'Islamists'."

Interesting observation.

And what about this?

"The report was addressed personally to [Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism Director General] Farr and says it is not to be seen by civil servants, only by him, ministers and their special advisers."

Perhaps because the document wouldn't stand scrutiny, and therefore shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Except, of course, by people with that good ol' axe to grind.

Grind away, guys.

It's not a pretty sight, but we are getting used to it.

I wouldn't have expected anything else from you Pericles.
Twist the story to fit your own paradigm and then ignore its substance.

Hi Kettle.

>>I wouldn't have expected anything else from you Pericles. Twist the story to fit your own paradigm and then ignore its substance.<<

Pot calling.

Dear Proxy,

You ask the question, does anyone think this is a
serious enough issue to concern Australians?

According to Professor Abdullah Saeed the answer
is a clear and resounding - "No!"
Prof. Saeed is Associate Professor and Head of the
Arabic and Islamic Studies Program at the Melbourne
Institute of Asian Languages and Societies, University
of Melbourne. In his book, "Islam in Australia," he
tells us that:

"Calls for jihad against the West are often made by
those who are outside Australia and such calls have
no audience in the main-stream Australian Muslim
community. Australian Muslims argue that it is unfair
to label all Muslims as adopting a view of jihad that
is supported by militants and extremists elsewhere,
and that Muslims in Australia have not adopted a
militant interpretation of the doctrine. The
statements made by the Australian Federation of Islamic
Councils, state and territory Islamic councils, Islamic
societies, imams and community leaders in relation to
attacks against the West, such as September 11, and
Bali bombing, all attest to this."

As Professor Saeed states, "Muslims agree that every
single community on earth has small minorities who do
not fit into the bigger picture. For example, in
Australia the vast majority of inhabitants are
law-abiding citizens. It is only a very small minority
who are criminals. The fact that there are such
criminals within Australian society cannot be used to
make the statement that the Australian community is
criminal, bloodthirsty, murderous and violent. Perhaps
a closer analogy lies with the Christian community.
While there exist a small number of cults and extremist
right-wing Christians who commit acts of violence, the
overwhelming majority of Christians are peaceful,
law-abiding citizens whose religion teaches them to treat
others as they would wish to be treated themselves."

Whatever the reasons behind the actions of some militants
in the Muslims world, Australian Muslims have no interest
whatsoever according to Prof. Saeed, in extremism, violence,
killing, murder, suicide bombing and so on. They live
normal lives and detest the association of Islam and
muslims with violence and aggression.

cont'd ...

let us also remember that violence in the name of
religion is not a new phenomenon. In fact, all
major religious traditions and ideologies that
we know of, at one point or another have used
violence and terrorism. Even today there are
Hindu militants, Jewish militants, Christian
militants; if we look at acts of violence
perpetrated by Muslims, they are comparatively
small despite the massive and prominent media
coverage given to them.

Australian Muslims have nothing to do with what
Muslim terrorists do around the world. The same
goes for Australians of other religious groups.
With acts of terrorism we should look critically
at motivation, circumstances, context, and any
other such conisderation rather than partaking in
the questionable practice of stereotyping entire
religions or groups of people.

As always, well stated Foxy.

Will Proxy be capable of understanding what you have presented?

Or will he continue to paint all Muslims, be they Arabic, European, Indonesian, American, Australian, with the same brush?

If Proxy is Christian, would he enjoy being equated with the Ku Klux Klan? Or Catholic priests' sexual predation?

If he is not Christian, why focus on just one religion? As Foxy has pointed out all religions have their fanatical extremists.

Foxy,
You seem to have entirely missed the point.
You focus exclusively on violent jihad and claim that only a tiny minority of Muslims in Australia support it.
The article points out that the end-goal of global Islamic domination is shared by both violent jihadists and also by those in the Islamic community (Umma) who reject violent jihad.
The question then becomes:
Given that Australia rejects the concept of violent jihad, should we accept the principle that Muslims in Australia have the right to peacefully work toward the goal of the Islamisation of Australia?
In answering this question we need to fully understand that Islam teaches that man-made laws are always subservient to Islamic laws which stem from Allah's "revelation" to Mohammed, as embodied in Shariah law.
In other words, should Australia tolerate people whose ultimate goal is to implement Al-Shari'ah.

Welcome back from the Sin Bin Proxy! -apologies that my post addresses Bugsy's post rather than the topic.

HI Bugsy.. I would like to say something about your point:

*some Christian religions*..."wish to establish the kingdom of God on earth"

Question 1. Do you know what the Kingdom of God is? (Biblically)

Question 2. What "is" the kingdom of God?

Some helpful references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God (Wikipedia)
Biblical:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NIV

See verse 5

Mark 1:15

15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Using the above introductory verse as a starting point, you might wish to look at 'what' Jesus sought to establish through His word and life. His final commands were...

Go...make disciples. (Mat 28:19ff) what is a disciple? (see John 3.5 above)

Question 3. Given your answers to the above, would it be appropriate and even Biblical, for a 'Church' to seek to establish a Kingdom of God on earth?

The closest possible to what seems to be in your mind, is the idea of a predominantly Christian state where laws are made which have a Biblical basis.

This might be quite ok, except that you could be sure homosexual behavior and abortion would be, if not criminalized, at least dimly viewed and marginalized. In the case of abortion, it would have strong medical input for sure.

But even such a state...would not be the 'Kingdom of God'....

Proxy... regarding your final question "Should this be enough to concern Australians" .. absolutely!

In fact.. if you want to join me on my next demo :) feel free.

I put my body where my keyboard is.... and my views on this subject are well enough known that I don't need to repeat them here again.

cheers.

My grandaughter is crawling all over me now.. can't type much :)

I can take it, and will need to after my post.
I resent any religion and its followers having too much say in my country.
Followers of Islam concern me more than any other.
Not in their own country but in others as a minority they often demand things I will die opposed to.
However maybe we did not have political correct people[ how can something so wrong be called correct?] to warn us not to say what we think but.
In the 1950,s late teenage children of newly arrived migrants shouted that Australia would be theirs one day.
It in ways is their children's right now but I challenge anyone to show how those people are any different than us.
Sorry foxy but no religion is worth condemning mankind to kill each other .

Dear Proxy,

You brought up the topic of violence in
your opening post. I merely tried to
answer your question, "Does anybody
think this is a serious issue to
concern Australia?"

I have a problem with your generalisation
and sweeping statements concerning Muslims.

Muslims in Australia are marked by their
ethnic diversity. Muslim migration to
Australia was, and is, from a variety of
nation states themselves possessing distinct
cultural and ethnic groups. Migrants coming
to Australia bring not only their religious
faith, but also their cultural identities
with them and quite often these cultural
identities figure as strongly as their religious
identity. Muslims also vary in their degree of
commitment to Islam as well as their approaches
to it.

There are further differences in the level of
integration into Australian society, particularly
among the second and third generation Muslims.
Complicating all this is also the existence of
an increasing number of converts to Islam
from European backgrounds who were born and grew
up in Australia.

Therefore not all Muslims share the same view on
all issues, and often there is no one standard
"Islamic" view on many of the problems and issues
Muslims face in their daily lives.

I simply don't understand the assumptions
that you're making with this thread - it seems to
me that it is based at the very least on ignorance
and at worst on extreme bias.

Hmm, a whole pile of posts, links to Wikipedia a slew of Bible references (thanks AlGore) but no link to the Quilliam document itself?

Well, here it is http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/Secret-Quilliam-Memo-to-government.

Belly

Quite frankly, Australia has more to be concerned about with George Pell and cronies if Abbott wins the upcoming Federal election. There are a many more fundamentalist Christians in Australia than there are Muslims of any degree of fundamentalism.

If ever we needed separation of church and state irrefutably enshrined in our constitution it is now.

Absolutely Severin!
I despair that Australians would even consider the bumbling, poorly spoken, failed Catholic priest, Tony Abbott as a possible Prime Minister!

I am amazed he had not joined the 'Family First' party in the first place, as they have very similar ideals. Maybe he thought he had more chance of the top job if he joined the coalition?

I am not concerned about any so-called Islamic Jihad in Australia.
Australians are far too intelligent to let such an obviously dangerous group as the Muslim extremists get a stronghold here.

I am far more concerned about our society having to go back to the 'good-old-days' when Christian fundamentalist ideas prevailed much more. Tony Abbott would have been quite at home as a politician back in the 1950's, not now.

Dear Severin and Suze,

Ditto from me as well.

