>>Hirsi Ali's comments on the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".

They (prophets) are not just like you and me, they have special status - you're supposed to show respect,">>

That's the view of Nada Roude of the NSW Islamic Council as quoted in The Australian of 29 May 2007.

See:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21811256-16947,00.html

Well no, actually in a free society Muhammed is fair game as is Jesus, Moses, Karl Marx and Buddha. We are under no obligation to show respect to Muhammed. Muhammed is no more a "no-go-zone" than John Howard.

Worryingly, Ms Roude is quoted as saying:

"The reaction from the community is likely to be quite worrying."

Is that a threat?

Why should we be worried about the reaction from "the community?"

According to The Australian:

>>She [Hirsan Ali] has two public functions at the Sydney Writers Festival: a discussion on Saturday and the festival's closing address on Sunday. Both are sell-outs.>>

Worryingly there are indications that Islam is becoming less, not more, tolerant. In Malaysia the courts have rejected the plea of Lina Joy to be recognised as a Christian. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6669857,00.html

"Worryingly there are indications that Islam is becoming less, not more, tolerant."

A bit like the Western world, then.

To be honest, the best thing in the world right now would be for Muslim people to be less tolerant - of anachronistic, disgusting, leaders like Sheikh Hilaly.

Sorry, title should be:

"Is Muhammad a no-go-zone"

I'm a bit worried about the inclusion of John Howard in this illustrious company...

>>Muhammed is fair game as is Jesus, Moses, Karl Marx and Buddha. We are under no obligation to show respect to Muhammed. Muhammed is no more a "no-go-zone" than John Howard<<

Putting that imagery aside for a moment, the writer should be aware that blasphemy laws still exist around the world. In Maryland, it is still on the statute books that it is an offence if "any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof...", which is pretty blunt.

I am of the opinion that free speech should be the deciding factor until it crosses the line of the law of the land.

I have no idea whether we have blasphemy laws in Australia. If we do, I would suppose them to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.

Pericles

I'm reasonably certain that Maryland's blasphemy laws would not survive a court challenge. The US Supreme Court has almost always come down on the side of free speech.

You write:

>>I am of the opinion that free speech should be the deciding factor until it crosses the line of the law of the land.>>

That begs the question.

What SHOULD the law of the land be?

Free speech is the most fundamental of all civil liberties. If we cannot discuss matters freely then all our other civil liberties will vanish.

To be meaningful free speech must include the right to attack ANY belief system. And, to put it bluntly, I see no reason why the words and deeds of a seventh century so-called prophet should be immune.

Pericles.. yes.. we do have blasphemy laws still on our books, but they only relate to the Church of England. If I recall correctly, if one is a member of the CofE.. to blaspheme God is an offense.

I enquired about this in connection with the "Da Gospel according to Ali G" EOC complaint I raised.

Just touching on the "Judao Christian" think raised by Ifran, I suspect one of the reasons for making this point to citizens is that some of them will come here and feel it is their own religion which should be protected, and that its 'open season' on Christianity.

The Muslim reaction to negative statements about Mohammad is the classic example. It should also be realized that to them, proclaiming Christ as the Son of God is EQUALLY if not MORE offensive.

The 'JudaoChristian' emphasis in the citizenship test is actually wayyyyy too late. Far better to carefully outline to Muslim would be migrants that "THIS... is now it works in Australia"
1/ Islam and Mohammad can be criticized by anyone, and even ridiculed.
2/ Spefici Islamic laws/practices are not acceptable in Australia
-Wife beating.
-Arranged marriages.
-Honour killings.
-Raping of girls with no head covering.

They should be given a test as follows:

-The hadith about MOhammad mutilating the bodies of prisoners should be read to them. Then they are asked "Do you approve of mutilating prisoners as punishment"?
-Then, the hadith about Mohammad marrying 6 yr old Ayesha should be read to them and the question "Do you approve of 50+ yr old men marrying 6 yr old girls and having sex with them at 9"?

and so on. They should then sign a conditional visa which stipulates that if they seek to CHANGE Australian law TOWARDS such values, then their citizenship will be revoked.

Now Pericles, you should be able to think up some juicy questions to aim at Christians now right ? :)

Arguing that chickenpox is better than smallpox is no reason to promote the spread of chickenpox.

Some mind-controlling diseases are more virulent than others and they mostly infect the young. Symptoms may include fever, delusions, speaking in tongues and sudden explosive combustion in the most extreme cases.

Now, the only way to become resistant to these infections is to have a good inoculation of reason. Exposure to these diseases should preferably be limited to adults, as children's immune systems are too immature to fight of infection.

Immune systems can all be strengthened by exposure (free speech), but only if proper reason is applied at the same time. Let them come.

Hmm interesting

I believe some people forget things. We read based on others opinions rather than facts, and go emotional upon what we believe. Personally I believe any ones belief should be respected even if it goes against your own.

If you can't respect it at least tolerate it. I can respect the belief of Muhammad being a messenger/prophet no problem just as I would respect the belief of Jesus. I'll criticise the religion only based on the texts not the people, and even then I'd need to understand the text before it’s criticised. Because people are just weaklings how many good people is there out there? I think it has its limits.

Lot's of things that are so called seen as "islamic" are actually cultural practice and not islamic. For example wife beating, arranged marriages, honor killing, and raping of any girl be it with or without head covering. All that is just rubbish.

Besides if it isn’t your own religion and you haven't read their books how can you genuinely say that "this is the truth of their religion because so and so said so".

Bugsy.. I feel the same about the Soviet Union indoctrinating a generation of Russian Childrn into overt_Atheism. Not just telling them 'There is no God' but encouraging them to ridicule those who DO believe that.
It works both ways mate. But, given the examples you mentioned, yes.. I tend to agree with you believe it or not. The mentality behind the 'happy clapping/speaking in toungues/Oh brother..I have a word of knowledge for you from the Lord" is to my mind, quite unbibilical.
You may well criticize our belief in the resurrection, but that such a belief is 'unreasonable' ? No way hosay :)

ABCD
Do you respect the now dead Pablo Escobar? No?...why? maybe because he was a murderer, drug dealer and a man who enjoyed sex with underage girls?

