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;