@poirot

what is wrong with my comments?
i have nothing against halal preferences or prayers
that is what they choose and i am ok with that

my point is do not impose your lifestyle on others
have your prayers at home and not blare it over the neighbourhood
pray at home and in the religious buildings not on the streets

eat what you want or dont eat what you want
just do not demand i must set aside 2 tables in my restaurant to cater to non pork eaters

you got a problem with that?

The real point of discussion should be that the Koran cannot be reinterperated.
IT CANNOT BE REVIEWED.

The Bible was reinterperated and "updated" in the new testament.
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" !

Can a tolerant society tolerate intolerance ?
Why is it that in "western" countries, gangs of moslem youths and men
only ever gangrape non moslem women ?
Because the Koran considers them to be prostitutes.

It is the rigidity of the Koran that is the source of the problems everywhere the moslems arrive.
Is there even ONE country that is not having problems with moslem
immigrants ?

Yes, OK Japan.

Platypus, still just polemic, no answer to my simple questions.

Dear me, some might suggest you're simply not up to the task of thinking for yourself. Not me, of course, I'm sure you are and that you know you don't like the answers so you're trying to ignore the questions.

How sad.

Banjo, there are several versions of the Quran and then there are the mystic and revelatory texts of the Sufis and others.

I'm afraid you're speaking through your trousers.

Banjo: Show me please how to tell the difference".

Easy, 0ne individual Muslim, Moderate.
Three Muslims together, Radical.

Poirot: Aren't you the guy who, regarding your children in another thread, proudly proclaims:

Deflection. Nothing to do with the discussion. At it again poirot, that was quick.

Platapus1900: I am afraid Islam is a theocracy as it is more than a faith it is a political ideology aimed at world dominance.

Right on the money. Is he or is he not correct poirot?

Antiseptic: Are people in Islamic countries, on the whole, happier or less happy than those in secular ones with comparable economic conditions?

I will answer in the negative here. Primarily because these people flee to the West for a better Economic outcome for themselves. There is a big discrepancy between the haves & the have nots in the Middle East.

Anti: Is social justice better or worse? I will answer in the negative here. Their Laws & the excecution of those Laws are Medievil in practise.

Anti: Are the poor more excluded from social participation or less?

I will answer in the negative here because of the great discrepancy in wealth. This would tend to create a lack of opportunity for someone who is poor or female. Lack of academic education (other than the Koran) for the poor & females would also lead to a lack of Social participation.

There you have it.

Anti: Platypus, who said Jayb wasn't entitled to his views? I simply pointed out they're immoderate.

Possibly, slightly immoderate but nowhere near radical. I'm not threatening to blow anyone up because they don't like my views.

I would like to discuss my views with various people but some of them do anything rather than have a REAL discussion of the pros & cons of the Secular verses the Therocratic.

Cohanite: Australia too will experience an intensification of Muslim demand for sharia as the number of Muslims in Australia increases.

I'm afraid you are on the money here.

Antiseptic you say:

"nobody has tried to answer them, preferring to simply reiterate a bigoted anti-Islamic POV that assumes secularity is inherently better without addressing why."

You reveal your prejudices there; but let me answer that question of why a secular society is best. A secular society is best because it prescribes NO ONE RELIGION; as a result all religious beliefs are permissible.

At this stage we have Islam trying to usurp that framework and prescribe its beliefs.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

Getting back to my examples of why Lea-Henry is wrong in assuming change must be organic, from within Islam.

Secondly the only example of a nation with a majority Muslim population which did not operate under sharia has been Turkey. Ataturk established a vigorous secular republic where that separation of religion and state was enforced by a strong, independent military. In other words Islam was held at bay by the imperialistic methodology of an independent armed force. In recent times we have seen the bulwark of the military eroded by the Islamist president Erdogan who seeks to once again conflate religion and state under sharia.

Thirdly when prominent Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie criticise their religion they are immediately threatened with death. If formidable people like Rushdie and Ali are persecuted how can the average Muslim stand up and exercise a ‘moderate’ voice from within Islam?

Fourthly, Islam is not a ‘moderate’ or even a peaceful religion. The Koran is full of invocations for Muslims to kill non-believers. The Koran says The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies [4:95-101]. Arguments which point to similar texts in the Old Testament and which make historical comparisons are simply irrelevant. Other religions do not want to introduce their equivalent of sharia law or have violence committed on their behalf.

I'll conclude in a final post.