Now.. would you respect ANY murderer who had sex with underage girls?
Or a man who claimed specific principles of 'defensive' fighting ONLY, but then who murders a political opponent who has not as yet laid a finger on him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf please read this.

I have 'respect' for Buddha, because while he was wrong, he was sincerely wrong. I have no respect for Mohammed. ZERO.
-Murdered
-Tortured and mutilated people.
-Sex with underage girl.
-Lied/betrayed (Leaders of Khaybar Jews.."Come...talk peace" then ambushed them on the way, killing them all)

As a figure of history, no one is more deserving of respect than Christ Jesus who died on our behalf, but that...was friday, Sunnnndays a comin as they say..you can't keep a good man down :)
Pastor Tony Campolo is not one I agree with on all things, but he sure does rattle the cage like here:

["I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh_t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh_t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."]

Have a listen to his "Its friday but Sunday is comin" message.
http://www.tonycampolo.org/media_archive.php its worth a listen.

Oh dear, Boaz, they ridiculed people who believed in God? Really? Gee, that must have hurt a lot, oh those poor children.

Those commies were a bunch of /b/tards weren't they? Ridicule, now why didn't I think of that?

I’m talking about spiritual religious beliefs, anything that isn’t just I wouldn’t respect but in some cases you just have to tolerate. For example if you have neighbours who rev a car all night long or a noisy or whatever, you’d need to tolerate it. Or if someone was a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist that’s their choice and you’d need to tolerate it doesn’t mean you need to accept their belief.

The claims you make a pretty big. Who did “he” murder? Who did he torture and mutilate? Sex with underage girl? who, his wife? When the agreement was made she was a young age besides marriage doesn’t mean sexual intercourse. And if you knew some history of Islam you’d know she was older when she got married. Either way different times different practices 30-40 yrs ago people used to get married young, it was the norm. BTW how is he a liar?

So what about this Ka`b he was a Jewish tribe leader that fought against Muhammad why wouldn’t he kill him? He didn’t even kill him his “companions” did besides they were after him from the battles. Maybe if you’re a Jew you’d feel so emotional about it. Ka`b wasn’t such a nice guy either though what significance is Ka`b to you? This is one example of one thing which isn’t even anything.

Look at Howard and Bush they send our troops overseas and get them killed, when our Aussie troops should be back at home. Should we start calling them evil?

You seem like a pessimist or maybe even sadistic just purposing looking for the wrong in people.

Jesus teaches us to love one another not hate.

No one is perfect, remember that

abcd,

Muhammed married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her at age 9. My understanding is that was unusually young even by the standards of 7th century Arabia.

However that is not my point.

My point is purely that Muhammed is no more a "no-go-zone" than John Howard. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is within her rights to say whatever she likes about Muhammed or about Islam generally. If Nada Roude of the NSW Islamic Council wants to live in Australia she had better get used to that just as Australian Christians have had to get used to having their religion trashed.

Do you, abcd, think that religions, or religious figures, deserve some sort of special protection?

ABCD your response says it all mate....

"So what about this Ka`b he was a Jewish tribe leader that fought against Muhammad why wouldn’t he kill him?"

You see.. THAT is the problem we have with Islam (and no, I'm not a Jew..I'm an evangelical Christian of Scottish/English ancestry)

To you..(and many Muslims) 'Political Assasination' is 'so what'..... its just another day at the office.

You say Ka'b was:
"A tribal leader who fought against Mohammed" ..

lets analyse:
a) Ka'b was upset that mohammad had murdered noble leaders of the Quraysh tribe after the battle of Badr.
b) Ka'b was a poet, who wrote poetry which annoyed Mohammad.
c) Ka'b was making liasons with the Quraysh
e) MOST IMPORTANT.. he had not laid a finger on Mohammad or any Muslims.........

i.e. he was NOT attacking anyone. He was 'stirring'..political agitation.

Then, based on his poetry and political activities, Mohammad asked who will MURDER him... and Mohammad Maslama volunteered.
The went to him by NIGHT and lied to him, then stabbed him repeatedly until the blood drained from his body and he died.

IF THAT is your understanding of surah 2:190etc

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out;

Then YOU are a terrorist in waiting.

You see.. you have demonstrated the 'double standard of convenience' which Muslims hold.

FH "Only defend against attack... don't trasngress"
ABCD "It's ok to murder political enemies who are not attacking"

So, clearly YOU regard simply talking as an attack/invasion ... this means that if someone speaks against Mohammad today, you accept that they can be murdered..
-do you see how dangerous your thinking is ?

I'll be at 55 King street Melbourne at the VCAT courthouse this morning 10:00am with descendants of Ka'b (Jews) and Atheists, and Christians.. do you want to send a hit squad to hunt us down?

Steven
Like I said earlier there is a lot of speculation about the age of Aisha, the age is derived from hadiths. I’ll tell you what I mean, Mohammed first married khadija and during that time they went through battles e.g badr and uhad. To be part of these battles you have to be the age 15 or over any younger and you’d be sent home, Aisha participated in these battles, and Mohammed married her after the battles after his former wife died. So just from that we know she would have to be 15 or over. Anyway that’s another issue the issues isn’t about muslim history.

People can say whatever they like, though why is it that everyone’s speech is limited? Be it a non muslim, and ex muslims or a muslim? It’s when people use offensive bigotry remarks when it’s out of line. Besides half the things Ayaan Hirsi Ali disagrees with were culture issues so I believe she was portraying the muslim community in wrong which gives of the image of the people in that society as stupid ignorant losers. And then that causes discrimination and prejudice. I have Muslims neighbours and they do nothing of that sort.