For most Muslims in Australia, the debate on an
Islamic state with Islamic law, is irrelevant.
First, Muslims are
a small minority and even if they wanted they
couldn't have what's called an Islamic state with
Islamic law here.
Secondly, the Australian state allows total
freedom for Muslims to practice their religion
and therefore there's no need for an alternative
"state" or system. From their point of view,
Muslims in Australia can function perfectly well
as Muslims and Australians without an Islamic
state.

I wonder though if Proxy even knows what the trends
are within Australian Islam, and how many trends of
thought exist and the differences between them?

Foxy
<< it seems to me that (your thread is) based at the very least on ignorance
and at worst on extreme bias.>>
I would suggest to you that former Islamists Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz have a greater understanding of Islam than yourself.
I am merely bringing to light their analysis of the situation.
You, however, are trying to impose your post-modern concept of viewpoint equivalence to imply that “Islamic diversity” somehow nullifies Islamic doctrine.
From an Islamic point of view, the Koran is the perfect and unchangeable word of Allah revealed to Mohammed.
A Muslim who denies the supremacy of Shariah Law over Australian law is by definition not a Muslim.
The implication behind your assertion that “…many trends of thought exist (with) differences between them” is that we need not fear that Muslims in Australia want to impose Sharia here.
Why should the Australian experience be any different from the UK’s, where Shariah Law is already an inescapable, state-sanctioned reality?
How is it that you claim to know more about Islam than former Islamists Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz?
Yet you describe my views as being either ignorant or biased.
Are Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz Islamophobes?
What evidence do you bring to the debate to refute their assertions, apart from the notion of “Islamic diversity” which is so obviously merely an extension of your own worldview?
BTW, what are the "the trends...within Australian Islam" and how are they supported by Islamic doctrine?

Dear Proxy,

I have already cited for you the source of
my information, Professor Abdullah Saeed,
and his book, "Islam in Australia."
He is a recognised expert on the subject.
I don't pretend to be.

If you're really interested in the subject,
I can highly recommend this work to you.
It should be available from your local
library or if it's not, you can always
suggest they purchase the book for you.

The reason I'm questioning your assumptions,
is, as Prof. Saeed clearly states:

"There is no central authoritative body or
institution among Muslims to determine precisely
what is Islamic, and what is not. Muslims do not
have a figure such as the Pope, to determine
which interpretation of the Qur'an or the
traditions of the Prophet is correct. In a sense,
then, Islam is a rather democratic religion when
it comes to determining what is acceptable and what
is not, because potentially everyone has a say in it,
so to speak. In practice, it is the scholars of
religion who have studied the Qur'an, the traditions,
the history, the civilisation and the customs of
Muslims, who have the most important say. But even
then, they speak and act only as individuals, and
cannot enforce their opinions on the whole Muslim
community, neither around the world nor even in a
particular locality."

If you want to know the trends within Australian Islam,
however, I respectfully suggest that you
read Prof. Saeed's book.

It just may clarify things for you.

There’s an article in today’s The Australian from, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that may have some relevance to this thread.

She makes the following interesting observations:
“The taboo subject used to be the indigenous people of Australia. Nowadays it is Islam”

"People from Britain have long been the single largest group of settlers coming to Australia. But the most recent data for all permanent additions to the population by country of birth shows that people from predominantly Muslim countries account for a larger share: 12.5 per cent of new settlers, compared with 11.9 per cent from Britain."

“Perhaps, on Islam, Australia is too laid-back for its own good” .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/too-laid-back-about-immigration/story-e6frg6zo-1225901965765

[Now, it’d be hard to accuse her of being a racist redneck!]

Dear Horus,

Sometimes we have to look at
not only both sides of an issue,
but also around the edges as well.
Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali certainly appeals
to people with an ax to grind.
I read her books, "The Caged Virgin,"
and "Infidel,"
when they first came out, and like
everyone else, was quite shocked
by her disclosures. I mean, who
wouldn't be? Then years later,
there were articles in "The New York
Times," and "The Washington Post,"
questioning some of the authenticity
of Ali's claims and stories about her
past.

The following website may help:

http://fanonite.org/2007/02/20/lifting-the-veil-on-ayaan-hirsi-ali/

Foxy,

<<For_most_Muslims_in_Australia,_the_debate_on_an_Islamic_state_with_Islamic_law,_is_irrelevant.>>
Please tell me how you can claim to make this statement on behalf of “most Muslims in Australia.”

<<First,_Muslims_are_a_small_minority_and_even_if_they_wanted_they_couldn't_have_what's_called_an_Islamic_state_with_Islamic_law_here.>>
The small minority of Muslims in France have effectively annexed more the 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibles over which the French authorities have relinquished control.
The small minority of Muslims in UK have effectively implemented Shariah Law.

<<Secondly, the Australian state allows total
freedom for Muslims to practice their religion
and therefore there's no need for an alternative
"state" or system.>>
The concept of freedom which we value is anti-thetical to Islam, which values submission to the will of Allah, not freedom.

<<From their point of view,
Muslims in Australia can function perfectly well
as Muslims and Australians without an Islamic
state.>>

“From their point of view” or from your point of view?
Muslims in Australia are subject to Australian law.
Australian law is inconsistent with Islamic law.
Islam teaches that man-made (ie Australian law) is sub-ordinate to Islamic law.
Does this not present a conflict?
How does this translate to functioning perfectly well?

As for Abdullah Saeed:

“(In his) book … Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam Saeed … admits that the “vast majority of Muslim scholars writing on the issue of apostasy today follow the pre-modern position” – namely, that apostasy warrants death.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2009/05/thinking-about-islam-and-public-policy

So the vast majority of Islamic scholars advocate the death penalty for Islamic apostasy, but Australians shouldn’t worry because Professor Saeed disagrees with them.
Ipso facto, Australian Muslims also disagree with the vast majority of Islamic scholars.
Just love your analysis.
It’s very comforting.
Particularly in light of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia’s draft constitution, Article 7, section c which states: Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have themselves renounced Islam.

As for Muhammad Idrees Ahmad on Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
I choose to believe Ali and Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish and Nagla Al Imam and Mohammed Asghar et al. who “have all faced threats, intimidation and discrimination due to their exercising their right to religious freedom.”
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org

Oh Gawd ...... yet another topic started specifically to vilify an entire religion. This site has quite a few anti religion bigots (often they are anti "all" religious belief), and that's good. It allows them to spew their hatred and fear in the "open", which enables the more civilised amongst us to know where certain people are coming from regarding their beliefs and attitudes.

Foxy, I read your “Lifting the Veil” link -- through the middle and around the edges too.

It didn’t start out very impressively, though –look at this:
“Every once in a while, a native informer comes along who is willing to affirm his or her own inferiority in order to help the West rationalize its neocolonial grip on the South. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the latest, and one of the more ambitious among them.”

Talking about people with axes to grind! (If I hadn’t known it was some guy called Muhammad, I would have thought the author was Lizzie Borden)

Then it shocked me – REALLY SHOCKED me! He started suggesting that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had told lies to get asylum.
“only to leave for the United States after an uproar over lies she had told to obtain asylum.”
And not only did he suggest she lied –he saw it as grievous fault.

That sort of thing just doesn’t happen , asylum seekers lying–NO!
And to even suggest it, is to vilify the asylum seeker!
Luckily I had studied well an earlier link you’d given us -- So I was immunized against such slander:
http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources06.html
I remembered it said:
“People arrive by boat not because what we offer is attractive, but because what pushes them to flee is inexorable… It is accepted under our migration laws that an unauthorised arrival who then claims asylum has a right to do so and to have his or her claims heard and, if found to be a refugee, to find safe haven here. Criminalising the act through derogatory language and innuendo and not through testing its legality in a court of law is grossly improper”

And I sought its guidance again when the lifting the veil guy started implying Ayaan was attention seeking
That’s the same old slanderous charge the Australian Immigration Ministry had thrown at asylum seekers—totally baseless!

All I can say in conclusion Foxy is, you’re luck Severin's been kept busy keeping a keen eye the KKK, George Pell & Tony Abbot.
When she sees how you’ve contributed to the vilification of refugee Ayaan --it will be “not happy, Jan!”

I bet if Ayaan had landed on our north west coast in one of those “ small open boats” you wouldn’t be finding fault

Dear Proxy,

I take heart at the fact that the vast majority
of Australians don't seem to take a hostile
view of Muslims.

At all levels of Australian
society, there is a remarkable level of tolerance, if
not acceptance. Australia's legal framework provides
for added safeguards. I do not believe the assumptions
that you're making are accurate.

I believe that Islam
in Australia is being shaped by the prevailing values,
norms and practices of Australian society. New generations
of Australian-born Muslims will grow up to be, like all
the rest of the generations who came before them,
valuable members of the Australian community.

What you wish to believe is entirely up to you.

