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"