What do you mean by special protection? If God wills something to be protected it will be protected. No one needs special protection. Why do governments get special protection? Why are they any better than your average Joe on the street? Maybe the same reason religious figures are protected

BOAZ
To me, the story was about a guy who openly said go kill Muslims through his poetry maybe even other means and was on and off through war, so they attacked him. What proof do you have he didn’t lay any finger on anyone? He was a tribe leader. Back then they would lead fights the leader was the best of their armies.

To have the intention to kill someone is just as bad as killing them. Besides this is one account, do you think all people are innocent and perfect? They’re all mankind inevitable to sin. Besides the narration you gave was through wiki and little quote was from Islamic sources so you can’t tell of its authenticity, so the judgment is baseless.

The killers fault for lying not Mohammed’s, everyone is accountable for their own actions.

And no it’s not my understanding read the first line of that surah you posted “fight in the cause of God those who fight you” so it shows you: don’t attack unless someone attacks you, like der! Besides I wouldn’t take bits and pieces and quote them you don’t know what verses were before or after or the context of the whole chapter so you could be taking it out of proportion

It’s not double standards, it’s different understanding, give me proof that Ka`b never killed nor did anything bad and I will say fine your right they did wrong. Truly do you believe humans are Gods? You don’t think a muslim can sin? Why can Christian’s sin and get away with it or even Jews or anyone for that matter and not be put on the spotlight? No sin is justified.

Clearly you see what I do not. That little account shows one thing with empty gaps, not enough information is given to judge whether Ka`b was such an innocent man nor is there enough valid proof of authentic text to prove this

Do you think someone would ask you to murder someone over talks? It’s unjustified. From other character traits and history of Mohammed it clearly doesn’t show that his character was a bad one. I don’t accept his murder nor do I accept his life. Whatever happened was meant to be, God willed it. The reason only God knows. From that little summary I can’t say whether it’s justified or not, simple. I speak for myself so don’t “regard” or make assumptions.

BTW non-muslims lived in the area where Mohammed was/ruling, how come they didn’t get killed?

”I'll be at 55 King street Melbourne at the VCAT courthouse this morning 10:00am with descendants of Ka'b (Jews) and Atheists, and Christians.. do you want to send a hit squad to hunt us down?”

Haha nice sarcasm, sorry I’d have to give it a miss.
Until I can get valid proof of why he was killed and the background of Ka`b and read more history about it, I’ll place judgment, but reading a one sided view is just bias. I said so what because right now I worry about the here and now and future, if you dwell on the past you’re going no where.

And personally I believe everyone has their own philosophy on religion and people practice different to judge a whole community on one thing or something that happened in the pass is just unfair

ABCD Ka'b is just a click away mate..

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/ashraf.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf

I'm saying he was not involved in any direct attack AT THAT TIME.. and this is critical. Muslims claim he was a 'combatant'. I disagree.

Once we accept that "so and so 'A' is talking to so and so 'B' and it seems they are out to get us, so lets KILL them, you on very dangerous territory, because there is no limit to how far you can extend this.

Without a trial... an examination... it is plain murder.

Did they verify in public court the charges against him? were they corroborated by other witnesses? Its not good enough to murder someone on the basis of hearsay. Did Ka'b have a chance to cross examine the hearsay witnesses?

This is a huge black mark on Mohammad, and I'm afraid 'God willed it' is only ok if 'God wills' Iraq to be invaded, Hussein to be hanged, and so on. In other words .. 'God willed it' can be use for ANYthing if you take that approach.

If we can stop Muslim immigration to Australia 'God willed it' :) see ?

This morning I did some fascinating study on the life of Umar.. amazing stuff.. I think Umar was FARRRRR superior to Mohammad morally, and interestingly, he was originally attracted to Islam based on Surah Taha which is probably one of the CLOSEST of all the surah's to the Old Testament, in fact using many of the same words and stories. Then... when his concubine is pointed out by others in his doorway.. he says "She is not permitted to me..she is Allahs property" when in fact the Quran DOES permit her for his sexual use.
Surah 23:5-6 On this issue, Omar shows more restraint than Mohammad.
Omar also outlawed 'temporary marriage' which the Quran allows.4.24

Omar should have embraced Judaism.. his life was more that of a Jew than Muslim. He at least reflected the personal holiness required by Yahweh, rather than the lust of Mohammed and sexual licence of the Quran.

abcd

and all other interested parties,

here is an unambiguous question:

Do you think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia?

I am not asking you about the merits or otherwise of Hirsi Ali's opinions.

I am not asking you whether you believe Hirsi Ali's critique of Islam is fair and accurate or is a load of garbage.

I am not asking for an opinion on Hirsi Ali's character.

I am not asking you about Australian government policy as regards Iraq or anything else.

I am not asking you about John Howard's character.

I am not asking you what you think of Bush or Blair.

I am not asking you about what God will, or will not, protect.

I am not asking about anyone else you think should be barred from Australia.

I am not asking your opinion on capitalism, socialism, Christianity, Islam or disestablishmentarianism.

The question is:

Do you think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia?

This is a question capable of a "yes" or "no" answer as in:

YES, I think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia.

Or:

NO, I do NOT think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia. They should keep her out.

Whatever your answers I hope you will share your reasoning with us.

Do you think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia?

"YES, I think the Australian government should allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to visit Australia."

What an AMAZING coincidence.... and so true

I draw all readers attention to the NUMBER of this discussion about Mohammad..... yes.. really..

The number of the thread also indicates his true status to me.

C.J. you.. and me... in agreement ? :) stone the crows.

Bray ? yep.. he would make a good focal point for a demo.