Foxy,
I'm not making assumptions, I'm stating facts.
You refuse to address these facts, merely stating your beliefs.

Dear Horus,

Perhaps the following website may put
things into a better perspective for you.
The author is Nicholas Kristof.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/review/Kristof-t.html

The only Jihad they have to bother with is their own.

*first* they revise their religion to one recognising biological evolution and the likely consequences for their theology (a remote and uninvolved deity, at best), and *then* it might be worth considering their theological literature after a century or so.

Rusty

Precious Foxy :)

"I have already cited for you the source of
my information, Professor Abdullah Saeed,
and his book, "Islam in Australia."
He is a recognised expert on the subject.
I don't pretend to be."

Which struck me as a tad like asking Joseph Goebells a similar question about his particular 'mindset' :)

Don't you think it is highly unlikely that a man representing the faitn under scrutiny, will allow himself to vilification from his own, by saying anything which could be construed as undermining that faiths objectives ? Just a thought.

My approach is to look at 'hate sites' and then evaluate the things they say for logical or evidential inconsistencies which lack substance or evidence. I do the same for my own faith... "skeptics bible"..."Misquoting Jesus" etc.. I don't limit that approach to the other mobs alone.

It's not really that hard to recognize 'unsubstantiated vilification' from reasoned, evidence based argument.

PERICLES.. you definitely are in need of a verbal smack....and a stern look and a heavy frown. You did exactly what Proxy said.. truly. You neglected the sources, and simply re-constructed the whole argument in terms of your own biases.. baddddd Pericles.. bad bad!

BENQ still yapping from the sidelines about 'hate and fear' ? :) see you on '8-28' at the Lincoln Memorial with Beck,Palin and others.
(ps.. those lines "hate and fear" have been copyrighted by CJ and Pericles..please stop using their lines)

Back to "Killer Cheekbones" :) yes.. your last link did give some perspective

"She has managed to outrage more people — in some cases to the point that they want to assassinate her — in more languages in more countries on more continents than almost any writer in the world today."

Assasinate? hmmm I wonder which 'people' those would be ? 0_^

Bit over the top there Lady's, fancy anyone telling me how bad things will get under Abbott.
But lets be honest the Catholic Church has been at the wheel of the ALP for a very long time.
Some of it is true, I too fear religion involvement in government.
That strengthens my fear some Muslims are a concern.

I would put fundamentalist Christianity into the category of:

"Clear and Present Danger". - They have power now, they may have even more power in two weeks.

Whereas fundamentalist Islam is something that we must be ever vigilant of. However, they do not have the numbers, let alone any power in Australia. What we must reclaim is separation of church and state, so that NO religion gains power over our governments.

Concessions we have granted to one religion will be taken up by others. Which is why we need to be very careful just how much latitude we give to Christianity.

This thread is a waste of time unless it considers ALL religions - singling out Islam is just bigotry. Just as there are a majority of decent moderate Christians, the majority of members of Islam are very reasonable people.

Far from it, Proxy. Far from it.

>>Foxy, I'm not making assumptions, I'm stating facts. You refuse to address these facts, merely stating your beliefs.<<

The only facts you bring us are "someone said this" facts. "Abdullah Saeed" said such and such. "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" said this or that.

So yes, it is a fact that they said what they said.

But it doesn't make what they said, fact.

As an example of some of your other "facts".

>>The small minority of Muslims in France have effectively annexed more the 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibles over which the French authorities have relinquished control. The small minority of Muslims in UK have effectively implemented Shariah Law.<<

Garbage. Both statements. Not fact, at all.

Show us where the French authorities have relinquished control. Show us where Sharia law is in operation in the UK.

It's just a cut 'n' paste of the same old fear-and-loathing anti-Muslim propaganda, isn't it.

So, please apologize to Foxy.

>>PERICLES.. you definitely are in need of a verbal smack....and a stern look and a heavy frown. You did exactly what Proxy said.. truly. You neglected the sources, and simply re-constructed the whole argument in terms of your own biases.. baddddd Pericles.. bad bad!<<

Usual Boaz gobbledegook. Show me where I did anything different in having my say, to that which Proxy did, having his say.

I used exactly the same "source", and merely selected the parts that were at odds with Proxy's conclusions.

The entire thread is based on Proxy "re-constructing the whole argument in terms of his own biases".

You people amaze me with the sheer scope of your self-delusion.

Severin,
If Foxy had written a thread on the
marvellous contributions of Muslims
or
the evils of Christianity
and you tried to discuss
Islamic negatives
or
Christian positives
she would have screamed
"BACK OFF YOU TROLL!
Go rant on your own thread - leave mine alone!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3716&page=0#90126
by now.
All I ask of you however is to attempt to answer the question:
Is violent Islamic jihad unacceptable but is non-violent Islamic jihad OK?
Should Australia welcome immigrants who wish to overturn our laws and replace them with Allah's laws, which they hold superior?
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/134080

Pericles,
However I respond to you, you just jerk me around.
I could waste my time by posting references but it would make no difference to you.
You would simply delight in baselessly refuting or ignoring them and then respond with more inanities and demands.
You appear to delight in being obtuse.
You, Pericles, are the real troll.

Pericles, I think Proxy was referring to "Shariah Law" in the recent allowance of Shariah family courts to operate in the UK- which although I find to be ridiculous, wrong and should be banned; is still the sole extent of Shariah's operational capacity in Britain at all.

Anyway, what seemed like a good subject at first glance seems to be more about some broader political point-scoring, which is losing my interest fast. Reason is, hardly anyone in this country actually would welcome someone who advocated transforming our country into a theocracy (let alone bloody a Shariah society), and only vary in at what point they would deny a visa over it (I on the other hand would have no qualms slamming the gates shut when such characters arrive). Instead, most people aren't even answering the question because they don't want to contribute to some broader far-right anti-Muslim survey/motion.

As of now, the usual pointless debate about the broader Muslim population is doing its usual route.

Good news!
Criticising Islam is not racism.

Ekermawi v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ekermawi v Nine Network Television Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 198

"53 First, vilification of Muslims does not fall within section 20C(1), because Muslims are not a ‘race’ as defined in section 4 of the Act.
The reason, as the Tribunal said in Khan [i.e., Khan v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & anor [2002] NSWADT 131] at [18], is that Muslims ‘do not share common racial, national or ethnic origins’ and are therefore not an ethno-religious group such as the definition embraces.
In so ruling, we follow the decisions, commencing with Khan, that are listed above at [44].
We are unaware of any recent authority to the contrary.
It follows that any statements broadcast by the Respondents that generated negative feelings towards Muslims generally, or any group of Muslims, on the ground of their being Muslims could not amount to unlawful racial vilification."
http://lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2010nswadt.nsf/f1a6baff573a075dca256862002912ec/1e8a6290aa345d5bca25777400135086?OpenDocument

Proxy mate...I'll save you the trouble of posting links for stubborn Pericles.

Atlas des Zones urbaines sensibles= Sensitive Urban zones.

http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

Now...Pericles will take issue of course with the equating of

"sensitive" zone with 'nogo zone' but in so doing he will demonstrate his singular lack of understanding of 'diplomatic' language.

"Sensitive" in diplomatic speak is 'NO GO ZONE' in 'man on the street' talk.

As to 'relinguished control' ? I suppose Pericles would require these areas to have succeeded from the Republic and the French Government to have done nothing about it to qualify for that.. but then.. Pericles often misses the point by focusing on Pedantics and semantics.

Would it MATTER if the French Government has 'relinguished' control or that they are 'no go zones' ? ? ? If they are nogo zones, they have, in fact for practical purposes relinguished control.

Proxy plays it rough, in time most will understand not to feed him/her.
Pay TV, today waiting for the NRL, honor killing in America, how many Christians would kill daughters for being in love?
Sorry every creed stands between man and a better world each ignoring the rest each at some time teaching us to hate.
The middle ages are past let us move on.

A perfectly understandable cop-out, Proxy.

>>Pericles, However I respond to you, you just jerk me around.,,

I just question your assumptions, and your conclusions, that's all. Oh, and point out when you try to pass off your ramblings as "fact".

If that's "jerking you around", then you should continue to expect more of the same.

>>I could waste my time by posting references but it would make no difference to you.<<

If you had any, you'd post them. Because while it may "make no difference" to me, it might at least provide you with the modicum of credibility that you presently lack.

>>You would simply delight in baselessly refuting or ignoring them and then respond with more inanities and demands.<<

Or, possibly, simply point out that you are just another whack-a-mozzie agitator, who is intent on airing their tacky prejudices at every opportunity.

>>You appear to delight in being obtuse.<<

For "being obtuse", read "asking questions that I know you are unwilling to answer".

Still, you at least have Boaz in your corner. No surprises there, of course.

>>Pericles will take issue of course with the equating of "sensitive" zone with 'nogo zone'<<

Boaz, it is only people like you and Daniel Pipes who call these zones "no-go areas"

If you had even the most passing acquaintance with the French language, you would know that these are areas that the government has singled out for "special assistance". Here's the detail:

http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/default.asp?page=definitions/zone-urbaine-sensible.htm

Yes, the reason they require assistance is because they are economically disadvantaged, and yes, many have a high percentage of immigrants living there.

But that doesn't make them no-go areas.

Only your fear, loathing and wilful ignorance will do that.

And of course, that personification of even-handed analysis, Daniel Pipes.

“If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country (UK) into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal.
“Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.
“We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”
Suhaib Hasan, Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council"

Everything you didn't want to know about Sharia but were too politically correct to bother asking:

"Sharia law has been implemented in the UK since the early 1980s by Sharia Councils and since 2007 by Muslim Arbitration Tribunals.
Attention has been focussed on these courts since 2008 when the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and retiring Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, suggested that Sharia had a positive role to play in the settlement of disputes.
Contrary to the claims of its proponents, however, the decisions of Sharia and other religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly against women and children.
The following report based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, aims to provide evidence of the discriminatory nature of these courts and make recommendations for curtailing Sharia and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality, and are incompatible with human rights."

Sharia Law in Britain -
A threat to one law for all and equal rights:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf

It will never happen here?

“In some suburbs of Paris, and in some French cities, the immigrant population is so large there is no integration any more. Satellite TV has changed everything. Now the only place children speak French is in school. At home they watch Moroccan or Algerian TV. It's harder now for young immigrants to integrate. There is no more universal military service. The schools are ghettoised”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/france-mourns-end-of-race-melting-pot/story-e6frg6ux-1225782288277

So these two (unnamed) UK "former Islamists" are somehow the official spokespersons for all the rest? Talk about spilling the beans on some sort of vast global conspiracy.

What Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist (and the rest) individuals are recognised as speaking on behalf of the rest of everybody else.

It would save everybody a lot of time if we knew who they were and they could just out all the world's problems between themselves.

wobbles,

Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz were former activists in the radical Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir.

They do not purport to "speak on behalf of the rest of everybody else".

Their report states that:

"The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics.

"These are a selection of the various groups and institutions active in the UK which are broadly sympathetic to Islamism. Whilst only a small proportion will agree with al-Qaida's tactics, many will agree with their overall goal of creating a single 'Islamic state' which would bring together all Muslims around the world under a single government and then impose on them a single interpretation of sharia as state law."

Your logic is somewhat wobbly.

Yep, that old furphy, Proxy. I suspected that was where you were coming from.

>>Sharia law has been implemented in the UK since the early 1980s by Sharia Councils and since 2007 by Muslim Arbitration Tribunals.<<

You do realize, don't you, that this is substantially different to this:

>[in the UK] Shariah Law is already an inescapable, state-sanctioned reality... The small minority of Muslims in UK have effectively implemented Shariah Law.<<

They have not, Proxy.

There are Sharia tribunals in the UK, that work in in the same way - and with the same limitation on their legal powers - as the Beth Din tribunals have done for many years, for the Jewish community.

But of course, to say "there are administrative tribunals that assess civil cases under Sharia (or Jewish) law" is less inflammatory than pretending that UK law is now subservient to Sharia, isn't it.

Just as "there are 751 areas nominated by the French government for additional financial assistance" is far less inflammatory than describing them as "no go" areas.

Citing other - clearly biased - opinions to support your own - clearly biased - opinion doesn't magically turn them into a reality, Proxy.

I know, facts are boring, and don't help your scaremongering.

But do give them a try sometime, why don't you.

Yikes Pericles... you are as bad as the BBC :) you think that by changing vocabulary you can change reality.

The 'special assistance' is diplomatic code for:

"There is great unrest and social dislocation in these Muslim/migrant areas which are prone to violence and mayhem, we believe this is attritubable to a lack of opportunity and resources..so.. we will 'fix' it by throwing money at them"

I could (if I had the time or motivation) show you chapter and verse from the police report post UK race riots which pretty much outlined just about every syllable of what I said above. That's WHY I said it... because it's true.

There is an unmistakable pattern in your offerings. That pattern is:

"Never call something as it really is...specially if doing so is likely to annoy those being spoken about"

This is where you 'incitement/fear/loathing' stuff comes from.

But the fundamental issue you continually avoid is "reality" :)

I've just done a very informative comparative study of the rise of the black power movement and examined

1/-ELijah Mohammad (Muslim-Advocates violence)
2/-Malcolm X (Muslim- Advocates violence)
3/-Stokley Charmichael (closely connected to Nation of Islam- fine with violence)

4/-Dr Martin Luther King Jr (Christian- NON-violence)

(I've not yet included Lois Farahkan)

You would see 'reality' in those listed people.

1-3 speak invariably about hate and revolution against 'whitey'

4 (King) speaks of NON violence.

This same theme expressed by the Muslims (1-3) is also in perfect harmony with the Quran. King, is in harmony with the teaching and example of Christ.

That's very funny, Boaz.

>>you think that by changing vocabulary you can change reality. The 'special assistance' is diplomatic code for...<<

Errrr, exactly who is "changing vocabulary" here?

Who, pray tell, is claiming that "special assistance" - which, if you had followed the links I gave you earlier, you would see is quite specifically a bunch of initiatives to help the poor and unemployed - means something different entirely?

You're merely parroting your mate Danial Pipes, aren't you Boaz. You have no more knowledge or understanding of the situation in France than the chair you are sitting on.

As it happens I found myself two of the "no-go" areas mentioned, just recently. The fact that I didn't realize this until I read the list, should tell you something.

>>I could (if I had the time or motivation) show you chapter and verse from the police report post UK race riots which pretty much outlined just about every syllable of what I said above. That's WHY I said it... because it's true.<<

Once again, you are talking out of the back of your head.

My own insight into this comes from a niece, working with the Met. in this very area - race relations and the police. So I am well placed to describe your assertion - "because it's true" - as hollow as your understanding of the politics of Barking.

Remember Barking?

Stick to trying to understand the suburbs of Melbourne, Boaz, and stop pretending to insights into foreign places that you have never visited, and which will forever remain a mystery to you.

Pericles,
Your multicultural relativism compels you to draw an equivalence between Jewish law and Sharia law where there is none.
Try actually reading the link:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf
Giving just one example:
Sharia law permits a man to beat his wife.
The reality of the situation is that the adjudication of domestic violence disputes will be resolved at the Sharia level because it is held to be superior to English law and, furthermore, the woman dare not risk the community ostracism resulting from her appealing to the British system.
To declare that this won't happen because Sharia law is de jure subject to English law is to bury one's head in the sand.

The Cantle Report... read it and weep Pericles.

http://www.oldham.gov.uk/cantle-review-final-report.pdf

Try page 31 for a start.

And 'ere' ya go Perilous..

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/11/Burnleytaskforce.pdf

try 2.2 'Why did it happen'.....

[Deleted for abuse]

(I'm trying to be both true and entertaining here.. don't get yourself in too much of a knot ok)

Your fatal flaw in debating with me is that you always assume (wrongly) that my opinions are just that.. *mine*.. there is usually quite a bit of reading of original sources in what I say.. and this includes my comments "Islamic"

I have just deleted comments for abuse in an earlier post in this thread. This is a general warning that the next person to be overly aggressive will be suspended. You cannot pretend that your post is not aggressive merely by putting a smiley in it.

The thing is, Proxy, that I can spot the difference between a voluntary system of adjudication on civil matters, conducted between members of the same religion, and "establishing a global Islamic caliphate".

I'm not sure that you can.

>>Your multicultural relativism compels you to draw an equivalence between Jewish law and Sharia law where there is none.<<

Not the laws, Proxy. That's just being wilfully obtuse.

The equivalence is in the process of adjudication. The fact that they are adjudicating against a different set of religious values is not relevant here. I would have thought, that is obvious.

>>The reality of the situation is that the adjudication of domestic violence disputes will be resolved at the Sharia level<<

Not at all. The reality of the situation is that if the actions contravene relevant UK laws, the crime will be tried in UK courts. If, on the other hand, they do not, and those involved voluntarily accept the ruling of their co-religionists, what business is it of yours?

The key here is that you are mistaking a voluntarily entered-into administrative process for a replacement of the law of the land.

It quite specifically is not the case. And attempting to portray it as such is unnecessarily inflammatory.