But of course, Boazy. Mind you, I'd say equally positively:

"YES, I think the Australian government should allow Imam Mahdi Bray to visit Australia."

Speaking of demos, how did you go the other day? Did you get there on time, or did you get lost on the way? Did your sign stay in your back pocket, or did you display it?

CJ.... I ALmost didn't make it. *sigh*.. ratbag kids of today.. :)

I made my way to the train station, there was a train down below waiting.. I jumped on..and....nothing. Doors locked.. no movement.. nothing still.. time ....passses...by.... and I'm beginning to think I'll be late.

Then.. the driver marched towards the front of the train from the rear where he had been 'dealing' with some 'guilded youths' of "Man from Ironbark' ilk.. and then he got on the blower..

"I apologise passengers, these ratbag kids tried to hold up the train till their mates arrived... I want to get you all to work so you can pay your taxes which pay THEM THEIR BL--DY DOLE cheques"... and off we went with many passengers looking rather quizzical.

Being the chatty person I am, after a young student sat down beside me, I enquired about her study and future aspirations. She is doing politics and history and is about to start an assignment on the ....MIDDLE EAST.. welllllll did that get me started! We talked theology,history, Hamas Charter, Orthodox Judaism..Genesis/Bible the lot. Now.. she is educated :)

Arrived a tad late, everyone was inside VCAT court room already, no security at all, met up with 'fellow cultural warriors' ('morons' if ur telling this story :).. we sat through the proceedings, met up outside, displayed a few large signs.. got some public interest.. and choofed off to the nearby pub.. which was CLOSED.. then choofed back .. the blind leading the blind.. finally found a coffeee shop and had a natter... planned our "next exciting move" :)

Tomorrow, 6:00pm Caulfield RSL.. dinner with team, then on to Beth Weisman synagogue for a viewing of 'Obsession'.. see you there mate.
7.00pm.

I wouldn't call you "cultural warriors" morons necessarily, just seriously misguided and obsessed. Sounds like you had a good day though. I'm happy for you. Will you and your mates be wearing black shirts or brown at Caulfield?

I had a good day too - chopping wood and carrying water, as it were :)

BOAZ
I don’t have time to read the links (I will have a read later) though I will comment they aren’t from Islamic sources the story is based on hadiths which are considered weak. So whether this event happened or not is unknown.

Without a trail hah, you think they had trails back then, I’m sure they had treaties back then also examination? you don’t even know if there was any examination. Like I said there are gaps in the story and his life, sources from non Islamic sources is just reading a bias anti Islamic site which isn’t justified.

They didn’t have public courts as such. Bases on hearsay, I don’t believe such a man would kills someone for the sake of it, it makes no sense, especially as his role, and guess what if he did he went against his own message so that would be contradictory so the story isn’t complete. I hear one side not another, the judgment that is been made is bias.

It’s not a huge black mark, because you have examined the issue on one side, how can a judge be just if he only hears one side of the story? So the mark can’t be placed until proven guilty.

And guess what God wills everything (to my belief), so yes God did will that Iraq will be invaded etc, etc. It’s happening for a reason, it’s a sign for all of us.

You could stop muslims from immigration but what purpose is that, you clearly show your hatred and malice towards the group, kinda discriminatory don’t you think? If people wanted to become muslim they could convert, what about Aussie born/practicing muslims you can’t stop them from being muslim.

Doing some fascinating study is nothing, people dedicate their lives to study you probably know an atoms worth of knowledge about Islam and the companions even the religion itself

The Quran never allowed “temporary marriage” read the verse you mentioned no where does it mention temporary marriages

"4:24 And forbidden to you are all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess through wedlock: this is God's ordinance, binding upon you. But lawful to you are all women beyond these, for you to seek out, offering them of your possessions, taking them in honest wedlock, and not in fornication. And unto those with whom you desire to enjoy marriage, you shall give the dowers due to them; but you will incur no sin if, after [having agreed upon] this lawful due, you freely agree with one another upon anything else: behold, God is indeed all-knowing, wise."

It’s basically saying you can’t marry someone who is married, unless it’s your wife. Otherwise marry a women who isn’t married and be just and don’t fornicate.

beside there is a system placed for marriage you can’t just go off having sex with any girl you please just because she isn’t marriage. That is you taking bits and pieces and interpreting them to your own wishing understanding. Let me show ya

"23:5 and who are mindful of their chastity,
23:6 not giving way to their desires with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock: for then, behold, they are free of all blame,"

How does that give it the ok to go around and have “sexual use” with whoever?

‘Sexual license of the Quran’ oh please grow up, clearly you know nothing of the religion.

This is getting annoying, seek knowledge from the people of the book not haters of myths and own theories. Also one account/story doesn’t give you the right to judge a whole community.

Steven

Yeh they should let her come with conditions, that everything she claims is backed up by proof (e.g. the things I stated earlier as being cultural) otherwise she is misrepresenting the group and people will believe her obliviously. Also by misrepresentation she lets guys like BOAZ hate muslims even more, become discriminatory and cause racism within the society for no necessary reasons which isn’t such a good thing in our country especially because it’s a multicultural country and there are so many varying beliefs.

Also if they let her in they should let others in who they have refused, it would only be fair otherwise why the double standards?

Though I highly doubt that if she did come in she would abide those conditions so then I would think her talks would be misrepresenting the community which isn’t fair.

Of that list above in this thread Howard is singled out for his name mentioned among religious figures.
He is not of course such and for me he wastes the air he breaths but the intent of the comment was not wrong.
We Australians have freedom to say mostly what we want too, and no religion should silence our freedoms.
A better world awaits us after we stop needing a God to face both life and death, pain and happiness.
And endless claims we are just the play things of a long list of Gods that want our endless attention and demands it.