>>...the woman dare not risk the community ostracism resulting from her appealing to the British system. To declare that this won't happen because Sharia law is de jure subject to English law is to bury one's head in the sand.<<

Domestic violence is not a uniquely religious issue, Proxy. So of course it will happen. Check your local women's hostel. You will find many painful stories - with zero religious connections - that for one reason or another haven't sought the protection of our Australian laws.

Your case rests entirely on painting the worst possible picture, and viewing it through the lens of your religious bias. To me, that is gratuitously insulting, to all concerned.

You're all over the shop Pericles.
Nobody is suggesting that only Muslims beat their wives.
The facts being related are that the Koran and hence Sharia law sanctions wife-beating.
This is beyond dispute, if we are allowed to debate this at an evidentiary level.
What is harder to demonstrate empirically but is supported by masses of anecdotal evidence, and which should be brought out into the open, is that Islamic women will be less likely to have recourse to Western justice in an environment which encourages dispute resolution at the Sharia law level, where wife-beating is sanctioned, where Sharia law is believed to be above Western law and where women who don't do as they're directed by their superiors (any menfolk) are likely to be ostracised or receive more of the same, if not worse.

Dear Proxy,

You claim that sharia law sanctions wife-beating,
and that this is "beyond dispute." Evidence please?

You're inferring that all Muslims interpret
the foundational texts in exactly the same way and
don't relate them to the changing conditions of the
countries in which they live. For example, under
Australian law, wife beating is a crime.

As Prof. Saeed points out, scholars exist in all
Muslim communities, including Australia. The role of
scholars is to interpret the foundational texts and to
relate them to the changing needs of Muslims throughout
the world. These scholars often work individually and
their works are circulated and debated. Some of their
views may be accepted, while others may be rejected by
the broader Muslim community.

It's therefore extremely difficult to contextualise Islam
within Australia and elsewhere as Islam is perceived and
lived in many different ways by Muslims around the world.
One can't put all 1200 million Muslims of the world in
one basket and label them all as "wife-beaters."

I find your arguments somewhat problematic.

Many thanks for these, Boaz

>>The Cantle Report... read it and weep Pericles.<<

I thought the task force report was illuminating, particularly with the "how did it happen" summary:

"That the disturbances were caused originally by criminal acts followed by deliberate attempts to turn the violent acts into racial confrontation."

So, it would appear that there were people in Burnley whose objective it was to stir up trouble between the different racial groups.

Add "different religious groups" to the mix, and I suspect there are such people everywhere.

Even here, in Australia.

Wouldn't you agree, Boaz?.

And on the very next page, we find:

"Burnley does have in its midst a number of people who are committed to racism and the fostering of race hatred. Tragically Burnley is not unique in this respect. Many of Britain’s towns and cities are targeted by the bigoted and dangerous people and right wing organisations who preach prejudice and intolerance."

I wonder who they might be referring to, Boaz.

Could it possibly be your brand-new friend Nick Griffin, and his BNP mates?

You might care to look at the 2010 General Election results for Burnley, too, to get an idea of how Burnley-ites view the troublemakers in their midst - BNP share-of-vote fell 13% since the 2005 election.

What I did gather from the reports - particularly the 2006 Cantle Review - is that the excesses of 2001 (nearly ten years ago now, Boaz; you might like to start updating your database) were addressed, and the community rebuilding continues. Far from falling apart under the weight of racial hatred, they appear to have taken some serious action, the fruits of which will be seen over the next few decades.

My personal take-away from reading both reports (again, my thanks for the references) is that no matter how hard you try to stir up trouble between different segments of the community, whether race, religion or football team, you will only be successful for a very short period of time.

Foxy,
Which is your preference?
A light beating?
A beating?
Or a scourging?

Three translations of Quran 004.034:

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) BEAT them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and SCOURGE them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html

Is that right, Proxy?

>>Nobody is suggesting that only Muslims beat their wives<<

I thought that was precisely what you were suggesting.

Never mind. Are we able to agree for the moment, therefore, that Muslim men are equally as likely as Christians, to beat their wives? Or do you have statistics to the contrary?

My point is that each has recourse to the same law of the land. The law of the land has not been subverted by the existence of either Beth Din, or Sharia tribunals.

You reference, by the way Proxy, was pure propaganda. Short on facts, long on supposition and emotive string-tugging.

But I do agree, purely "for the avoidance of doubt", with one of its recommendations, which is:

"that family arbitration which was not conducted exclusively in accordance with... secular law did not constitute family arbitration, and would not have any legal effect."

(By the way, I have it on very good authority that it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to beat their daughters. I wonder why the Qur'an is silent on this topic?)

>>What are the implications of having a growing percentage of the population whose apparent aim is to implement Sharia Law?<<

None that are particularly noticeable, noteworthy or even remotely concerning.

Now,I don’t know what the *domestic violence* figures are culture v culture, but I rather doubt you'd see the like of this in most other regions!

“It is well-document - and it has been here - that maids in many Middle Eastern countries are horrifically mistreated. Imported from Asian nations, they live in a climate devoid of any legal protection. The lack of legal recourse would not be so bad if the hosting family bothered to treat them with dignity, to treat them as if they are human.
Domestic maids in Lebanon, for instance, are often such victims of abhorrent abuse - beatings, overworked, made to sleep in the balcony, ect... - that they often resort at alarming rates of committing suicide to escape the abuse.”
http://marcovilla.instablogs.com/entry/maids-in-kuwait-seek-refugee/

“The New York-based organisation Human Rights Watch has called on Saudi Arabia to do more to protect Asian domestic workers from mistreatment.
It says some cases amount to slavery, with employers going unpunished for withholding wages, forced confinement, or physical and sexual violence.
HRW says some workers are imprisoned or lashed on spurious charges such as theft, adultery or witchcraft.
Thousands take shelter with the Social Affairs ministry or foreign embassies.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7495660.stm

“Little attention is paid to the working or living conditions of these workers, either physical or emotional, and the little research that has been conducted has suggested that abuse of these female workers is widespread and their legal options are severely limited. They rarely receive coverage in the Arabic press, and investigations by journalists are not conducted in the popular press”
http://www.aelme.org/lebanon-syria-sri-lankan-maids-abuse

Some of the offending countries are rich and some are poor --but they all share a common heritage.

Dear Proxy,

Giving us selected quotes actually doesn't
address the problem. It's like quoting
from any Holy Book selectively. Furthermore
there are Muslims whose commitment to Islam
varies, especially amongst the younger
generations. Therefore no one person can
speak on behalf of such a diverse range of
people.

Historically, according to Prof.
Abdullah Saeed, Muslim communities have
accepted and manifested diversity within their
boundaries, and this is even more the case in
Australia. He tells us that the only conclusion
that can be reached - is that religious leadership
in the Australian Muslim community will be diverse
for the foreseeable future.

Frankly, I don't understand your reasons for
consistently portraying Muslims in such a negative
light. Every since you've been posting on this
Forum I have never read anything positive from you
on this topic. I can't help but wonder why that is so?

In life nothing is black or white, there are usually
shades of grey. But you seem unable to modify your
judgements on this topic. Which puzzles me. It's
almost as if you possess a paranoid view of Islam, yet
many groups including Christian churches as well as
journalists and media commentators have come to the
defence of Muslims. They can't all be brushed aside
as being - "leftist socialists," or whatever other
inappropriate label one sees fit to apply. That's
being simplistic and lazy.

Sympathetic voices committed to tolerance, have also
provided alternative views. I guess that in the long
term, it is as Prof. Abdullah Saeed tells us,
"...most likely that cooperation between Muslims and
other sections of the community will continue,
particularly as Muslims become more involved with
inter-faith and cross-cultural dialogues."
As Pro. Saeed says:
"The Muslim population in Australia is small, representing
less than 1.5 per cent of the population, and because of
this it is vulnerable on many fronts and Muslims, as well
as their non-Muslim fellow Australians, will need to find
the resources to correct negative and misleading
portrayals of Islam."

I wish that just once you would have something positive
to say for a change.

Foxy,
I'm positively astounded at how blinkered you are.

<<I have never read anything positive from you
on this topic. I can't help but wonder why that is so?>>
I have never read anything negative from you
on this topic. I can't help but wonder why that is so?