CJ, me..black, the others technicolor :)

Dear misguided ABCD.. I'm going to get a little BUTTON..and when I press it, it will instantly type into my posts "No, I don't HATE MUSLIMS".. you are clearly a latecomer to this forum, because you had been here for some time, you will see that I am attacking
1/ Islam.
2/ Mohammad.
If I hate Nazism and Hitler, does that mean I automatically hate all Germans ? come mate..that little 'you hate us' thing is sooooo predictable and also sooooo wrong.

As a matter of fact, on my way back from our little Demo at VCAT, I noticed some Muslims in Swanston street.. a couple of men and some women in Hijabs. They looked Indonesian, so I went up to them and beat them all up.. right ? :) no, of course not, I approached them with a big smile and spoke welcomingly in Indonesian to them, at which their faces all beamed with joy. I feel SORRY for Muslims.

But back to your response. The sources.. are Islamic, except Wiki, which REFERS to Islamic sources... have a close look.

"It's a weak hadith" :) I was not born yesterday. Sahih... means.. checked, cross checked, verified and confirmed thats why they are in Bukhari and Muslim. Then, if you look wider at Tabari, Ishak, Hisham and a variety of later Islamic sources, you will quickly see that those later sources also refer to the early ones mentioned just now. So.. I'm confident of my position.

Shia DO regard 4:24 as justifying temporary marriage.... pleasure marriage.

Sunni's only say it is no longer applicable because OMAR forbade it, (I can give you chapter and verse for that also in hadith) Other hadith about Khaiber indicate that THAT is the point where Mohammad forbade it..which means:
a) It was practiced by the Muslims
b) It was approved by MOhammad to that point.

In any case.. Mohammad didn't need to worry, he could have ALLLL the women and sex he liked based on Surah 33:50
Enloy your reading. May you find in them the Lord Jesus.

Misguided? I don't believe so. I only joined the forum recently, so I wouldn't know much about you. Though from your posts here it shows that you are attacking Islam and Mohammed, which is the pretty much the same as attacking muslims. Also the part of mentioning banning muslims from coming here as a joke or a mock or whatever you want to call it of 'whatever God wills'.. well kinda makes me wonder too.

Well if you hated Nazism and Hitler it could mean many things, if you hate them for what they did and their followers then you'd hate the Germans that followed him and agree with him, doesn’t necessarily mean all. It's not predictable it's how you portray yourself and your character towards them. So if muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed wouldn't that make you hate them too?

Why feel sorry for muslims? lol what a joke. Besides the better thing would be to smile to anyone, be it a muslim or not or whatever ethnicity or religion they follow.

Like I said I didn’t read your links and wiki didn’t use all islamic sources, and the sources used are combined so you don't exactly know which is which.

Ever heard of muslims who reject sahih and bukhari hadiths? they exist. Besides you forgot something even though "sahih" means checked cross checked verified etc. you've got something missing what has been checked and cross referenced is the chain of narration. Not the content. So there are hadiths about the same issue, some came later which over rule other hadiths. So now that gets complicated. Even though one thing might be considered sahih there may be another hadith which is sahih that says something else which over rules the other one, get it?

Shia do regard it, though if you read the verse anyone could see that it doesn’t justify it. I don’t care what they say about temporary marriage anyway it doesn’t happen here.

When I get a chance I’ll read the links. BTW I did find the Lord though it wasn’t Jesus

Belly

You've captured my intent precisely. Muhammed, Jesus and the tooth fairy are as much legitimate targets of critique or scorn as John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown. There are no "no-go-zones."

We dare not appease the religious censors.

abcd,

You wrote:

>>Yeh they should let her [Hirsi Ali] come with conditions, that everything she claims is backed up by proof>>

Who decides whether she has met the burden of proof?

What you are asking amounts to censorship.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of all civil liberties. If we cannot discuss things freely all other civil liberties will vanish.

Freedom of speech is the right to say what you want. The only exceptions are explicit incitement to violence and libel.

No religion, ideology or opinion gets immunity from critique, satire or scorn. No book, be it a so-called holy book or Harry Potter, gets a free pass. No one's words are exempt from analysis and critique. Commentators are under no obligation to be "fair" or to spare the feelings of the religious faithful.

Of course freedom of speech means that if you think Hirsi Ali is economical with the truth you are at liberty to say so. You may dissect her writings and speeches and explain why you think they are wrong.

Freedom of speech specifically includes the right to say things that stevenlmeyer, abcd or BOAZ_David don’t like.

Freedom of speeches includes the right to attack a religion. Any religion.

ABCD.. you spelt it out quite nicely. While I might 'hate' Mohammad and Islam (for the sake of a terminology) and while I might take serious political exception to some Muslims, I certainly don't become a rabid stormtrooper at the sight of "any" muslim.

I feel sorry for anyone sucked in by a cult. That includes Muslims.

ABCD..I tend to be skeptical of any source, and that includes Hadiths, and guess what.. I pay a LOT of attention to the chain of transmitters, because I have a strong interest in the general concept of 'oral tradition' and its implications for the Bible.
For example.. in Muslim.. book 1 numbers 29,30,31,32 and 33 mostly have different authorities, but the come up with the same result.

There are other traditions in Bukhari, where a narration from Muslim is quoted word for word as a sub paragraph or sub hadith in bukhari Hadith, and even by different chains. I also check the history/biography of each 'transmitter' quoted for the hadith, and see what their relationship was with Mohammad and other companions.

Also ABCD, any Muslim who does not accept Muslim and Bukhari as minimum, let alone Abu Dawood etc.. is on shakey ground as the major schools of Islamic law accept them.

Steven.. in spite of my Bray thread, I totally agree with you about free speech, for or against any and all religions, even if I don't like it. As I told Pericles, that thread was a 'pawn' in the OLO game of debating chess.

If ur in Melbourne tonight, drop along to Beth Weisman in Caulfield at 7:00pm for a screening of "Obsession".

Boaz_David,

I've seen Obsession. I think it misses the point.