<<Muslims, as well
as their non-Muslim fellow Australians, will need to find
the resources to correct negative and misleading
portrayals of Islam.>>
How can accurate quotes from the Koran, ahadith and sunnah be misleading?
Are they misleading because they conflict with your narrative?
I refuse to partake in the whitewash of a dangerous ideology.
The evidence for the danger of Islam spans the globe and 1400 years of history.
Why is Islam at the root of so much conflict around the world?
Why are the overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities committed by followers of Islam?
Britain is now considered a global hub of terrorism (and we're not talking the EDL).
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/uploads/1278089320islamist_terrorism_preview.pdf
Aren't you even the tiniest bit curious about the connection between Islam and terrorism?
Or don't you see one?
You seem to feel that Islam is anything that any Muslim wants it to be;
most Muslims are peaceful therefore Islam is peaceful.
No Foxy, they happen to be peaceful because they're human.
They're peaceful in spite of Islam.
Churchill best described Islam:
"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

Dear Proxy,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this
one Prox.

Perhaps I am looking at things through rose-coloured
glasses. I've often been accused of doing this.
But that's the way I am. I take people as I find
them. I find it extremely difficult to blame an
entire religion for the atrocities committed by
extremists and radicals among them. I believe that
many Muslims frequently disagree on interpretation
and detail. They have like any other religious
tradition, many theological orientations, legal
schools, and religio-political divisions. They have
their fair share of conservatives, liberals,
traditionalists, modernists, and post-modernists.
Muslims are one of the most ethnically diverse
religious groups in Australia according to Prof.
Saeed. Australian Muslims come from almost all corners
of the world, bringing with them from their home
countries linguistic and cultural differences as well
as their various interpreatations of Islam.

According to Pro. Saeed, complicating this further is the
fact that more than 36 percent of Australian Muslims are
born and bred in this country and their experience of
Islam is within the Australian context - many are
converts to Islam from European and other backgrounds, while
others are second, third and even fourth generation Muslim
Australians for whom there in no other "home."

Therefore generalisations and overly simplistic statements
which may or may not apply to all Australian Muslims I
find, as I said before - problematic. If that in your
opinion is hard to understand, well Prox. that's
something I'll have to learn to live with.

See you on another thread - for me at least, this one
has run it's course and I've said what I wanted to say.
I don't see the point in repeating myself.
I hope you'll understand. I genuinely don't want to
argue any further, and I wish you all the best.

Foxy,
<<I take people as I find them.>>
That’s all very well but it’s no basis for analysis of an ideology.
You’ve met three nice Muslims therefore Islam is a religion of peace?

<<I find it extremely difficult to blame an
entire religion for the atrocities committed by
extremists and radicals among them.>>
When those extremists and radicals consistently and correctly cite their religion to justify their atrocities does it not cause you to reflect on the nature of that religion? To dig deeper?

<< They have like any other religious
tradition, many theological orientations, legal
schools, and religio-political divisions. >>
Which of their “many legal schools” teaches that Sharia law is optional?
Which of their “many legal schools” teaches that Sharia law is subordinate to Western law?

<< Muslims are one of the most ethnically diverse
religious groups in Australia according to Prof. Saeed. >>
This sounds great because, too you, “ethnically diverse” is a warm and fuzzy buzz phrase.
However, it says absolutely nothing at all about Islam.
It merely reflects this country’s open door immigration policy, which has brought into Australia Muslims from many different countries so that they all happen to be here.
It emphatically does not imply that “Islam accepts diversity”, whether Islam does or not.

<< Historically, Muslim communities have
accepted and manifested diversity within their
boundaries>>
Which of the main branches of Islam do you personally consider the most diverse?
The Sunnis or the Shiites?
It’s funny that you see diversity where history shows internecine warfare.
What happens in your mind when you see news reports that Coptic Christians are being persecuted in Egypt, churches being burnt in Indonesia, seven Bahai leaders being jailed for twenty years in Iran or Ahmadiyya Muslims being outlawed in Pakistan?
Does that say diversity to you?
Could Prof. Abdullah Saeed possibly be using buzzwords that resonate with his intended audience?

Prof. Abdullah Saeed may well be genuine.
I hope he is.
However, what he says cannot obscure what is patently clear to see for those who able to step out of their own mindset.

With your last reference - for which thanks, Proxy - you have managed to bring the argument full circle.

>>Britain is now considered a global hub of terrorism<<

The report you cite is indeed comprehensive.

But it deals exclusively with terrorism.

Nobody that I know supports terrorism. But your original question was whether we should be concerned - not about terrorists, but about the activities of peaceful Muslims.

>>The non-terrorists seek global Islam by non-violent means... Should we welcome Islamic organisations who ostensibly adopt the non-violent strategy?<<

In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.

Your most recent post underlines this.

>>...extremists and radicals consistently and correctly cite their religion to justify their atrocities... you see diversity where history shows internecine warfare... Coptic Christians are being persecuted in Egypt, churches being burnt in Indonesia, seven Bahai leaders being jailed for twenty years in Iran... Ahmadiyya Muslims being outlawed in Pakistan<<

And this quote, most of all.

>>You’ve met three nice Muslims therefore Islam is a religion of peace?<<

Would it be equally fair to say that you've discovered a tiny minority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are terrorists, therefore you assume that they all are?

Dear Proxy,

You accuse others of not being able to step
out of their "mindset," but you seem incapable
of doing it yourself, even briefly.

And, therefore all that's happening here is
we are not communicating, but merely talking
across each other, which is pointless.
As I've said, you're entitled to your opinion,
as I am to mine. You asked about non-violent
Muslims and should they be an issue for Australia.
I tried to address that question. I presumed that
you were genuinely interested in the opinions of
others, not merely in those of posters who agreed
with you. Perhaps you should have made that clear
at the start of this thread.

Anyway, I don't see the point in continuing this
discussion, as I stated earlier-for me it's run
its course.

Pericles,

<<In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.>>

No Pericles,
my intention is to
"conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified"
as sharing the same end-goals as the terrorists.
Then I ask,
should we as a society tolerate those who have the end-goal
of establishing the supremacy of their 7th century ideology?

I continue to be amazed at how shallow is the understanding of many commenters on this issue.

Foxy... killer cheekbones will not gain you any sympathy when you espouse weak argument.

"I take people as I find them"...of course you do Foxy as to most of us... the issue here is not about 'people'...it's about the essence of a religion, which at it's core.. permits in unmistakable terms.. unambiguously, that a man can beat his wife if he suspects her of bad conduct.

It is not a 'verse plucked out' at random.. how many video's does a person need of Imams explaining this verse ... before folk 'get' that this is an essential and central part of the religion itself ?

Pericles tries to relate this matter to 'generalized statistics'

A-gain..he is not 'getting' the faith aspect, but tries to grasp this through atheistic secular eyes.

(Pericles) "Never mind. Are we able to agree for the moment, therefore, that Muslim men are equally as likely as Christians, to beat their wives? Or do you have statistics to the contrary?"

COMMENT

PERSON A: (Non Muslim) "Will I or wont I ..whack my wife for what I consider misconduct? hmmm ok.. the law would prohibit me, she might complain to the police.. or any of a number of possibilites.

PERSON B: (Muslim in Egypt) "I suspect my wife of misconduct.. the Quran allows me to a) Isolate her, b) Refuse to sleep with her c) Beat her....so... I'll try each one and finally if she does'nt shape up..or..if my suspicions are not asuaged..I'll whack her and the police won't touch me because we live in a Muslim society, and Sharia law allows me to beat her.

Statistics Pericles ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

The issue really should be.. "Does Islam teach that a man may beat his wife"? plain and simple.. does it...or doesn't it?

How hard is this? Seems too hard for the.....(insert appropriate descripto's)

The more astonishing thing is.. 'who' in this world would defend it?

The only way some of you folks can rationalize this is by simple denial.... correct ?

One more for Pericles:

//In the course of the discussion here it has become clear that your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism.//

No Pericles.. Proxy is not saying that.

He IS saying that the "objective" of both groups is the same.

If I may quote the Quran here.. as it seems appropriate:

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Now..whether you substitute 'peacefully struggle toward' or.. 'fight with weapons' for 'fight' at the beginning.. the destination is abundantly clear

"Until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued"

Anyone who knows the first thing about Islam, will know this.

The 'moderates' will emphasize "through peoples choice".. the radicals "whether you like it or not"

But if you put your thinking cap on.. who would 'choose' to be subservient to another's religion ?

That's hardly a cogent defence, Proxy.

>>my intention is to "conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified" as sharing the same end-goals as the terrorists.<<

How is that different from:

"your intention is to conflate the two groups in people's minds, so that the "peaceful" group is firmly identified with terrorism."

Adding a few words here and there doesn't reduce the clarity of your intent.

>>Then I ask, should we as a society tolerate those who have the end-goal of establishing the supremacy of their 7th century ideology?<<

The assumption that you make is that the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are intent on "establishing their supremacy".

You provide no more evidence of this than some excerpts from their scriptures that we know, and acknowledge, guide the terrorist factions.