The problem is not Muslim terrorism. The problem is appeasement of Muslims which leads to a kind of creeping "sharia-nisation" of society.

Exhibit A for sharia-nisation is Victoria's notorious "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act." It introduces censorship under the guise of promoting "tolerance."

Note the conflation of "race" and "religion." Laws against attacking people on grounds of race and ethnicity are understandable. People are born into a race or ethnicity. They have no choice. To attack people on those grounds is vile.

But adults in Australia do have a choice when it comes to religion. Religion is an ideology or system of belief. Attacking a system of belief is perfectly justifiable.

Note that attacking a religion like Islam does not mean denying Muslims their civil liberties. Muslims are at liberty to believe what they want and to attempt to evangelise for Islam. What they may not do is attempt to abridge the liberties of kafirs.

I feel sorry for anyone sucked in by a cult. That includes BOAZ_David.

"Obsession"? How appropriate.

Steve.. glad you saw that. I wonder how CJ and his gang would react to viewing that material.

There were more yamulka's in Beth Weisman per square meter than I've seen in my whole life. (Probably more doctors and lawyers too)
They take strong security measures. Like an airport.

The creeping Sharia is a HUGE concern, and the RRT is one symptom.
One particularly striking example of spitting in the face of freedom, (from the movie) was those Muslims in America who were

a) Telling everyone how they have freedom of speech, mocking Americans.
b) Walking over the American flag while talking.

The silly thing about the RRT2001 Act is that you can do ALL the things it prohibits, as long as you remove it from your person by one layer, i.e. as a work of art/theatre.

You can mock, ridicule, hold in serious contempt, laugh at and even incite hatred against other religions, and all the rest, as long as you do it as a 'character' and I have a very clear letter from the EOC supporting this. So, the act is farce.

The good news is, that awareness of creeping sharia and Islamic radicalism IS growing and encompassing many different faith or non faith positions, all drawn together over this issue.

CJ thanx for your concern about my 'cult' status. I am also concerned about yours:) now...where did that come from ? hmmm must have been (one of) those 'voices'.

Steve,

A key issue is how islam is being taught: ww.readingislam.com

Boaz,

Fact 1: hadith was collected 100 years or more after the prophet's death. There is a special science for hadith.
Fact 2: hadith is a complementary part of the Islamic faith and not compulsory like the Quran for example.
Fact 3: majority of Muslims know and read 2-3% of the hadith. Many of the remaining hadith are not in circulation or proven to be 'weak'or untrue by more modern scholars.

Boaz, Islam is no different than christianity since we both believe in Jesus. You can debate as much as you like but please google : deedat vs swaggart to learn the art of religious debates with no name calling or nastiness. It reflects poorly on yourself and goes against the faith you claim to be representing.

F.H. says.. "Islam and Christianity are not much different"....

MATE... (20 x exclamation marks).. see this, and then try to repeat that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGt-5gml0xk

That...is the Islam of today outside Australia(oh wait... we have 24 men on trial for at least alledgedly trying to do the same) ....

I dispute your 'facts' but will deal with them later. Let me just say that something being a 'fact' does not neccessarily change a fundamental truth.(which is also a fact:)

Be thankful FH that you will never see the desire in me to do things like in that video to Muslims. The most I'd ever do, is defend myself if attacked, and even then, I'd be focused on restraining the attacker.(as per the law)

There is something so terribly evil and dark about those people.. its like they are driven by Satan himself.. and I'm not kidding there.
I think many of those Muslims are in fact demon possessed. Nothing else explains the level of evil emanating from them.

Cheers mate.

Boaz,

Another youtube link to shut FH because Boaz is like FoxNews: you like a single monopoly on preaching your version of truth.
I noticed many of the video scenes refer to angry Palestinian youth. If you live their shoes you will probably have the same anger, religion becomes a catalyst. You can’t ignore masses feelings of injustice.

* “Be thankful FH that you will never see the desire in me to do things like in that video to Muslims”
I don’t believe so anymore, I think you have an ongoing desire to be like those people. Only you are too scared to do it yourself so you are motivating others until we see it in the news that a faithful follower of your teachings committed a Martin bryant like act in a sydney mosque. Even probably then you won't have the guts to stand up and take accountability for your actions.

* “I think many of those Muslims are in fact demon possessed. Nothing else explains the level of evil emanating from them”.
You and the people on the video are one of the same fabric the difference is they are hiding behind a crescent and you are hiding behind a cross. You are the christo mirror of AbuBakr Basheer: no blood on your hands but you have dedicated your life to inspire fear and hatred of the 'other'. We are all humans.

Finally, please don’t use ‘mate’ and mateship to patronise me. I lived long enough in Australia to have real mates and I did learn that sincerity, honesty and fair go is what mateship means to Australians.

You should be ashamed of your actions. But for some unknown reason you lost that inner compass that tells right from wrong and yet you keep quoting from the bible. Amazing.

Steven

If I had a ball and it was red, and you said "no it is blue". Then you went to tell children in a childcare centre that red is actually blue. Misleading the innocent children over your “freedom of speech”. That’s my point. Don’t say something if it’s a load of rubbish claiming “this is what it is like”.

Immunity? As if anything needs immunity you should critique all the time! And distinguish the truth for yourself. Miss directing could incite violence out of emotional reactions.

Ok no worries, right now my time is tight, maybe during the long weekend I’ll get a chance to tell you what she claims isn’t accurate.

People can say what I don’t like I don’t care, it’s not about liking or hating it’s about truth and misguidance.

Creeping of sharia-nisation lol that’s a funny one. I dunno where you live, or how many muslims you know or your relations with them though what is the threat of sharia? Why would it be a threat, its practically impossible so I don’t see your concerns.

I don’t think the problem is in attacking, attacking isn’t the right word either its more like trying to understand and question and verify such beliefs/practices and acts.

BOAZ muslims demon possessed :/ that is just strange…what type of evil do they have?

abcd wrote:

As it happens abcd I have had quite a bit of contact with Muslims both here in Australian and in my native South Africa. They are as diverse as any other group of humanity.

A proportion of them, and it's an uncomfortably large proportion, do take the idea of a resurrected caliphate of some description seriously and are prepared to fight for it. Some of them, a few, seriously see Australia as a province of the Indonesian part of the new Caliphate.

Make no mistake, religious Muslims are as dangerous as religious Christians were a few centuries ago. Perhaps even more so because our weapons technologies have improved so much since then.

You want to protect "innocent children" from lies?

WHO IS GOING TO BE YOUR TRUTH POLICE?

In other words, who is going to be your censor?

That is a serious question and I hope you'll answer it.

We cannot protect children from lies. The best we can do is instill in them a critical attitude. That means being as sceptical of what abcd says as of what John Howard says. It means adopting a "show me" attitude equally to Phillip Adams, John Howard, George Bush, the Dalai Lama and Imam Mahdi Bray.

And it means something very hard. Saying "I don't know the answer but I'm not going to accept your answer unless you offer me proof."

As for Hirsi Ali herself, what she says about Muslim society in Africa conforms to what I've seen myself. When apologists for Islam tell you these are all "cultural practices" that have nothing to do with Islam I hope you'll be as sceptical as you are when George Bush says torture is not part of US policy.

ABCD "some" Muslims (as with "some" so called Christians) are demon possessed)

F.H. you need a reality check.

How many times have I said "Mohammad understood 9:29 in OFFENSIVE and aggressive terms? I've backed this up with hadith after hadith, yet, you continually say "You don't understand Islam".

Well, I sure understand my language, and here are some further evidences of my claim.

http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter10page2.htm

In July 631 (Rabi-ul-Akhir, 10 Hijri), the Prophet sent a military expedition under the command of Khalid to the tribe of Bani Harithah bin Kab in Najran, which lies to the north of the Yemen. The instructions to Khalid were: "Call the tribe thrice to accept Islam. If they respond favourably, do them no harm. If they refuse, fight them." 1 With Khalid went 400 mounted warriors.

DUMA
http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/226323.shtml
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent Khaild bin Walid to Ukaydir at Duma.
Khalid and his companions seized Ukaydir and killed his brother. Ukaydir was wearing a gown of brocade covered with gold. Khalid stripped him of this and sent it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Then Khalid brought Ukaydir to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who spared his life and made peace with him on condition that he paid the Jizyah.

FH... do you have eyes to see?

"messenger of PEACE" sends Khalid the Hit man.
Khalid MURDERS Ukaydirs brother, drags Ukaydir to Mohammad.(peace?)

"Call them to embrace Islam 3 times, if they refuse FIGHT them.

Can "peace and murder/brutality" dwell as flatmates?

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger.

He said it.. he did it... we read it... yet.. you don't see it, yet you have the gaul to criticize me for criticizing the above?
May God open blind eyes.Amen.

Steve

It’s not about truth police. It’s about being just it’s about having morals, being truthful and saying the truth is etiquettes people should have. I can’t stop you or anyone from lying, though I can try prevent it and if I can’t then I can’t. I only do what I am capable of. If you brain wash the children into believing red is actually blue. That’s your miss doing and that would be held upon your guilty conscious your whole life, unless you were egocentric and wouldn’t give a flying about anything or anyone except yourself.

People are lazy, that’s a reality even I am. Though some people are lazier than others, if someone says ‘look such such such is true’ most people will believe it because they have no other reason not to, why would someone lie they say. Also because no one else is standing up and saying anything contrary to it for whatever reason it is. But someone out of the crowd could think hmm I’d like to learn more about this such and such so they go and read and find out s/he has misguided them and others. Now when that person has come to truth there is only so much they can say to others all the other people who listened to the talk wouldn’t know and nothing could change that unless people got up and read.

BTW the truth police will be my studies and findings.

Anyway Hirsi talks about circumcison and arranged marriage. None of those practices are Islamic, they are rather cultural. Though so you know a boy must get circumcised not a girl. The arranged married bit is cultural. A girl has every right to deny or accept the guy the only part that’s forbidden is secrecy of marriage: Quran 58:9, 58:10.

It might confirm your beliefs of what is practiced in that country it doesn’t mean they are following proper Islamic practices. There is a difference. The Quran is the book for muslims please show me how I am wrong in the above statements.

Hey BOAZ what’s with you and hadiths lol you make me laugh let me show you something:

"These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114

"You will find that the Sunna of Allah is the only Sunna" (33:62....35:43.....48:23)

"The only duty of the messenger is to deliver God's message" 5:99 (also in 5:92...16:35.......16:82.....24:54.......29:18.....42:48.......64:12)

And the list can go on and on and on. So quoting hadiths or bukhari and muslim or those other sahih ones are just useless.

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Oh gosh you forgot some really critical part of that quote “Until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

Do you even know what Jizya is? Go wise one, go do some research then come back to me and re-explain the verse. Because you explained it wrong.

Bless you ABCD :) good try mate... clearly you have only recently been observing my posts.

Jizya.. yep..nominally that is a tax which 'people of the book' are required to pay to be exempt from military service in the Muslim army.

Thats the good news.

Now for the bad.

The amount is not stipulated in the Quran, so... the amount depends as much on the whim of the Caliph or.. the nearby terror gang (like in Egypt at the moment) when they extort it from the hapless and defenseless Christians and Jews.

But you seem to have glossed over one major point... you did not deny that it's fine to 'FIGHT' them.....until they are subdued.

This stands out like a country toilet in Islamic history right back to Mohammad himself, that he believed his calling was in fact to 'militarily subdue' non Muslims to bring in the rule of Allah.
The more serious question is.."Did they force conversions at the point of a sword?"