By a convenient transference, you then say that "all Muslims must believe this". Which is what I meant when I pointed out your attempts to tar them all with the same brush of terrorism.

I can absolutely assure you that not a single one of the Muslims of my acquaintance has a) any interest in blowing you up, but, more importantly b) the remotest interest in establishing a Caliphate.

They are perfectly content to raise their families and remain model Australian citizens, without feeling the overwhelming urge that you ascribe to them, of converting the remaining 98.2% of us to Islam.

They present no threat to you, Proxy.

Why are you so afraid of them?

Dear AGIR,

You refer to "killer cheekbones?"
Yours or mine?
And I agree, they will not win
any debate - but then in
any debate or discussion
amongst intelligent people - resorting
to personal inferences indicates
intellectual bankruptcy, and a lost
argument. You must stop doing that, if
you want to have any credibility.
References to "fox- holes," "killer-cheekbones"
"socialist lefties," et cetera, doesn't excuse your
selective cherry-picking of verses in the
Qur'an that are open to interpretation - and
are considered controversial by many Muslims,
as the Prophet himself forbade the beating of
of any woman ("Never beat God's handmaidens")
and many of the greatest medieval scholars
were of the opinion that physical disciplining
should be a symbolic measure only.

Both Traditionalist and neo-Modernist men and women
take the view, according to Prof. Saeed, that domestic
violence has no place in Islam.

But you go on believing and arguing whatever you want.
It's becoming of little concern to me, and other posters,
on this Forum.

You'd make a great Imam yourself, Boaz.

>>how many video's does a person need of Imams explaining this verse ... before folk 'get' that this is an essential and central part of the religion itself ?<<

The part that you conveniently ignore, of course, is that the vast majority of the tiny minority of Australians who are Muslims, wouldn't dream of wasting their time watching extremist Imams on YouTube.

They may be the intended audience, but I would be prepared to wager that these videos are predominantly watched by fearful Christians, intent on feeding their own prejudices.

>>The issue really should be.. "Does Islam teach that a man may beat his wife"? plain and simple.. does it...or doesn't it?<<

Sorry, but in practical terms, the issue is as I stated it: Muslim men are equally as likely as Christians, to beat their wives.

It is a fact of life that not every religious person insists on the "letter of the law", whether set down by Moses, Jesus or Mohammed. They accept the guidelines, of course, but pick and choose the small print.

It is a fact of life, as you well know, that even Christians choose to ignore those aspects of their own scriptures that they find uncomfortable, or inconvenient.

>>The only way some of you folks can rationalize this is by simple denial.... correct ?<<

Boaz, we live in Australia, under Australian law. There is nothing to "rationalize", as you put it, in the Australian context. The fact that I disapprove of wife-beating by any person, whatever their religious persuasion - as well, by the way, as I disagree with a father inflicting corporal punishment on his fifteen-year-old daughter - puts me firmly on right the side of the law.

Foxy,
For cherry-picking, you take the cake.
Trouble is, the tree from which you pick has remarkably few cherries.
On the other hand:

(Al-Hadis, Vol. 3, p. 137) Abu Sayeed al-Khodri reported that Mohammed was talking to a group of women when he said, "... I see the majority of you will go to Hell." The women asked why, to which Mohammed responded, "You often curse and are ungrateful to your companions." He then told them they had a basic defect in their nature, to which they responded, "How?" Mohammed answered, "Is not the attestation (knowledge and witness) of a women only worth half of a man's? And that is on account of her short intelligence."

(Al Hadis, Vol. 2, p. 692) Ibn Ma`sud reported from the Messenger of Allah who said, "A woman is like a private part (sex organ). When she goes out (walking) the devil casts a glance at her (in lust)."

(Koran 4:16) If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.

(Koran 4:34) ...As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds and BEAT THEM...

(Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 215) Omar reported from the Holy Prophet who said, "No man shall be questioned for beating his wife."

(Sahih Muslim Hadith Chapter 619) Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are non-muslims),... are all forbidden.

(Al Hadis, Vol. 2. p. 638) Abdur Rahman- b-Salem reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "You should marry virgins, and verily they are sweeter in tongue, more prolific in wombs, and easily satisfied with little."

(Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34) Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them."

What an oddball thought, Boaz.

>>But if you put your thinking cap on.. who would 'choose' to be subservient to another's religion ?<<

The answer is clearly, "nobody".

So why are you so concerned about the impact of fewer than 2% of the population?

Their scriptures may insist on obedience to arcane laws, but do you actually see any widespread evidence of this in Australia?

Do you not, instead, see all around you a bunch of peace-loving, domesticated Australians, with the same level of aspiration for their religion to take over the world, as you have for yours? And given that your lot substantially outnumbers their lot, why all the fear and loathing? To what purpose, and what end?

Your belief that every non-terrorist Muslim hides a seething ambition to turn the world to Islam is, I'm afraid, nothing more than a reflection of your own fear and insecurity.

Dear foxy.... when I saw the quality of your last post I dropped everything and rushed to my other computer to respond :)

Oh.. on the 'Killer Cheekbones' .. that was "your" self description mate.. not mine.

That last post was the closest you have come to actually engaging for a long time.

But in order to see just how questionable sources such as the one you use are(Saeed) let's compare his words.. with something closer to the 'action' in the community of Muhammad?

SAEED. (via Foxy)

"Both Traditionalist and neo-Modernist men and women
take the view, according to Prof. Saeed, that domestic
violence has no place in Islam."

HADITH.(Muslim). (not quoted by Proxy above)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

It's a long one, so I'll paste just the important bit.(Ayesha his wife speaking)

"He (muhammad) said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?"

COMMENT
The important point dear Foxy, is that with this religion, you cannot tie it down to very much because it's all over the place with these rules vs examples.

In all honesty, given the clear fact from the mouth of Muhammad's wife that he STRUCK her and caused her pain.... can you still say that Saeed is doing anything other than simply trying to cover it all up ?

We can leave our private opinions about Islam and Muslims alone, this is just an issue of truth.

Does the Quran specifically permit the beating of a wife? (4.34)

yes.

Did Muhammad himself strike his wife and cause her pain?

yes.

I know we can 'interpret' just about any meaning we wish to into 'scriptures'...but reason and intellectual honesty dictates that our conclusions have at least some connection to the facts.

You presented distant and 'managed' opinion by those who simply wish to avoid any stigma of their religion.
Agree ?

Pericles, you are just looping....

Yes, we are in Australia... just 2%

Yet from that 2% we have had more mayhem, terrorism and attacks (Planned or carried out) than from any other group with HUGELY larger representation population wise. And those attacks were on the basis of a 'holy' book, and they were aimed at 'all of us' unlike our crime gangs wiping each other out.

You know this, really you do, so why loop back to your stockade of "why fear 2%"

Welll....lemme think..

-"bomb the MCG at grandfinal day"
-"Kill as many soldiers at Holsworthy as we can before we are martyred"
-"Blowup various targets around Sydney"

All this from just 2% ....wow.

Forgive my irrationality :)

But even if none of the above had happened, you should know my position well enough by now that it is the 'ideas' I object to, not so much the majority of the people who follow "Just enough to hatch, match and despatch" their community members.

You see Pericles, I've lived this nightmare.. in real life, and if what I experienced from a 'moderate' state is anything to go by, there is plennnnnty to be concerned about with even .01% let alone 2%

Dear Proxy,

I am going to try one last time to explain
something to you and then I'm out of here.

Imagine this:

If what is referred to as Western secular values
are values such as commercialisation of women's
bodies (or, for that matter, men's bodies),
licentiousness, drunkenness, gambling, alcohol,
or drug abuse, extreme individualism,
family breakdowns, disrespect for the law,
sexual harrassment or nudity, it would be unfair to
attribute all of these and similar values to all
Westerners or all Australians and to say that these
are the secular values we cherish and on which
Australian society is based.

Of course there are
those who may cherish these values, and they have
every right to do so, but there are plenty of
others who reject them.

If Muslims reject these values
they are not unique; in fact they would be in
agreement with a significant number of Australians
who practise any number of religions, Christianity
among them. It would be an insult to the large number of
Australians who share with Muslims, Christians, Jews,
Buddhists and others the same abhorrence of some or all
of these values to attribute these values to them.

In Australia, even the most traditionalist Muslims
function perfectly well within Australian society.

Your inference in this thread seems to be that Muslims
want to change the nature of Western liberal society
and convert it to some form of "Islamic theocracy."
This may be the dream of a few Muslims, just like
there are some Christians who dream of "Christianising,"
the world and bringing the "Kingdom of God," to all.
Most, if not all, religious groups have their fair
share of these kind of people.