The standard Muslim answer is "no", but the answer from Islamic history is a resounding "yes".

Now at this point you are shrieking inside your brain "HAH! where is your evidence?" Ok..fair point.

It is not as though people were brought before Mohammed and a sword placed on their throats and the demand "Accept Islam now or die" was made..no..it was more circumspect than that.

I could give you many examples, but one will suffice.

Prince Ukaydir of the northern Arabian Christian town of Dumah. He was an ally (as in a vassal) to the Byzantine Emperor. i.e. he had a treaty with him.
Mohammad sent Kalid bin Al Waleed to 'change' his alliegance to the Muslim side.
1/ Waleeed murdered Hassan, Ukaydir's brother
2/ Sacked the city.
3/ Dragged Prince Ukaydir back to to Mohammad (with the image of his freshly slaughtered brother in his mind)
4/ Mohammed 'offers' him 'Islam' (or DEATH like his brother)
err..thats a choice ?

P.S. Ukaydir had not lifted a finger against the Muslims.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm
Scroll to this heading: [Ibn al Walid's Campaign against Dumah]

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with assessments.. Anyway no one told me can you send messages to people via this? If so how?? BTW BOAZ I replied to others, you provided more interesting meat to discuss so it had become more of a discussion between me and you… anyway let me reply to what you said earlier

Jizya has nothing to do with military services, it’s a “charity” that people pay who aren’t muslims, for being in the “muslim” country ‘cos muslim pay the zakat they don’t need to pay Jizya. The amount won’t be unjust. That makes sense when you think of it, a book that is written over a 1000 years you'd expect value to change from then till now. Anyway it doesn’t say how much though it would work most likely to zakat, zakat is like 2.5% of your savings. Besides it doesn’t necessary have to be money, it’s something of value, it could be gold, it could be food, it could be anything. A law system would be set to inspect. The jizya is not for non muslims to be exempt of military the jizya provides them protection from the muslim army as they are in muslim land and the money, wealth, value is distributed to the needy- be it muslim or not.

Basically it could be seen as a form of tax, this tax gets distributed to the community, and they get protection from muslims from anyone attacking them. They have citizen rights just like the muslims..

Egypt is a bad example any middle eastern country is, looking through Islamic books none of them follow Islamic politics right, if not politics the law isn'tfollowed either. They're all corrupted within their own powers. They’re all losers oh well they’re the ones suffering now.

I don’t deny the fight, though you miss the whole point of the chapter, the chapter is in relation to those who break oaths, you can’t just take bits and pieces make it what you want it to be. Read from the started of the chapter to that point and you’ll understand what I mean.

Besides did you miss this verse “9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him….” As I said read the chapter you’ll understand what I mean.

Quran pretty much says each to their own choosing “2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things “

And all of chapter 109, read it and read the last verse of it 109:6

So this is what their book says, I don’t believe in conversion by the sword. And even if it did happen they did wrong against their own book and also if you look at Christianity same thing could be said…

Your evidence is weak, I mentioned this before your quoting hadiths. You know hadiths came AFTER the death of Mohammed so how can you even take it as reliable? Islam is based by the Quran not hadiths. Besides do you believe humans are fallible? If you do you have real issues. All people are sinners the best are those who ask for forgiveness and change and start doing good. Everyone does wrong in their life even you and me. Some more than others though that isn’t the point.

Dear ABCD thankyou for your considered response.

There are some weaknesses in your presentation which I need to highlight.

Chapter 9 is indeed 'including' reference to those who break treaties, but it is not exclusively about this.

IF.... that was the central point, applying to the whole chapter, then logic and reason require that 9:30 say as follows:

"Jews and Christians have broken their treaties with us, MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM"

But what does it ACtually say ? "Jews believe Uzair is son of Allah, Christians believe Christ is son of Allah"... MAY ALLAH DESTROY THEM.

So, on any understanding, this is not about 'broken treaties' it is about 'core beliefs'. The Christians and Jews are to be destroyed on the grounds that they believe someone is Son of Allah, and this then takes them intot he Quranic category of "Those who associate partners with Allah" and of course to Mohammad, this was an awful sin.

My references to hadiths are only as 'supporting' evidence. Please don't try my patience (biff :) with the line "Islam is not based on them" my goodness... it is VERY much based on them as well as the Quran, and the list of hadiths in Muslim and Bukhari show many aspects of and guidlines for life for Muslims which are not found in other places. I recommend a careful reading of the introduction to the Hadith at this site, and you will see how these serious Muslims understand the Hadith.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/smtintro.html
QUOTE:
Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Muslim's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet.
ENDQUOTE.

Finally, the Christians of Duma did not HAVE any treaty with the Muslims, so they broke nothing, they were allies of the Byzantines. Mohammads attack on them, simply showed that he considered all non Muslims who did not have a treat with him, as enemies to be attacked anytime.

Thanks for your reply. Well I can say I would need to study the text more to reply my knowledge is very much limited..

Anyway I understand what you mean, though it would be interesting to read their text the Quran without reference to hadith to see their approach of life. I have read bits still reading.. anyway

You say hadith is very much part of muslims lives, to some I would agree it is though I don't believe it is necessary. From my understanding of the Quran it isn't and those who follow hadiths are wrong but I guess the muslims would know better then again maybe not..

Thanks for the discussion, sorry to annoy you :P

enjoy your further research

Biiiiiiii

Why are we all wasting our time with the rights and wrongs of all religiouns whether it be Latter Day Saints or Jehovahs Witness or Catholic or Church of England they are all no different from each other it is al a man made conspiriacy to cloud the real issues of the class struggle. There is only one sincere caring religioun and that is Democratic Socialism when the tail wags the dog through committees. Karl Marx summed it all up in one sentence when he quoted " Religioun is the opium of the people."