However, as we've learned
from the history of this country, children of migrants
adopt the ideas, values and institutions of the host
country and become born-and-bred Australians. They relate
to local Australian culture rather than to the culture
of their parents. In fact, the home culture of their
parents can be extremely foreign and difficult to
cope with, especially if that home culture is markedly
different.

Sorry Boaz, I must be reading the wrong newspaper.

>>Yet from that 2% we have had more mayhem, terrorism and attacks (Planned or carried out) than from any other group with HUGELY larger representation population wise...
-"bomb the MCG at grandfinal day"
-"Kill as many soldiers at Holsworthy as we can before we are martyred"
-"Blowup various targets around Sydney"<<

I am really upset that I wasn't told about any of these.

They sound much worse than Hoddle Street, or Port Arthur.

When did they happen?

Foxy,
<<If what is referred to as Western secular values
are values such as commercialisation of women's
bodies, licentiousness, drunkenness, gambling, alcohol,
or drug abuse, extreme individualism,
family breakdowns, disrespect for the law,
sexual harrassment or nudity, it would be unfair to
attribute all of these and similar values to all
Westerners or all Australians and to say that these
are the secular values we cherish and on which
Australian society is based.>>

You seem a trifle confused.

The activities you refer to are behaviours, not values.
They are not written down as perfect examples for all to follow.
They are not codified into law.
They are the unfortunate byproducts of the "Western secular value" of freedom.
As in freedom to make one's own mistakes.

In contrast, Islam prescribes Mohammed’s behaviour as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
Mohammed’s behaviour therefore represents Islamic values.
Furthermore, Islamic values are codified into Sharia law.

You have illustrated perfectly, albeit unwittingly, that we should not draw conclusions on Islam from the behaviour of peace-loving Muslims in exactly the same way that we should not draw conclusions on "Western secular values" from the behaviour of those who engage in the practices you object to.

We can only draw conclusions on “Western secular values” by examining the canon of Western secular law.
Likewise, we can only draw conclusions on Islam by examining Islamic doctrine, which includes the sunnah, ahadith, Koran and Shariah law.

And when we do, it is very disturbing indeed.
Then we have to ask ourselves:
Should people who subscribe to those values be welcomed into this country
when their values stand in such stark contrast to "Western secular values"?

Dear Proxy,

What are the secular values of the
West that Muslims are claimed to despise so much?

If these values are the rule of law, democracy,
human rights, equality, pluralism, a fair go for
all ...

One reason why many Muslims migrate to
the West, is the very existence of these values.

Even though Muslim communities in Australia have
been growing and forming their own unique Australian
identity since the beginning of settlement, your perception
that Islam and Muslims are somehow incapable of adapting
to Australian values and life I can see will remain
unchanged.

Your view is largely based on the idea that
Islam is a religion which is against modernity and
Western values, and therefore Muslims in Australia
are unable to adapt to their host culture.
This you believe despite all the evidence to the contrary.

In Australia, Muslims participate in the election of the
government (and they don't seem to have a moral objection
to voting for a non-Muslim), they interact with various
institutions within the society, live next door to
people who are not Muslim, shop at supermarkets or in stores
that are run by non-Muslims, work for non-Muslims,
employ non-Muslims in their businesses, and earn their
livelihood just like other ordinary Australians do.

Muslims don't seem to hold demonstrations in Australian
cities to get rid of bars, nighclubs, brothels,
massage parlours, casinos, breweries and wineries, discos,
nudist beaches or the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
Muslims don't distribute flyers calling for an uprising
against such things. They don't preach on internet
Forums against other religions. Like many other Australians,
they may not agree with things, but they don't try to
get rid of them either.

They have adopted the view that Australia is a place where
different people from different backgrounds, religious
traditions and belief systems have different views on
these issues. Most Muslims in Australia seem to have
adopted the approach of "live and let live," it doesn't
appear to be the Muslim's duty to change Australian
society. However, that's obviously not the way you
see things.

There's nothing else left to say.

Beautifully put, Foxy.

I tips me lid.

Pericles

again, you are equating the insane acts of isolated individuals who did what they did without reference to or inspiration from a 'Holy Book'.

They did what they did alone...not in planned concert with others who shared the same ideology.

If you can't see the difference between them.. well.. you fill in the blanks.

In the case of BenBrika and the various others.. they ALL shared the same ideological foundation.

Dear Foxy... you went to considerable lengths to berate Proxy and "explain" to him, but you failed to justly confront the clear evidence I presented which should by all reason, at least cause you some concern over your reliance on Saeed as a source about Islam.

The most you can say about him is that "He" holds a view xyz about Islamic belief and practice. But does that accord with the history and concensus of Islamic scholars? If so, which ones, what camp are they in...Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali, or Hanifi It's a question which bears some examination. Do you know what those names refer to?

The other question always relevant to this kind of discussion is this "Are those Muslim scholars who sound like they are 'peaceful, conciliatory and moderate' domiciled in a Western Country?
Do they owe their livelihood to an academic or governmental institution which would be threatened if they took a harder line?

They are all important factors in understanding the bigger truth of a movement.

On the issue of wife beating, Pericles.... I've yet to see scholarly video's or lectures from mysoginistic Westerners seeking to explain exactly how to do this and the ideological basis for it.

Is there even ONE video by a Christian Theologian explaining the limits and methods of beating your wife?

Here is an interestng link.. "20 reasons to abandon Christianity"

Funny..not one of those 20 reasons is "Christianity permits men to beat their wives"

Dear Pericles,

Thank You for your kind words - however the full credit
belongs to Prof. Abdullah Saeed, whose book,
"Islam in Australia," is one from which I benefited
enormously.

Prof. Saeed attempted to show the pragmatism of
Australian Muslims, their efforts to be part of the
Australian society, and their attempts to negotiate some
of the challenges they face as Muslims. Througout the
book Prof. Saeed emphasies the diversity that exists
among Muslims. Prof. Saeed was asked by John Iremonger
of Allen and Unwin to write a short accessible book
on Islam with a high degree of emphasis on Islam as lived
in Australia, a book that would explain the basic
beliefs, values and institutions of Islam while highlighting
the experience of Muslims in Australia.

I felt that this work was appropriate to be used in this
thread considering the questions Proxy asked in his opening
post regarding Muslims and Australia.

The other sources that also deserve credit are -
James Jupp's, "The Australian People," (esp. Chapter 1),
Waleed Aly's, "People Like Us," Shahram Akbarzadeh,
"Muslim Communities in Australia," and a few others.

"Islam" and "Muslim" have become problematic labels for
a small but vocal segment of Australian society. That's
why I suppose some Muslims feel they have to explain what
Islam means to them, and particularly in the context of
Australian life. They feel that they have to demystify
concepts like "jihad," and to try to
convince an Australian audience that Islam itself is not to
blame for the atrocities committed by extremists and radicals
among them.

Again, Thanks for your kind words and understanding.
I enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts as well.
See you on another thread.

Errrr, I think you may have missed the point, Boaz. Again.

>>you are equating the insane acts of isolated individuals who did what they did without reference to or inspiration from a 'Holy Book'<<

I was simply pointing out examples of massacres that have occurred in Australia. You provided examples of massacres that did not occur.

As you would say, if you can't see the difference between them.. well.. you fill in the blanks.

>>On the issue of wife beating, Pericles.... I've yet to see scholarly video's or lectures from mysoginistic Westerners seeking to explain exactly how to do this and the ideological basis for it.<<

Should we believe, then, that Christians beat their wives for no reason at all?

Hardly.

So maybe you can pick the ethics out of this for me:

One man beats his wife in the belief that his religion permits it; another beats his wife, knowing that his religion frowns upon it; and a third beats his wife, "making up the rules as he goes along".

Which one is "justified"?

Because in each case, someone gets beaten. Which in my book, is unforgiveable.

Incidentally, which persona did you adopt when inflicting corporal punishment on your fifteen-year-old daughter?

I still can't get over the fact that you bragged about it on this forum.

Foxy,
There is really no point communicating with you.
You confuse unsavoury behaviours with "Western secular values".
Then you don't seem to comprehend when I point out the difference.
You assume, with no basis, that "Western secular values" are what attracted Muslims here.
Nothing to do with financial opportunity, I guess.
You cherry-pick one "positive" verse "Never beat God's handmaidens"
(with no attribution)
yet studiously ignore the copious, contradictory, referenced quotes.
[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended]

The Holy Quran on tolerance of diversity:

Quran 048.029

YUSUFALI: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers,
(but) compassionate amongst each other.

PICKTHAL: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.

SHAKIR: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves;