Islamic Extremism continues to be a threat to citizens of western countries.
Newt Gingrich posed a similar question for Americans yesterday.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36806380

How do Australians feel about the threat to our country?
Should Muslims who support sharia law in Australia be deported?

Yep the regressives have defied commonsense for decades now. Their Chritophobic natures have created such a mine field throughout Europe and to a lesser extent here in Australia. Thanks to the likes of Abbott we havea little less danger. The totally flawed and collapsing ideology of feminism/secular humanism with its total lack of morals has created a very dangerous place for future generations. Look at the dumbed down university lecturers and getup crowd who are actually wise in their own eyes but nothing but dunses when looking at their warped narrative. Black lives matters while they cheer the butchering of the unborn. Babarism hidden by uni degrees.

Absolutely 100%. Our nation is no place for this type of man hatting machine. And it is a machine as what is happening is no accident, it is all part of the grand plan, its just that certain global events may have accelerated it some what.

More fools us for allowing such a hatred religion into our country. But I seriously doubt we will ever learn as we are politically hamstrung with political correctness having obscured our vision.

First we had Brexit, then Pauline, and possibly Trump. They are all part of a new world, one that is fed up with paying taxes only to see them pissed away. We even have our own pathetic prime minister who, despite the global and local unrest over terrorism, throws tax payer funded parties for those who are known to hate us.

He is a complete dud and has to go, hopefully to be replaced by someone with the balls to turn this nation around and find the true Australia once again.

Now before someone throws the old 'racist card' at me, if wanting to return our nation to the peace loving country I grew up in, and expected my kids, kids to grow up in, then I would be proud to be called racist, a proud fair dinkum Aussie racist that is.

This all pre-supposes that the Muslim majority states would accept deportees, most of them won't take people back, Pakistan for example recently refused to take back a group of failed asylum seekers from Germany.
Lebanon won't co-operate, neither will Iran and in many of these countries there are no real authorities to negotiate with, how do you deal with Somalis or Afghans? What's to say that these people, if deported won't immediately seek asylum in the EU or North America and simply transplant their culture of negativity to another society who don't want them?

The irony is that ISIL would have accepted any number of deportees from the west, but that ship has sailed, no pun intended.

One of the first things that we, in Australia, need to do is to stop calling Islam a religion; it's not, it is a political movement with religious overlays and as such should not get State recognition as a religion.
Muhammad used it primarily as a means of conquest and a means of conquest it remains, either 'peaceful' by infiltration or aggressive by force/war when it has the numbers.

Not only those who support Sharia Law should be deported but all those who adhere to the political movement called Islam, that is, all who follow the Koran.

Lol!...

Fascinating commentary fellas!

What have we?...

"Their Chritophobic natures have created such a mine field throughout Europe and to a lesser extent here in Australia...."

(try and translate that if you will!)

"....Look at the dumbed down university lecturers and getup crowd who are actually wise in their own eyes but nothing but dunses..."

Talking of "dunces".

And...

"....Our nation is no place for this type of man hatting machine...."

"Now before someone throws the old 'racist card' at me, if wanting to return our nation to the peace loving country I grew up in, and expected my kids, kids to grow up in, then I would be proud to be called racist, a proud fair dinkum Aussie racist that is."

Top stuff, chaps!

AC,
First things first. Not much point in deporting some muslims while still importing others. The main objective is to stop allowing muslims into Aus. They have shown us they are incompatable with our society.

It has been estimated that 15%-25% of muslims hold radical views and that is far higher than any other group and a danger to our society.

The other thing we can do is let those go that want to go and fight in the ME, with no return. The further away they are the better off we will be.

We should not continue to allow people in from groups that will not integrate and have no respect for our laws and community standards. The first groups that should be stopped are those that practice FGM and underage marriage.

'Talking of "dunces".'

wow Poirot contradicting her own no absolutes dogma. What a surprise. Obviously trained in it.

It's hard for me to say I oppose secularism runner because I do believe in freedom and liberty for all people.
The problem is that if I let my guard down to those good ideals I'm going to find out the hard way that the people I extended that goodwill to don't necessarily feel the same way about freedom and liberty as I do.
They don't care about our country and will seek to impose their belief system upon us.

We think we're being 'Australian' by giving a 'fair go' but we bring upon ourselves that which can destroy the country we know.

It shouldn't be that way.
Coming here to live isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I don't want Aussie women being abused, attacked or raped simply for showing their hair or forearms nor regular Australians abused and called 'racist' by the primarily multicultural section of our country simply because we identify that threat and oppose that belief system.
England, France, Germany, Are they now not complete write-offs of the countries they once were?

In some ways we are still the lucky country, we're mostly still got a chance but we're headed in the wrong direction.

Jay Of Melbourne, just because we can't easily get rid of them doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked.
About ISIS, yes it would've been a great opportunity to get rid of some of them, if that's where their ideology and belief system lies.
Too bad for those that have to deal with them but why would we want to keep them?

I tend to label 'Islam' in the generic 'belief system' category now Is Mise.
I'm sick of the arguments and bs over words.

Banjo, I agree that Muslims who want sharia law are incompatible to Australia.

And Poirot, whats your problem this morning?
Do you dispute the concerns of Australians and Australian voters?
Please explain.

By asking this question I'm trying to establish if Aussie's genuinely think the sharia law 'belief system' is suitable for Australia.
I'd like to hear from the liberal left.

Hey Runner,
By secularism you meant multiculturalism hey? In that case no I'm not keen on it.
Its not that I dislike foreigners particularly, its more that I don't like the country becoming divided and going in a direction I don't particularly care for.

Armchair Criti

thanks for actually being a thinker. Poirot parades as one but is far more interested in her dogmas and ideologies than thought.

it is the pig headed denial of what is good and what is bad Armchair that peeves me the most. My grandkids will not grow up with nearly the same freedoms largely due to humanistic/feminist pig headedness. Even now you get total fools on the abc blaming colonism for disgrunted people killing young kids. The getup crowd are among most ignorant. They are dumb/dishonest enough to see that most of our blessings/.freedoms have come from our Judea/Christian ethics. Most of the free world gained their freedoms the same way. Now many of the secularist have turned to the gw scam as a religion in order to replace the morals they rejected and are bereft of.

btw I have no problems with people from any races coming to Australia if they are peace loving. My best friends have more often than not been Asians and Africans. Most people in the world are more loving/kind than hard line feminist/socialist whom really have a lot in common with Islam. Thats probably why they defend the indefensible.

Yeah good one boys! We will ask all Muslims in Australia "Do you believe in Sharia Law?" Naturally, even knowing haters like you will want to bash/deport them, of course they will say "Oh yes we do!"

Runner " thanks for actually being a thinker. Poirot parades as one but is far more interested in her dogmas and ideologies than thought."
Lol! You make me laugh Runner. You never want to spew out your own dogmas and ideologies on this site do you? Pot calling the kettle black again?

Armchair Critic is no 'thinker' Runner, he is merely another scared little boy running in packs on this forum, frightened of anyone different from himself, despite living in one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world...

I don't know what you boys are going crook about.

With Sharia Law in Oz, Suse & Poirot, & their women's lib mates will be back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, & not allowed anywhere near a computer.

The homosexual bunch at the ABC & elsewhere, will be on the street, possibly headless, but definitely quiet. Just think no more lefty global warming garbage & bleeding all over the useless.

Homosexual marriage will no longer be screamed from the rooftops.

Crims will get a wrap on the wrist with a machete, rather than a tap on the knuckles with a feather duster, & for all this, you only have to put up with having a beard, dirty feet, & to kneel down a few times a day.

Just what is there not to like?

Here is one Pom that knows what it is all about and speaks loads of common sense. Wish our politicians would look and learn.

http://www.patcondell.net/feminist-whores-for-islam/

"With Sharia Law in Oz, Suse & Poirot, & their women's lib mates will be back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, & not allowed anywhere near a computer."

Oh bravo!, Hasbeen.....another scintillating example of grown-up blokey rhetoric on this forum.

What with the fabulous runner falling over himself to spit a bit of run-by venom - his own dogmas and ideologies packed in so tight that he can barely contain his exuberance.

I'd love you to come face to face with the returned Jesus, runner...you'd take one look at the fact he's looks a tad middle-eastern and that he can't speak English...in no time at all, you'd unload some run-by abuse and have him on the first boat out of here

I'm a little dumbfounded at the girls honestly.
Whilst not saying they support sharia law, they haven't really shown any opposition to it.
Its hard for me to make sense of that.
They can have animosity for men if they want, whatever.
But to want that for our country under the nonsensical oxymoronic idea of being liberal or something, well I truly just don't get it.

I'd like to think there was a logical reason for their position, but right now I just cant see it, and the only thing that makes sense is that their position is in fact illogical.
They haven't made any effort to share a different alternative view.

I don't want to persecute against anyone or be made out to be some hate-mongering bigot, like I've got nothing better to do than get around discriminating against people... have you girls gone mad?

Poirot obviously thinks that Sharia Law is a benign system designed to bring peace and happiness to mankind and womankind as well.

Hasbeen,

You forgot about being able to have four wives and quickie divorce (see how well that's thought out).

Suseonline - Quote "Runner, he is merely another scared little boy running in packs on this forum, frightened of anyone different from himself, despite living in one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world"

If memory serves me correctly England, France and Germany used to refer to themselves as something like "one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world". OH how they now regret that.

//Should Muslims Who Support Sharia Law In Australia Be Deported?//

Only if we're going to be consistent and deport Australian Jews that support Halacha (Jewish law) and the existence of Australian beth dins:

http://www.bethdin.org.au/

Otherwise we're just singling out a particular faith for persecution - and we all know how that ends up...

//It's hard for me to say I oppose secularism runner because I do believe in freedom and liberty for all people.//

Well clearly that is not the case. Your nose is growing, Armchair Critic.

//We think we're being 'Australian' by giving a 'fair go' but we bring upon ourselves that which can destroy the country we know.//

If we were to abandon our Western principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, then it would be us who are destroying the country we know. If we allow the terrorists to drive us into barbarism, then the terrorists win. The idea is to NOT let the terrorists win.

//Coming here to live isn't a right, it's a privilege.//

And what about the citizens who were born here that you disagree with? Do we kick them out as well? When should I expect a knock on my door from the Australian Exile Authority?

//England, France, Germany, Are they now not complete write-offs of the countries they once were?//

No, they are not. Germany, the United Kingdom and France are the 4th, 5th and 6th largest economies in the world respectively. They are all first world countries with an extremely high standard of living. They are also free and democratic nations with low crime rates. By any reasonable metric, they cannot be considered 'complete write-offs'.

//In some ways we are still the lucky country, we're mostly still got a chance but we're headed in the wrong direction. //

Only if we let jumped-up proto-fascists like you take the helm.

//By secularism you meant multiculturalism hey?//

No, he means secularism. Runner is quite clear in his views that he thinks Australia would be better as Christian theocracy than a liberal democracy.

I am not concerned about Australia ever even looking like having Sharia Law.
I am not a paranoid, racist bigot, like so many on this forum. I don't scare easily, and any mad terrorist is not going to make me change one thing in my life.

If we can all learn something from France, it is that we shouldn't single out one racial group/religion for persecution, because it obviously doesn't turn out well...

Perhaps, in self-defence of the inhabitants of this continent, everyone should be deported who supports a legal system whereby others are ordered how to live their life (including the one we currently have). Why single out only Islam and its Shariah?

"....Otherwise we're just singling out a particular faith for persecution - and we all know how that ends up.."

but is it a faith (in the religious sense) or a political movement that is opposed to our own broad political beliefs?

Armchair Critic.

"I'm a little dumbfounded at the girls honestly.
Whilst not saying they support sharia law, they haven't really shown any opposition to it.
Its hard for me to make sense of that."

What are you on about?

You and the other hysterical fellas here are jumping at shadows.

As Suse said:

"I am not concerned about Australia ever even looking like having Sharia Law.
I am not a paranoid, racist bigot.."

Sums it up well.

We "girls" apparently don't have the same talent for irrational fear-driven sentiment.

Is there a course we can take to rev up our paranoia?

.......

Good post, Toni Lavis.

As I said before Armchair the women you refer to are totally indoctrinated and incapable of thinking. There support of the butchering of babies is the same as Islamic teaching. They put on a brave face and yet are dumb enough to ask questions as to why we have so many innocents slaughtered. They share Obama's lies that Islam is a religion of peace. Regressive are very deceptive with language. I wonder how many of the regressive in Germany cheered the mass illegal immigration only to have daughters molested a few weeks later. Ignorance is bliss to them.

"As I said before Armchair the women you refer to are totally indoctrinated and incapable of thinking..."

Lol!...says the indoctrinated fundie Christian.

"...There [sic] support of the butchering of babies is the same as Islamic teaching...."

Oh do tell, runner? You're obviously not averse to bald-faced lying here on the forum. You really are a low type aren't you....you and your little obsession with bringing up butchered babies every second thread.

It's kinda creepy.

In fact almost everything you post is creepy.

Poirot and Susie are very typical of French regressives ten years ago. Smug and so full of their learnt dogma. The French are unfortunately learning the hard way with the pig headed regressives now in retreat. Obviously our threat is much lower thanks to those who want to limit Islamic immigration. If the regressives get their way they will destroy this country like they have Europe.Of course they will blame everyone else. Thankfully we have enough waking up.

"You forgot about being able to have four wives and quickie divorce (see how well that's thought out)". Is Mise.

God yes, they must all be mad. No wonder they are so blood thirsty, having to live with a bunch of wives.

Truth be known, all the womens libbers are so frustrated, they dream of becoming Muslim sex slaves.

Nah Hasbeen, Muslim sex slaves is obviously your dream, as you brought it up.
I think you have to knock off an infidel or two if you want them to be virgins though...

Poirot there is no telling all these scaredy cats that we aren't being overrun by mad Muslim terrorists (2% of the population), but should it ever come to pass that Australia IS taken over by Sharia law, then I want you to know I would be honoured to be your sister-wife... :)

Suseonline,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoXgZLRee0

You'd be one of the first apologists wouldn't you, to declare that truck driving killer Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel was not a 'real' Muslim, that he was 'mad', he was 'being discriminated against' and he was a 'loner', a 'lone wolf' and he was French, so 'a French man' not a Muslim did those horrible murders etc.

Ten children were among the brutally mangled corpses. Of course there could have been many more were it not for the fact that well trained French police carry long arms on city streets, are stationed at reasonable intervals and are alert for terrorism.

Imagine the horrendous carnage in a crowded Australian city street on an occasion where people gather, or just a normal shopping day. A decent sized truck could be driven across Sydney. Powerless Australian police with their puny pistols and with politically correct leadership that for example refused (snubbed!) offered support from trained and rehearsed Australian SAS and Commandos to deal with the Martin Place terrorist.

//but is it a faith (in the religious sense) or a political movement that is opposed to our own broad political beliefs?//

I consulted the Oxford Dictionary, which provided this definition (emphasis added).

Islam: [mass noun] The RELIGION of the Muslims, a monotheistic FAITH regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

So, clearly the former.

The first step is to ban islam. The second is to destroy all mosques and ban the wearing of anything that hides the identity, then the true followers will either show their true colours, or leave. Either way we win.

Despite all the racist claims made by our regular feminist do gooders, there is nothing racist about the truth.

If you cant see the truth, then that is not our problem.

Now as for where to send them, form an international prison, funded by the UN, then all deportees can go there. Besides, they brought their garbage with them, so its not our problem.

God I wish someone would grow some political balls in this country. Perhaps Pauline and Tony could work together on this one.

Not suprising to see all the rightards here giving in to the terrorists. Doing exactly what they want you to do. Lowering yourselves to the same level of barbarism as them. In some cases doing their work for them. How terrified can you make the moslem community? Feel better now they are all petrified? You think you are safer now?

Good show you scared little cowards.

Suse,

You're right about the racist tone of many of the posters;
we all know that to attack Islam is to attack the Islams.
People who come here from the overcrowded country of Islam deserve a better deal, all that they want to do is build a new Islam.

If the Islam women want to go about with their faces covered then they should be allowed to do so, it gives the ugly ones a break and allows their husbands to escape the embarrassment of others seeing that their parents couldn't afford a better deal in the marriage market.

I tried to find Islam among the countries of the world and the various races but Google let me down and only describes it as some sort of movement, but that can't be right because people, who in their ignorance, attack Islam are accused of being racist so Islam and the Islams must be a race.

What I'm specifically objecting to regarding 'sharia law'; as defined as a belief system.

1. People who believe that killing innocent people can be justied in the name of religion.
2. People who have an belief that treating a woman harshly, inflicting violence upon her such as like an animal or lesser being is normal or justied in the name of existing culture or religion.
3. People who have a belief that their religion nullifies Australia laws.
4. People who would seek to impose a religious law on Australian streets and neighbourhoods.

And I'll stop there.
Try not to think of it in a way that I am specifically targeting Islam, but that I'm generically targeting those who have a incompatible belief system. (beliefs contrary to Australian law and accepted norms)

I'll tell you what else I object to, though it's not specifically directed at Islam.

People that have a belief that Australia is a clean slate that they can instill their own un-Australian culture in, without having respect for the Australians who fought and gave their lives for this country before they were here; and for the freedoms and way of life they fought for.

And for calling the decendants of these people who fought for Australia racist simply for objecting against to new Australians disrespectfully trying to build a 'new Australia' in their previous country's image.

I hear this BS about us not having any culture etc...
Like dropping that line automatically allows the foreigner the right to trample on our country.
It's like spitting on the flag, and then we go giving them a paid day off on Anzac day every year.

But that's just my personal opinion.

I do believe in freedom and liberty for all (Toni Lavis)
But I don't believe that one group of people (existing population) should be forced to give up their freedoms and liberties, so that another group of people (foreign immigrants and their cultures) can have theirs.
And I'm not sure there is anything about freedom and liberty in 'Sharia Law' anyway...

Toni,

Clearly you need a new dictionary as by all logical procedures Islam is a political movement disguised partly by religious beliefs.

mikk,
You have been around here for quite a while yet you still don't understand what many of us are on about. How dumb can you be?

The only ones to fear anything are the politicians who should rightly fear for their jobs for failing to do the bidding of the electors.

Finally the populace is now realizing that the less muslims here the safer the place will be and the better off our society will be. There are now many calling for a stop to muslim immigration and the politicians are starting to wake up. (Not quickly enough though)

For far too long the electors desires to reduce immigration of muslims have been ignored. I don't mind the police killing terrorists in the act, but for other muslims I prefer to turn them around at the border. Its a matter of evaluating the risk they pose to our children and grandchildren.

The last election saw the removal of some greens and Libs and hopefully the next state election will see the last of many more left leaning parliamentarians.

Suseonline - You talk about ethnically diversity like it is a good thing, move to Fairfield for a while and see if you still have that opinion.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/four-shootings-in-two-weeks-and-a-gang-war-on-the-rise-inside-australias-most-dangerous-suburb/news-story/b5df1aa69cf2f4d1d2c884760e315745

Four shootings in two weeks and a gang war on the rise: Inside Australia’s most dangerous suburb

A GANG war over drug turf that has been simmering for two decades has erupted into a series of public shootings that has turned Fairfield in western Sydney into Australia’s most dangerous suburb.

Four shootings in the last two weeks alone, with two of them in the same street, have rocked the ethnically diverse suburb which houses Middle Eastern, southeast Asian and African communities 30km west of Sydney’s CBD.

FOR THE REST OF STORY FOLLOW ABOVE LINK.

PhillipS, nothing has changed really. There have been 'gang wars' since the Europeans and others took over Australia centuries ago. Killings between natives and settlers were going on all the time.
Then we had the Italian and Asian gangs, to mention only a few, warring with each other and amongst themselves.

It happens in a multicultural country, and we have dealt with it all this time and we are still a great country. So what is your point?
If any group should be unhappy it would be the Indigenous Australians who have had to put up with much more problems with other ethnic groups than anyone else.
Anyone who doesn't like it here can move elsewhere...

Suse,

Which of the various ethnic groups that you allude to want to introduce their own laws?

Which of them has a "Holy" book that tells them to kill homosexuals, deny women their rights and forbid their members from competing for the Archibald Prize?

I know all too well what you lot are on about banj.
Its the same as what idiots used to say about the Aborigines, the Chinese gold miners, the kanakas (who we kidnapped and enslaved), communists, the wogs and the dagoes, the Vietnamese and Cambodians, Asians in general. Now its Muslims.
Its still bigoted and racist and its still stupid.

Mikk, there is nothing racist in stating it how it is. While some of us constantly get called racists, stating a known fact like "increasing the Muslim intake increases the chances of terrorism" is not a racist statement at all, its a realistic statement which ever way you choose to look at it.

mikk,

When did Muslim become a race?

There are Muslims in Africa who are Negroid, there are Muslims in North Africa who are Semites and Muslims in India who are Caucasoid as well as some of our local Muslims.

So racist is not a very exact term.

//Clearly you need a new dictionary as by all logical procedures Islam is a political movement disguised partly by religious beliefs.//

By all logical procedures? Huh? Anyway, the Oxford is regarded by scholars as the foremost English dictionary in the world. There isn't a better one to look at. Just because it defines words differently than one antipodean nobody, it does not follow that it is in error. Have you considered the possibility it may the nobody (you) that is in error?

//But I don't believe that one group of people (existing population) should be forced to give up their freedoms and liberties//

May I ask what freedoms and liberties you've had to give up?

I'm going to have give up the freedom to have a punt on the dogs, but I don't think you can pin that one on Muslims.

Maybe we can deport Mike Baird instead?

Toni,

"May I ask what freedoms and liberties you've had to give up?"

I didn't mention that but as you ask; the freedom to see my fellow citizens faces and not to have to share the streets with masked women (or men?)
The freedom to go to a local baths and not be excluded because a group of masked women are using the public facility.
The freedom to go shopping with my wife in a major shopping complex and not have racist remarks passed about me/us, in a foreign language; so far I have resisted the temptation to reply in said language.
My wife objects to what I might say (and rightly so!).

The Oxford is wrong then, you'll just have to put up with it

Hi Folks,

Well I'm back.

I've been in hospital - having suffered another fall
and broken the wrist on my right hand.

Anyway, back to the discussion

In this country we have laws that we are all expected to abide
by. These are laws that are enacted be the Parliament under the
Australian Constitution. Our State is a secular State. As such
it protects the freedom of all religions for worship.
However there is not a separate stream of law in this country
derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants
Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of
our law is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia
and iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law
these are countries where they might feel more at ease. However In
Australia we expect all citizens to obey our laws. They are not
optional. Loyalty, democracy, tolerance,, the rule of law, are
values of Australia and its people. All are expected to subscribe to
this legal framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.

//The Oxford is wrong then, you'll just have to put up with it//

Of course, your most esteemed eminence. If you say something is wrong, then it must be wrong. Silly me, I forgot you were an infallible expert on all human knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

mikk,
Even though it is staring you in the face you don't see it or wont admit it. My wanting to stop the import of muslims has nothing to do with race. It is aspects of their culture I object to. You have never seen me object to non-muslim Lebanese or other non-muslim ME people. Israelis for example. I do not have any religious beliefs.

If you cannot see that aspects of muslim culture is wrong and not compatible with our society, that is your problem. But for you to simply cry 'racist' when others can see distinct problems is just pure laziness on your part. For example, do you really think it is OK for muslims to advocate punishment of homosexuals?

Banjo, you are getting hysterical again.
You surely are not so ignorant as to believe that ALL Muslims are potential terrorists, or that they all want to kill homosexuals, or live under sharia law?

Many people from all religions pick and choose parts of their holy book or religious way of life that they do or don't want to follow. Muslims in general are no different from this.
Our country follows a freedom of religion rights, so if you don't like this multicultural, multi-religion way of life, perhaps it is you and those like you who should leave?

Dear Critic,

I have no issue with your points #1, #2 and #4.

«3. People who have a belief that their religion nullifies Australia laws.»

Human birth is rare.

God cannot be attained neither in heaven nor in hell, nor in myriad other worlds between, nor in the animal kingdom - only human life contains the narrow gate which leads back to God.

Having waited who knows how many trillions of years to obtain such a birth, you suggest that one should now give up this opportunity for the sake of observing your social laws? You must be kidding!

Society exists to sustain the human body. The human body exists to sustain the human mind. The human mind is the tool which, if properly directed by our intellect, can take us towards God.

Making and observing laws that go counter to religion, is not even like sawing off the branch you're sitting on: it's like sawing off the stem and roots as well.

---

Dear Tony,

I like your idea: «Maybe we can deport Mike Baird instead?»

All those who admire their ancestors who fought for freedoms and liberties, surely they would now continue in this tradition rather than rest on their laurels. Those who object to women being told what to wear, surely they will also object and resist those who order us what to wear if we want to ride a bicycle!

---

Dear Foxy,

«In this country we have laws that we are all expected to abide by...»

I am sorry to hear about your fall. I wish you well and a speedy recovery and am looking forward to reading your original thoughts once your wrist recovers sufficiently to express them.

Toni,

Many years ago I first started to study Islam, at Sydney Uni, and it was apparent to us then that Islam was/is a political system that has a religious overlay.
This overlay was designed by one Muhammad, a rather smart trader, to further his interests and the interests of his tribe; religion, as ever, was the control mechanism and claims that God had handed down the message only made it more potent.

The Oxford, probably for PC reasons doesn't want to say that Islam is, first and foremost, a political system whose aim, was and is, conquest; by whatever means.

Is Mise, that story sounds similar to the story of the Catholics and Protestants.
Think of all the countries who changed their main religion over the years, depending on who conquered who in the last war.
Personally, I think all religions are the same...

Here's some interesting statistics on Muslim support for suicide bombings.
In France 42% support in the 18-29 age group.
Sorry I couldn't find a better link for these stats.

http://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/753732777506471936

Suseonline Quote "that story sounds similar to the story of the Catholics and Protestants."

Big difference is other religions are not stuck in the stone age, they adapt with the passage of time.

"Big difference is other religions are not stuck in the stone age, they adapt with the passage of time."

And yet they'll still try and tell you that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth and that his "father" wasn't human - and that he is both human and God...and that somehow he came back to life after he was crucified.

Do you consider that "adapting" to the passage of time?

//The Oxford, probably for PC reasons doesn't want to say that Islam is, first and foremost, a political system whose aim, was and is, conquest; by whatever means.//

Oh no, Oh He From Whose Anus the Sun Doth Shine Most Radiantly. Obviously, despite being the foremost lexicographers in the English speaking world, the learned greybeards at Oxford just got their definition wrong. For you have spoken, and what do a bunch of eggheads know about the definitions of English words compared IsyMindias, King of Kings? Look on his words, ye mighty lexicographers, and despair.

//they adapt with the passage of time.//

Catholics? Adapting with the passage of time? ROFLMAO.

Fun Catholic fact for the evening: as well as having the highest per-capita crime rate in Europe, the Vatican has the world's highest per-capita consumption of wine (well, I suppose they'd claim that it's Christ's blood by the time they get around to drinking it). Drunken sods.

We all have our various belief systems be they Christian,
Judaic, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or any other. Most of us are
usually born into a family that follows a specific belief system.
And the majority of us are content to follow that belief system.
But there are of course some who in adulthood choose to abandon
their familial beliefs and follow their own paths.

Therefore we should not assume that everyone within any given belief
system is identical in what they believe. there are individual
differences in what people choose to believe.

What each of us believes is a private matter - and should not be of
any concern to anyone else. Unless what we believe, and the way we
behave will harm anyone else or go against the laws that we are all
expected to abide by , people who break those laws will be
held to account. People are free to practice whatever belief system
they choose, providing that belief system does not break any of the
laws within our legal framework.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your well wishes.

I shan't be posting too often because I find it difficult being
right-handed and being only able to use the fingers of my left hand.
I hope that people will understand what I am trying to say.

Poirot - Correct but those lies are not used to get people to kill other people.

Phillip S "Poirot - Correct but those lies are not used to get people to kill other people."

Except if you were Protestant, British and living in Northern Ireland or England of course...then it was apparently ok for the Catholics to bomb and shoot them dead until very recently...and vice versa...

Seems that Toni and Suse don't like Catholics; silly really as they both have good Catholic ancestors.

The Regressive Left are trying to sidetrack and disrupt any criticism of Islam. A favourite tactic of apologists is focussing on other religions instead. By why? If there is good in Islam you'd think they would be wanting to show that with examples. So why the red herrings, barriers and subterfuge?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dave Rubin Discuss Her Life, Islam and the Regressive Left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw12EEamFBc

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has often said, there are fundamentals of Islam that are incompatible with democracy and our way of life and there are others that may not be. We should be having commonsense discussion with Muslims on the pros and cons of Islam. However, there are obviously some non-negotiables that cannot be contemplated, full stop.

If a migrant is prepared to (say) inflict serious harm upon a child by attempting to arrange child marriage or female genital mutilation, then that should result in automatic revocation of citizenship should be revoked. Carrying out the crime should result in several years gaol then goodbye.

Where is the affront in making a clear distinction between the elements of Islam that are at odds with with our western way of life, our European heritage (systems of government and law, and freedom of speech as instances) and those that are not?

I do believe that the world is made up of different countries, with different cultures, for a very good reason. Some cultures simply do not mix yet despite the overwhelming evidence of Muslim immigration causing havoc pretty much everywhere they go, our authorities prefer the feather duster approach. I truly wonder how they see us!

Of cause, as has been said many times over on this site, the true test will come if and when the Muslims have to choose between their rulers, or our limp wristed leaders.

What happened in Nice can happen anywhere and given we have no way of telling a radices apart from a so called 'moderates', we are powerless to prevent such an atrocity.

I would get at least five customers a month asking me if I sell halal meats and when I say "i don't support the practice" they say thank god for that.

These are not leaders, or law makers, these are ordinary people making every day choices yet they are worried about where this country is headed, and very concerned about the type of life their grand children are going to have.

Hey Toni Lavis
"Only if we're going to be consistent and deport Australian Jews that support Halacha (Jewish law) and the existence of Australian beth dins"

I don't know anything much about this.
I did however listen to a talk show episode where a woman spoke about her experience in marrying a Jewish man who was going through a divorce.
Apparently a female Israeli Judge changed a law back in 2003 where women were exempt from prosecution for lies told in court.
Within several weeks false claims exceeded 20,000 claims.
The women make false claims saying their husbands are violent.
The man would be removed from his property which he'll never again. Also, being labelled a criminal he would now be denied the right to see his children, but he would be responsible for his ex-wife and child forever.
Suicide rates are 1 per day, 4500 suicides since the law was enacted in 2003. The man is ordered to pay all of his earnings or even more than he earns, to maintain the womans lifestyle nails, hair, rent etc. as it was before the divorce.
Men either go back to their parents, go to jail or commit suicide.

Here's the link to the program.
http://youtu.be/lCVBbgJosoM

Hey retchub,
I'm sure they see us as complete pushovers.
The come here and impose on Australian taxpayers through welfare for themselves and their kids, like it's a right to take from Australian workers, they slowly increase in numbers, start businesses and use our laws to bring more of themselves into the country taking Australian jobs, becoming citizens in formalty only not in spirit, forming their own voting blocks, take over our neighbourhoods, install their own members of parliament etc and changing my country from the inside out to accommodate their potentially harmful religious belief system and impose it upon us whilst, destroying or changing our Australian way of life and insulting, abusing or using politically correct rhetoric 'racist' to victimise Australians and deligitimise their genuine concerns.

In this way, I'm not actually attacking muslims anyway, I'm defending against the threat their potentially dangerous belief systems represent, which they brought here with them.

I'm willing to let anyone have a 'fair go' in the Australian way, but as you said they don't give us a fair go, not all of them anyway.

They must be really dumb if they think they can use our system against us and that we're so passified we wont say anything about it.
If we tried this in the nations they came from we'd be beheaded, yet they still complain about how things are here.
There's flights out every single day if they don't like Australia and Australians, and if they don't like our way of life they should go somewhere that accommodates those beliefs.
There's no law saying they have to remain here.

Suseonline said something earlier - we shouldn't single out one racial group/religion for persecution, because it obviously doesn't turn out well.
I don't like the idea that I must accept the continually changing status quo out of fear.
Fear of what? I KNOW things will only get worse.

Mikk said something important earlier too, about us doing exactly what they want.
We need to take this issue seriously but try really hard not to end up fighting amongst ourselves over it.

For all branches of Islam to kill non believers they believe they are doing Allah work. An opponent of Allah must be destroyed as evidenced by the events of Turkey a supposed Democratic State.
1. Islam believes death is the only way to atone for ones sins.
2. Judaism allows animal sacrifice to attone for ones sins.
3. Christianity believes all human and animal sacrifice has been removed because one righteous man, Jesus Christ has atoned for all sin

I received this 2 days late?

JOM: This all pre-supposes that the Muslim majority states would accept deportees, most of them won't take people back,

Australia could just drop ‘em at the doorstep & leave ‘em. Not our problem.

Poirot: "Now before someone throws the old 'racist card' at me, if wanting to return our nation to the peace loving country I grew up in, and expected my kids, kids to grow up in, then I would be proud to be called racist, a proud fair dinkum Aussie racist that is."

It was a peace loving Nation when you were growing up. The only thing that changed was to allow moslems in enmass. Now it’s not. No, I won’t say you are racist, Infidelophobic, hmmm.... yes.

Banjo: The main objective is to stop allowing muslims into Aus. The other thing we can do is let those go that want to go and fight in the ME, with no return.

Most definitely.

AC: By asking this question I'm trying to establish if Aussie's genuinely think the sharia law 'belief system' is suitable for Australia.

Definitely not.

Runner: btw I have no problems with people from any races coming to Australia if they are peace loving.

Most of those people have been Christian with some Buddhists & Hindus. Peaceful people as compared to moslems.

SOnLi: Yeah good one boys! We will ask all Muslims in Australia "Do you believe in Sharia Law?" Naturally, even knowing haters like you will want to bash/deport them, of course they will say "Oh yes we do!"

Then they have admitted that they want to overthrow the Democratic Government of Australia & replace it with a Caliphate. Therefore they should be removed from Australia immediately.

TL: And what about the citizens who were born here that you disagree with? Do we kick them out as well?

If they support the overthrow of Democracy in Australia & want to replace it with a Caliphate then yes.

Hasbeen: "With Sharia Law in Oz, Suse & Poirot, & their women's lib mates will be back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, & not allowed anywhere near a computer."

Is Mise: You forgot about being able to have four wives and quickie divorce.

Poirot: Oh bravo!, Hasbeen.....another scintillating example of grown-up blokey rhetoric on this forum.

Well is Hasbeen right or not poirot? Another question you won’t answer directly.

SOL: I don't scare easily, and any mad terrorist is not going to make me change one thing in my life.

We’ll see if you still think that way when Sharia Law takes over. But then, how would we recognize you in the latest fashion from Gladbags by Mohammad of Medina. ;-)

SOL: If any group should be unhappy it would be the Indigenous Australians who have had to put up with much more problems with other ethnic groups than anyone else.

Those Indigenous Australians who are unhappy with their lot should shun “everything” European & go back to the Bush, “As it was in the beginning. Naked & Unafraid.”

TL: May I ask what freedoms and liberties you've had to give up?

None yet, but when Sharia Law takes over. Most of what we have now.

Foxy: Well I'm back. I've been in hospital - having suffered another fall and broken the wrist on my right hand.

Arrr.!. ya poor buggar. I hope ya feelin’ better now.

Foxy: All are expected to subscribe to this legal framework that can protect the rights and liberties.

This?

“This document is to be used as a help or guide for Islamic members of the ADF and their Commanders;
• Question – What is the ruling on promoting Democracy?
• Answer – Democracy is a system which is contrary to Islam because legislative authority is given to a person or persons other than Allah:
• It is not permissible for a Moslem to vote unless they are using this as a means to overcome the system of Government;
• A Moslem who is living in a country which is not governed according to Islamic Sharia law, should do their utmost to strive to bring about Islamic law;
• In summary – This is to be official information to help Islamic members of the ADF and their commanders work together.”

Quran (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Quran takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.
Quran (12:40) - "...Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah..." Sometimes translated as "None have the right to legislate except Allah."
Quran (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."
Quran (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..."Obedience is strictly limited to a government drawn from believers, not from the broader community. This verse has also been used to justify submission to autocratic rule, however oppressive it may by. As an Arab tradition put is: "tyranny is better than anarchy."

the sisterhood hold no fear for Islam in Australia despite body parts of men, women and children being scattered throughout Europe over the last few years. They then make 2 weeks news over a commentator/celebrity making a joke about drowning one of their own in an ice bath. They are more fearful of a joke than they are reality. Sort of reminds me of the outrage at calling a women hysterical (even no she was) and yet giving free reign the the vulgar foul mouth Deveny by none other than our national broadcasters. Its all about sides girls, nothing about decency not reality.

runner,

Anything to say about the body parts strewn around Iraq in the wake of the US invasion?

You know the "invasion" that destabilised the whole region?

You know the "invasion" that was undertaken on "cooked-up" intelligence by the good Christian president Georgie Bush?

"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq..."

"...'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Poirot,

very selective which just confirms my point. Plenty of body parts before the 'invasion'of Iraq. In fact their is and has rarely been Islamic nations where body parts are not spread around. Nothing to do with Islam though Poirot. It does not fit your narrative.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm very sorry to hear of your accident, and wish you a speedy recovery. We need your moderating influence.

Yes, you're right. All Australians come under Australian law. No Australian, no Muslim Australian woman for example, should have their rights diminished in any way. The complications here are many, however: should Shari'a-sanctioned marriages be allowed, for example, with all the property discrimination against women that this entails ? On divorce, who has custody of children, once they are weaned ? Who controls property ? How do we square the rights of Australian Muslim women with the imposition of Shari'a on them in overseas jurisdictions ?

I have a couple of quarrels, with the halal killing of animals: it is brutal, slow and barbaric; if it's true that all of our meat currently has been killed this way, AND we are ALL paying for this 'service', why ? Why can't halal butchers, like Jewish kosher butchers, kill their own animals on their own premises without non-believers having to pay for it ?

Shari'a moves in the most devious ways: take land law, for instance. If land is bought by a devout Muslim, under Shari'a, he is buying for Allah, and that land can never ever go out of the hands of Allah. The ratchet effect is obvious.

Shari'a abhors gays: so a gay teacher could never work in a Muslim school. Of course, that raises the question of public funding for religious schools of all types: perhaps if Education Departments had full control of the appointment of teachers, and of curriculum, etc., that might scrape through. But it fraises the further question of whether any religious schools should be allowed to operate at all in Australia.

Islam is practised, to different levels, by 1.4 billion people of vastly different ethnic backgrounds. So race does not have anything to do with any critique of Shari'a.

We should be rock-solid on the principle, as you suggest Foxy, that ALL Australians come under the full force, the freedoms allowed and the restrictions imposed, by Australian law, and no others.

Best wishes,

Joe

runner,

"very selective which just confirms my point..."

Lol!....it's not as if the invasion of Iraq was anything much.

I do apologise for being "selective"...it's not as if the good Christian West has colonised and invaded this region for centuries or anything.

What was I thinking!

Hi Poirot,

Yet another non sequitur. What has Saddam's Iraq got to do with Shari'a in Australia ? Except that, for his own reasons, he probably - and quite rightly - opposed it ?

To repeat yet again, Islam is not a race, it's a religion and like all religions, has thrown up a multitude of ideologies, each interpreting what they think are original instructions in their own way. Also Islam is not a country: Islam is practised in a hundred countries.

In Iraq, apart from majority Shi'a and minority Sunni, there were many people following a wide range of other religious precepts. Saddam was an Arab nationalist (somebody used the word 'proto-fascist', which could have been applied to him) rather than an Islamist, but was happy to use his Sunni status to control the state (and the Shi'a and Kurds), but probably kept Shari'a well under control, unless he could exploit it.

Your assertion that the "Christian West has colonised and invaded this region for centuries" is perhaps inaccurate: a few decades at most ? It's also ironic, since Mesopotamia was - before the Arab invasion - mainly Kurdish and Persian. But, yes, it has certainly suffered under foreign rule for many centuries.

Back to topic: should Australian law totally prevail ? or should Shari'a be imposed on Muslim women ? Your call. No dodging now :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

I wasn't addressing you. I was responding to runner.

Notwithstanding, it gives you a soapbox for your meandering blather.

I'm back to not reading most of it...too much like hard work following your self-assured ramshackle commentary.

Cheers!.

Hi there FOXY...

I'm very sorry to hear of your accident, ending in a broken wrist a most painful injury to be sure. I do hope you're now OK, and well on the way to recovery, so please take care.

I don't know about these people being deported, perhaps first, they should see a psychiatrist considering how barbaric and ferocious their belief systems are. Most certainly they don't make an ideal Aussie citizen do they ? Not that I know too much about Sharia law, other than some of those bizarre laws, if their suggested retribution is ever exerted here in OZ, it would most assuredly result in serious criminal charges being filed.

I mentioned once before in a similar topic I believe, it's now time we sought a full military response to all this ISIS stuff, which seems to be motivating many of those, who's only wish it is, to fully introduce Sharia Law here in Oz. Totally vanquish and rout them, right out of Syria and environs, or anywhere else they may have a decent stronghold, and utterly eradicate them, as you would do with a serious disease, like Ebola !

poirot: Notwithstanding, it gives you a soapbox for your meandering blather.

& Exactly what do you call the diversion of mentioning what happened in the Middle East. That has got nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Stick to the Subject poirot, let's not have anymore diversions.

If you believe in the word of the full word of the koran & I believe you do poirot, then you will agree wholeheartedly with the following Quotes from the koran. If so, then I do believe that finding a Country that is like minded, then emigrating, would be an the right thing to do, both for yourself & Australia.

Quran:
4:59
4:123
4: 141
5:44
5:59
9:3
18:26
33:36
39:9
45:21
63:8

& Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."

I suggest you look these up people. This is what Islam has in store for Democracy in Australia.

Further reading on this Subject;

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8129/sweden-islam-democracy ;
http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/muslim-writer-explains-why-islam-and-democracy-are-incompatible-47245/ ;
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/06/islam-democracy-problem-160603110712108.html ;
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/democracy.aspx ;
https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islam-and-democracy-an-obscure-relationship-fatima-al-sama

Hi Poirot,

Fair enough, nobody should have to put up with my blather.

I'll save you (and others) the trouble by cutting to the chase:

* should Australian law totally prevail for ALL Australians IN Australia, and nothing but ? or should Shari'a be imposed on Muslim women ?

Just trying to save you time :)

Your call. No dodging now :)

Cheers,

Joe

Should Catholics who support Catholic religious law be deported?
Should Mormons who support Mormon religious law be deported?
Should Jews who support Jewish religious law be deported?
Should any godbotherer who follows their own churches religious law be deported?

All religions have their own laws and even their own courts. They only apply to those that believe and are submitted to willingly. I know. I have had a few friends and family be called up before Mormon courts and sanctioned or excommunicated. Funny they never bothered with me.

If it is ok to deport Moslems then I want all the other magic super fairy believing loons to go with them.

A bit extreme, Mikk: that so many people should be deported.

It would be far simpler for all legal systems in Australia to enforce Australian law, and for any other systems of law to be declared illegal - which, I suppose, they are implicitly or tacitly, legal systems being somewhat exclusive.

All Australians should come under Australian law in Australia, and nothing but Australian law. Even imams. Don't you agree ?

When you say "Mormon courts", what powers do they claim to have in Australia, over Australians ? To shat extent are they "courts" in a legal sense ?

Cheers,

Joe

Recently Sharia law slimed its way into Australia and those who defied it roundly condemned by a wide variety of vocal appeasers.

It started with a court hearing in Australia in which the Family Court ruled that a mother was to exercise custody of her two children.

The Moslem father, however, spirited the kids to Lebanon where a Moslem religious "court" (not a state court) held a Sharia-based hearing reversing the finding of the proper Australian court.

Channel Nine funded a rescue attempt which was botched. Y'all know the story and the sanctimonious hullabaloo not over the botching of the rescue but over the mounting of an attempt to bring the children - in defiance of Sharia - back into the jurisdiction of proper Australian law.

The appeaser uproar treated the attempt and Channel Nine's role as as if it was a defiance of real law. Allahu akbar!

Of course they should be deported. Muslim immigration should never have been permitted in the first place. The original imports might not have been a threat, but their offspring certainly are, and the blame lies fairly and squarely with Australian politicians. Immigration is an Islamic weapon of war against the West. Our uneducated politicians still deny this fact.

EmperorJulian, "The appeaser uproar treated the attempt and Channel Nine's role as as if it was a defiance of real law"

Tara Brown, 'What did we do wrong'....Boo Hoo..'We are only journalists'..Blubber..cameras still rolling, another Channel 9 exclusive.

They are all very lucky not to be serving custodial sentences.

Joe
They have whatever powers they want to have. Over their members.
Its not just the Mormons(or the moslems).
They all have their own little kangaroo courts to keep their adherents in line.

They all have their own rules whether it be no sex before marriage, no contraception, no divorce, no fags, no drugs or alcohol, blasphemy, breaking the 10 commandments, not going to church on Sunday( or Saturday or Friday or whatever day they say) etc etc.
Breaking these rules can get you called up before anything from the local priest to a full blown 12 man court situation. Here you will be judged and either let off or punished. Everything from not being able to partake in the sacrament, a few heil marys, being excluded from meetings, right up to excommunication.
But it only applies, indeed can only apply, to members of that faith/sect.
They can excommunicate me all they like, stop me coming to their meetings etc. I couldnt care less.

They say it is their club and they can decide the rules.
I understand the masons and lots of sporting/recreation clubs have similar things.

Looks a bit silly this whole deport the moslems rant now doesnt it.

I doubt that deportation is a genuinely workable option on any scale that would reduce the issues.

That said I'd agree that a belief in Sharia Law is incompatible with that broad group of concepts called Australian values.

I'm firmly of the view that Islam is a belief system including very strong political elements and not a race and would be about as happy to see those nongs calling opponents of Islam racists deported as I'd be to see Islamist's deported. To dump or dishonest to acknowledge the difference between a racial grouping and acceptance of an ideology.

My impression is that like Christians the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Australia manage to have a faith without taking the sillier bits to their logical conclusions. Unfortunately at this point in time the bell curve for Islam does seem to be a lot more dangerous than the curve for Christians.

I think it's very difficult to pick those who will radicalize, often they don't appear very zealous before going on a quest to kill groups of people (including other muslims).

I think it's well past time our pollies and media stopped the spin and lies about a religion of peace and started calling it for what it is. Do it in a framework that accepts that most muslims don't follow the extremes but stop pretending that they are not there. Honest coverage of the teachings of the faith etc.

We could consider whats being reportedly being introduced in Egypt where friday prayers sermon is required to be word for word from a set prepared text, not something I greatly like but perhaps a necessary consequence of the faith not being able to govern itself.

It's not a simple topic, some proposals create precedents that could easily be misused and any attempt to fix the issues run a high risk of hurting a lot of innocent people.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Beautifully put.

You've said it far better than I could have done.

poirot: Lol!....it's not as if the invasion of Iraq was anything much.

I guess Saddam was really a nice guy & didn't gas whole villages or Damm the waters going into the Delta to kick the Swamp people out. I guess he didn't hang lots of his Countrymen from the ceiling connected to Electric Shock. All of which caused a mass exodus of Refugees (the first batch) All so bad that the World cried for someone to save these people & get rid of Saddam.

A trap by Islamists to spread Islam through stealth to the West. A trap that the West unfortunately fell into.
But really this is all just a diversion from the Topic, isn't it poirot.

You didn't have anything to say about my Posts on just what Islam thinks of Democracy & just what Islam's plans for Australia are exactly & why Islamist shouldn't be removed from Australia.

In fact you haven't given a reason for Islamists not to be ejected from Australia. You have just tried to create a diversion. True to type, eh.

Now, try to stick to the Subject poirot.

Thanks Foxy, cut the bit due to the word limit where I suggested that attempts to do widespread screening would probably just radicalise a bunch more and create grater problems.

Also managed to misspell dumb when referring to one of the options for those who call anyone expressing concerns about Islam racists. No irony in that of course.

R0bert

The question must be asked "Who feels justified for killing another on the basis of a religious law". We do have honour killings in Australia on the basis of a religious law. The perpetrators of rape of Kafir women feel totally justified by their religion in such acts.

SHARIAH LAWS ARE BEING ENACTED ALREADY IN AUSTRALIA. To kill a Policeman who enforces Australian Laws against Muslims carrying out such Shariah law is a hero, and if killed in the process is a martyr.

Sonia Kruger says Australia should close borders to Muslims

"They are all very lucky not to be serving custodial sentences."

For breach of what actual law? Recovering one's kidnapped children is hardly kidnapping. The Lebos would look pretty silly trying for extradition.

RObert, precisely - and how many more Islamist atrocities have to occur, how many more innocents slaughtered, before our leaders call them 'Islamist atrocities' and stop going on about a 'religion of peace' ? There's no such thing. In any case, as you imply, ISIS' IslamISM is an ideology, with its roots in Islam. Ultimately, it is a cancer that only Muslims can root out. We should wish them well with all our hearts.

Hi Mikk,

You mean, like any club ? Not telling members what they MUST do, but what they MUSTN'T do ? Like any voluntary organisation actually. That's not really a court though, is it ? For breaches of rules, you might get ostracised or shunned or whatever, but that's really a function of the contractual arrangements between you and your particular 'club'.

No, Mikk, Shari'a is a very definite body of LAW, a perversion of Islam maybe but brutally enforceable in many countries. It doesn't apply to just the odd civic or community body but to entire populations, like it or not. It commands brutal punishments, controls people's lives and orders their deaths. Comparing Shari'a law to Mormon rules is like comparing a sword to a plastic knife.

Joe

If we did close the border to Muslims, it would at least force them to address the issue of the more radical elements of their own religion.
They would have to accept that a proportion of Australian voters do have legitimate concerns and it would force everyone to the table to deal with the issue properly.

I mostly agree with a hard line stance, if only to at least have the issue looked at seriously.

Hi Foxy, I was sorry to read you had another fall. I hope you have everything in place in your home now to help prevent any more falls. They really do affect people adversely in so many ways. Accept as much help as you can. Good luck.

JayB, the Indigenous Australians can't 'go back to the bush' to live again, as you put it. They mainly roamed the fertile coastal areas of Australia before they were invaded and displaced from these areas by early settlers. Remember, they took all the good land 'in the name of the King'?

I don't know what all this carry-on, ranting, raving and tearing of chest hair is about sharia law, which is nowhere near being lawful in Australia, and never will be.
Can anyone ever see our pollies agreeing to make these courts legal? They won't even agree to make gay marriage or euthanasia legal, something which the majority of Australians want!

Most of the usual paranoid blokes on this forum are trying to use sharia law and the worst passages of an ancient Koran book to frighten others into agreeing that we shouldn't allow those mainly brown coloured followers of Islam into 'our' country.
Dig a little deeper and you will find they don't want anyone here except white, Christian people. I am not sure where our original Australians fit in this picture...

//I don't know anything much about this.//

Crikey, what a surprise (sarcasm). If you're going to start threads about religions favouring their own religious laws and courts, do you not think it would behoove you to do a little research on the topic beforehand? Or perhaps even afterhand, once people have pointed to the gaps in your knowledge?

//Suseonline said something earlier - we shouldn't single out one racial group/religion for persecution, because it obviously doesn't turn out well.//

No, that was me that said that.

//Fear of what? I KNOW things will only get worse.//

No you don't. You cannot have knowledge of the future; it's against the Laws of Relativity. There are no seers, psychics, pre-cognitive mutants et. al.

There are only people who can guess at what the future will be like. Over a very short to short-term period, people trained in the hard sciences are quite good at predicting the future and everybody else is taking a wild stab in the dark. Over the medium to long term, pretty much everybody is engaging in random conjecture, especially those in the arts and the soft sciences.

//I have a couple of quarrels, with the halal killing of animals: it is brutal, slow and barbaric//

I wouldn't say that it's slow - severing a major artery in any large mammal will induce hypovolemic shock within seconds - but it is slower than modern methods of slaughter. It is quite brutal to my squeamish sensibilities, but so is animal slaughter in general. The beauty of capitalism is that I can pay other people to do the messy jobs that I'm squeamish about (animal slaughter, nursing, autopsies, etc.) I would have to say that on the whole it is no barbaric than shechita, which nobody seems give a toss about.

//if it's true that all of our meat currently has been killed this way//

It isn't true. Apparently it has never occurred to anybody in the anti-halal camp that halal pork is about as common as unicorn steaks. Muslims don't eat pigs. So there's quite a lot of 'all our meat' which is obviously not halal. I've never encountered halal kangaroo, either. I think you'd probably be quite safe with most game meats. I'm planning on a rabbit stew later in the week. But I also eat 'normal' meat that can be either halal or haram: chicken, beef and lamb. Here's how you handle those meats if you're sticking to a haram diet*:

Just read the bloody packaging if you're that worried about it. You should be doing that anyway to make sure it's nutritionally sound. Somewhere in the small print, near the nutritional panel, it will tell you if it is halal or not. If it is, and that bothers you, don't buy it. It amazes me that I am having to teach capitalism 101 to the right. Don't you people cover this in the induction?

//AND we are ALL paying for this 'service', why ?//

No, that's not true either. If you don't buy halal food, you don't pay for halal food.

Oh yeah, you were too busy with Marxism to attend your capitalist induction, weren't you Joe? My apologies. Basically, in Australian capitalism, you don't necessarily have to pay for things you don't want or need. Sometimes you do, and that's called taxes. And sometimes you don't, and that's called commerce. Buying food is commerce, not taxes. Does that clear things up at all?

* Although why you'd want to follow a haram diet if you're anti-Islamic is beyond my ken. By doing so, you are essentially allowing Islam to define what you should and should not eat. I just eat whatever tastes good. From where I stand, avoiding nice food just to make some stupid political statement sounds almost like an eating disorder.

//Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."//

If you change Allah for God, he sounds uncannily similar to runner.

//All Australians should come under Australian law in Australia, and nothing but Australian law. Even imams. Don't you agree ?//

Yes, they should.

There is no law that allows for the deportation of Australian citizens if they worship the wrong god. If the government wanted to make a law like that they'd need a referendum first because otherwise it would be unconstitutional. That referendum would never pass.

//Looks a bit silly this whole deport the moslems rant now doesnt it.//

dear Suse,

Thanks for your kind words.

It's excellent being back and reading your, and others,
well reasoned views on various subjects. I've missed
them.

TL: There is no law that allows for the deportation of Australian citizens if they worship the wrong god.

It's the same God Tony, just different Dogma. Unfortunately the Islamic Dogma is an extremely bad one, even for moslems. It's that type of Dogma that is not needed or wanted in Australia.

SOL: They mainly roamed the fertile coastal areas of Australia before they were invaded and displaced from these areas by early settlers.

I don't see why not they're always on about reclaiming their Culture.

SOL: Can anyone ever see our pollies agreeing to make these courts legal?

You never know. It depends on how hard Politically Correct the Greens, & Socialists want to push. It seems to be their agenda to appease the Islamists in case they'll start bombing Australians. I guess when we all give in to stop the Terrorism killing people then the real moslems will step in & have their turn. Eh, poirot & SOL. What is it? We will be given three choices, Convert, Pay the Jizya Tax or get you head lopped off for being an Infidel.

Now Austraian's have a choice. Get rid of the moslems or eventually put up with the consequences.

No word from poirot on my previous posts. How say you poirot? Is this how moslems view Democracy? & why should Australians accept this as their inevitable fate? Why shouldn't moslems be deported because of it?

Let's not get carried away with some diversion.

Susie says ".... we shouldn't allow those mainly brown coloured followers of Islam into 'our' country. Dig a little deeper and you will find they don't want anyone here except white, Christian people. I am not sure where our original Australians fit in this picture..."

No Susie, I want atheists of every colour and hue. We've got too many Christians too, AFAIAC.

I have a half a foot in the Bolt/Krugar camp. If, statistically, global terror is largely Muslim in origin, they have a point, and she speaks too as a mother of children like those massacred in Nice. I mean, there's prejudicial discrimination and there are statistics. Sure we shouldn't bear prejudice, but which group other than Muslims is most likely to raise extremism and terrorism from within its community?

Is the price of remaining impartial to ignore prospective lives lost?

It's a tough one, and becomes more so with each new outrage. Perhaps there should be refugee religious quotas that do not shift the current mix, ie. 2% of refugees should be Muslim if that is their percentage of our population. Just a dumb thought to get us through.

mikk,

"Should Catholics who support Catholic religious law be deported?
Should Mormons who support Mormon religious law be deported?
Should Jews who support Jewish religious law be deported?
Should any godbotherer who follows their own churches religious law be deporte"

Emphatically YES!

If the law that they support is anti democracy,
says that it's OK to lie in support of their laws, encourages the murder of homosexuals etc.,etc.

Suse and oni,

How're you getting on with your Catholic ancestors?

Found any yet?

Japan has no terrorist attacks,

Why? no big muslim populations.

Suseonline, "... we shouldn't allow those mainly brown coloured followers of Islam into 'our' country. Dig a little deeper and you will find they don't want anyone here except white, Christian people. I am not sure where our original Australians fit in this picture..."

What has colour got to do with it? Apart from your own Leftist cultural cringe and fembot hatreds that cause you to disrespect and sledge 'white men' at every opportunity. Here, the roots of that 'diversity-Oz-has-to-have' that Oz Leftists slavishly copied from UK Labour. The Leftist elites there and here never thought to discuss the policy with the electorate though, which is now coming back to bite them on the behind,

"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

The construction industry could sure do with some more of those Italian block layers who have long retired after years of good work.

And some Swedes and other Northern Europeans who can build retaining walls and basements that don't leak.

Some Irish heavy equipment operators who have actually been properly trained in all aspects of their work.

What Australia doesn't need is more generations lined up at 'Wonderful Centrelink' in the main capitals.

Maybe Australia could export some of those whining, culturally cringing Leftists to Europe in exchange. They can find some guvvy teats to swing from over there while explaining how their social engineering went wrong.

Onthebeach, I didn't mention white men at all, you did. And your constant comments on swinging from government t...s is becoming boringly, repeatedly sexist.

Why not suggest that all your hated welfare recipients are swinging from the government's balls, especially as the vast majority of our political party are populated by males? This sounds much more likely...

All you haters will no doubt be celebrating your beloved Pauline Hanson's embarrassing appearance on Q&A tonight? She made the usual total fool of herself.
Oh wait, that's right, you guys don't watch the ABC because it is populated by the dreaded leftists...what a pity, because it was quite entertaining.

Australia is a free society. Nobody should be deported for merely holding a political view, however repugnant.

And even among those Muslims who say they support Sharia law, there's wide disagreement as to what that means.

TV host Sonia Kruger stirs Muslim migration storm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/tv-host-sonia-kruger-stirs-muslim-migration-storm/news-story/aae57ba800f880cadd827ba6478ff313

People may notice that the comments for this article are mostly all supportive of Sonia Kruger.

After hearing the comments on this thread, and from the above article I've come to the conclusion that no matter how the left try to play down the Islam issue there is a section of fair minded Australian voters who consider Islam as a threat.
The voices of these Australian voters deserve to be heard and more importantly their concerns should be answered and not ignored, avoided or ridiculed.
To ignore the issue would show contempt towards Australians as I believe we have reached a consensus where Australians have spoken loud and clear that the Islam issues are worthy of further discussion.
The time to argue whether issues exist in my opinion has been settled.
Now we need to consider the best and fairest ways to approach dealing with these issues.
Like it or not, (and like her or not) Pauline Hanson was in fact spot on when she said this was a matter of concern for Australians.
The amount of comments and interest on the topic speaks for itself.

Foxy,
Sorry to hear about your fall, I hope your not in too much discomfort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw__o_UPuJ4

Islam's Brutal Treatment of Women - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

@Suseonline, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 12:48:17 AM

You are having a problem.

Here, take one of this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLTGeS4VM5o
Milo Yiannopoulos on the Bolt Report: Gays, Guns and Goading SJWs

plus a long cold glass of water, a couple of Aspirin (no Bex) and a good lie down.

Should we deport those who support Sharia Law in Australia?

Well let's look at a scenario.

You have children & you invite a child to come & play with your children. The child immediately starts to bash your children, wreck their toys & badmouth them. You intervene & ask the child to stop his bad behaviour. He then badmouths you & tells you he's allowed to behave like that at home so he has the right to behave badly at your house.

What do you do?

a. Say, Please don't behave badly here, but it's Ok if you don't.

b. Say, Ok then, carry on behaving badly & tell your children to accept that child's bad behaviour.

c. Send the child home & tell the child never to come back.

I know what I would do. How about you.

Of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam and Judaeism are both law-giving ones that tell adherents how to behave and both religions are equally dismissive of non-believers.

Sharia Law is not part of our legal system as is never will to be so why all the scaremongering fuss?

Perhaps it's just another excuse for intolerant people and racists to hide behind.

rache, "Sharia Law is not part of our legal system as is never will to be so why all the scaremongering fuss?"

You had better whip off urgent letters to the federal and State Departments of Primary industry and to other interested parties like the RSPCA who are apparently under the illusion that Islamic ritual slaughter is commonly performed in Australia. The regulations were changed to suit Islamic demands and what was already happening.

RSPCA,
http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-is-halal-slaughter-in-australia_116.html

Now I challenge you to find anyone outside of the said religious fundamentalists, which must include the so-called moderates too, who would support ritual slaughter.

Rache, I doubt that Sharia Law would be formally acknowledged in our legal system but there are some legitimate discussions we should be having around the types of exceptions that should be made on the basis of religious belief. Some of themselves trivial other than as a precedent and others more about fair dealing.

Generally I'm of the view that if society is able to relax a law on the basis of religion we didn't need it anyway and its unreasonable to impose it on those who may not agree with it for reasons other than religion.

I don't though have a lot of objection to adults who are part of a religion being able to live by their religions rules as long as that does not impose on or restrict those not part of the religion. There are some issues issues though around children and the role parents beliefs should play (eg parents refusing basic medical treatment for children on the basis of beliefs - including the anti vacs crowd).

Also those who want to pick and choose which bits of their faith the state can interfere with, should someone who demands the right to have their face covered on the basis of a contested view of their faiths teachings be entitled to protection by the state from their faiths regulations on divorce?

R0bert

Gee Loudmouth, you seem to have chased Poirot away. direct questions have a habit of doing that.

What will it take for the supporters of evil to change their minds. Perhaps a rampaging truck heading through circular quay, or the Brisbane mall killing as many as possible. My bet would be that they would find some excuse not to blame Islam.

Yeah, Hanson was beautifully set up by Tony, like a duck in a barrel: bam ! bam ! Very clever.

Suse, can you try to understand that Islam is not a race: our Muslim MPs are a mixture and one day, I hope, they will include a sub-Saharan African.

Thanks Toni:

// //Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."//

If you change Allah for God, he sounds uncannily similar to runner.//

Yes, but perhaps without the current terrorism. So you have sympathetic feelings for runner's position now ? Would you be prepared to criticise, or even condemn, anybody who had even more violent and backward thoughts than runner ?

I think runner was hinting at the superiority of democracy over the religious dictatorship that Qutb was supporting sixty years ago [yes, Islamist extremism has been around for a long time, a hell of a lot longer than sixty years but feel free to bash the Yanks] and I think he is right. Would you rather support runner or Qutb ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Armchair Critic,

Thank you for your good wishes.

I received excellent care in our hospitals.

Hopefully, no more falls from now on.

As for the political make-up of the Senate?

Judging from "Q and A" last night, it certainly looks
like it's going to be an interesting times in the Senate.
As for Pauline Hanson? She is an elected representative.
And is entitled to her views.

Interesting times ahead.

'Asked if the violence was fuelled by Islamist motivations, Herrmann confirmed that the suspect had shouted something in connection with the attack, but that the investigation was still underway.'

In Germany today. Oh well the sisterhood have no fears. It only Germany. Could never happen here. Must be Hansons fault for stirring up fear eh girls.

"Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith.It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term , which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation."

That, my friends is taken straight out of wikipedia. Now if anyone here disagrees with that, then by all means log in to wikipedia and go about changing it, after all it is "democratic" knowledge base...

We could turn this around and apply Christian flavor to how the Holy bible is interpreted. I or anyone else for that matter could take the old testament with all its stuff about an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth etc.. and all its other murder, violence and animal sacrifice stories. Then begin to form a nations constitution and laws based on this ancient text.

Its called extremism and doesn't matter which religion or ideology we are talking about.

Is their a place for extremism interpretations of religious text in not only today's but future sovereign nations ability to instigate peace, stability and freedom for all of its citizens?

(continued below)

No, is my opinion. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Weather anyone on here believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings or not, the fact of the matter is that in today's world. The nations that have the most peace, stability and freedom for its citizens are western representative democracies, NOT nations that practice Sharia law or any other type of religion or ideology.

According to the KJV of the Holy Bible in the book of Matthew chapter 22, Jesus Christ had this to say about politics and religion.

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

The above extraction from the KJV version of the Holy bible is pretty self explanatory as to how Christians are to separate religion from state, especially 21.

I can pull out plenty more holy bible verses and quotes to back up my argument about the christian basis for separating religion from politics. However, I believe I have made my point.

I'll say it again and risk the resultant 'ad hominems' from the politically naive and the ignorant..

Islam is a political movement of conquest thinly disguised by a religious overlay, it was thus designed by Muhammad to aid his desire to conquer the tribes around him, it was one man's plan of expansionism; he wasn't the first nor will he be the last to hide his earthly desires behind a claim to be divinely led.

Hi Foxy, glad to see you are on deck again.

One thing, you say, Pauline is entitled to her opinion, & this is true, but more importantly, she should be promoting the opinion of those who elected her.

I believe she does this better, & more accurately than any other politician in any of our parliaments.. She certainly is more representative of the opinions of her supporters than Turnbull or Shorten ever try or want to be.

The runner up in the true representation stakes is probably Barnaby Joyce. I am sure you have noticed how the ABC lot hate him too, & try to belittle him.

Brexit, Pauline, Trump & even Barnaby, I think the elites are feeling the wave of resistance, more than ever before. With any luck a few more waves will sweep them up & dump them high on the beach, with the other flotsam of history.

As that Chinese curse goes, we sure are living in interesting times. I have a nasty feeling the times are about to become a damn sight more interesting, & in fact downright dangerous in the very near future.

Hang onto your hat kiddo, & try to enjoy it all. After all, this life is meant to be fun.

//So you have sympathetic feelings for runner's position now ?//

No.

//Would you be prepared to criticise, or even condemn, anybody who had even more violent and backward thoughts than runner ?//

Yes.

'Anybody who had even more violent and backward thoughts than runner' is not equivalent to 'all Muslims' - and yes, I know you didn't say that explicitly, Joe - and I will not accept that this is the case until somebody can prove it.

//I think runner was hinting at the superiority of democracy over the religious dictatorship that Qutb was supporting sixty years ago//

I think you're being far too generous to runner. He is forever banging the drum in favour of God's laws governing the society rather than man's - why do you think he is always railing so vehemently against secularism? The man clearly favours a Christian theocracy over a liberal democracy. Which is his right, because the Australian government has yet outlaw freedom of belief.

//and I think he is right//

Really? I thought you were an atheist? What kind of atheist supports a Christian theocracy?

Haven't we already covered the idea that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend?

//Would you rather support runner or Qutb ?//

c) Neither of the above.

But nice attempt at a false dilemma ;)

Dear Hassie,

Thank You for your good wishes and -

Bless You for having been so generous to me over all these
many years that we've shared on this forum.

Politically, we're living in some very challenging times.

I trust that in this country of ours - the laws that we have
in place will continue to protect us, from the problems that
we see happening overseas. I would not want to live anywhere
else.

The French President has as good as such surrender to terrorist activity, saying, " We have to learn to live with terrorists!" If France is at war with opponents of French freedoms and values then it is legitimate to treat them as enemy and incarcerate them or, deport them to the French battle field.

A bit gutless, Toni.

And not every Christian is prepared to use any tactics to enforce a theocracy on everybody. Straw-man. How do you KNOW that runner thinks that way ? He's just a believer, not a jihadi.

In fact, I thought a necessary qualification to be a Bishop in the Anglican church was that you had to be an atheist, or at least have doubts about god's existence.

Anyway, the point is that it is possible to be a believer, and also a supporter of democracy. So if you support democracy, you and I can both walk with runner, on the basis of principle, not out of opportunism, I'll leave that to the pseudo-Left. But even you can walk and fart at the same time.

Joe

Rojama,

"...The nations that have the most peace, stability and freedom for its citizens are western representative democracies..."

Why indeed....take the country of freedom, America, for instance.

Each day its inhabitants murder around 25 of their fellow citizens with firearms - that's each day all over the Land of the Free.

Considering the US was also instrumental in invading and destabilising the region in the middle-east currently in turmoil, that's not all that scintillating a record.

Argumentum in extremis, Poirot :)

As the old cartoon had it, 'if you know of a better hole, go to it.'

Joe

Poirot: Considering the US was also instrumental in invading and destabilising the region in the middle-east currently in turmoil, that's not all that scintillating a record.

Oh crap poirot. The middle East has never been stable in it's entire history. Ever. The West made the mistake of thinking they could bring about some sort of stability but instead it just gave them someone else to blame.

By the Way I never heard from you regarding any of the Quotes from the koran I gave previously.

If you believe in the word of the full word of the koran & I believe you do poirot, then you will agree wholeheartedly with the following Quotes from the koran. If so, then I do believe that finding a Country that is like minded, then emigrating, would be an the right thing to do, both for yourself & Australia.

Quran:
4:59
4:123
4: 141
5:44
5:59
9:3
18:26
33:36
39:9
45:21
63:8

& Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."

Do you wholeheartedly stand by these quotes.

Do you agree with the following & would you work towards their end in Australia.

• Question – What is the ruling on promoting Democracy?
• Answer – Democracy is a system which is contrary to Islam because legislative authority is given to a person or persons other than Allah:
• It is not permissible for a Moslem to vote unless they are using this as a means to overcome the system of Government;
• A Moslem who is living in a country which is not governed according to Islamic Sharia law, should do their utmost to strive to bring about Islamic law;

I look forward eagerly to your reply.

Josephus,

'The French President has as good as such surrender to terrorist activity, saying, " We have to learn to live with terrorists!" If France is at war with opponents of French freedoms and values then it is legitimate to treat them as enemy and incarcerate them or, deport them to the French battle field.'

I think these attacks in Paris go back to Obama, Hillary and Sarkozy attacking Libya, and then France attacking Mali.
The French have an interest in next door Niger as this is where the worlds best Uranium deposits are which they need for their nuclear power.
I think a lot of their problems come from this region, Algeria, Tunisia etc.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2013/0114/Mali-Islamists-threaten-to-retaliate-at-the-heart-of-France-video

Loudmouth, you know damn well I am aware that Islam is a religion, but you also know that the majority of people in our world who practice Islam are from certain countries and races who are from Middle Eastern or Asian/Indonesian countries.

I am very sure your heroine Hanson is not talking mainly about white Muslims of European origin, aren't you? Didn't you just love her shocked face when Senator Sam Dastiardi told her he was Muslim on Q&A last night? Lol, I thought she would have a stroke!
She has already spoken very publicly about her attitudes to 'others' when discussing Aboriginals and Asians, so no one has any doubts about her obvious racism.

JayB, no matter how much you want to quote your obviously well-studied Koran passages, you can't make the majority of intelligent Australians believe that all Muslims follow that old book to the letter, just like the Christians don't all gather about the place stoning adulterers, as they are urged to by their bible....although I can't be absolutely sure about Runner.

Suse,

Where in the New Testament does it urge the stoning of adulterers?

All this he said she said rubbish is not addressing the real issue.

There is no doubt what so ever that if you stop importing Muslims, you will reduce the risk of terrorism. It is a plain simple undeniable fact.

Is Mise,

Why does it have to be the New Testament? Sure, God took anger management classes between Testaments, but the two are inextricably linked.

The only scriptural advantage Christians have over Muslims is that they have two definitive testaments - with the new slightly better than the old - and John 13:34-35 to justify pretending that the new overrides the old. Apart from that, they too have to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to ignore the bad parts of their hold book, and pretend that their messiah didn’t wholeheartedly endorse every word of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18).

Apparently even the bits about raping little girls (Numbers 31:17-18) and enslaving people (Exodus 21).

Of course, that should be "holy book".

But since I'm wasting a post, here's a video of a monkey dancing:

http://youtu.be/KHtocSC7hRU?t=13

SuseOnLine writes: "JayB, no matter how much you want to quote your obviously well-studied Koran passages, you can't make the majority of intelligent Australians believe that all Muslims follow that old book to the letter"

Herein lies the cognitive dissonance in which two quite different statements are conflated and nimbly flicked from one to the other and back by appeasers.

#1 Islam is a vile, authoritarian, sexist cult whose cruelty and intolerance of dissent marks it as bigotry on steroids (true from the evidence of its holy books which can't be blithely dismissed as "that old book")

#2 All adherents of Islam follow "that old book" to the letter (untrue from our observation that they obviously do not).

People (I'd hazard a guess that it's overwhelmingly most of them) who recognise the truth of #1 and are concerned about its social impact also recognise the untruth of #2 and their calls for social measures responding to the truth of #1 are not dependent on #2 being true.

All claims that recognising the truth of #1 presupposes #2 are not merely illogical but are examples of intellectual dishonesty. This applies (inter alia) to SuseOnLine's response to JayB.

EmperorJulien, how nice to see you jumping to JayB's defence, but you, like him, live in a fantasy world that says all Muslims are alike. With millions of Muslims all over the world, this can't possibly be true. That would be like saying all Christians are alike...

Suggesting that most people believe your version of events is untrue as well. 500,000 voters apparently blindly followed the racist One Nation party and their strange leader, hoping they would 'save' them from rabid local Muslim terrorists.
Over 13 million didn't.
So where do you get your figures from to support your theory?

SuzeOnLine if you read my post you would see that I specifically rejected as patently untrue the notion that all followers of Islam are alike. I suggest you re-read it and keep re-reading it and thinking about the logic of it to avoid statements that could only be identified as embodying intellectual dishonesty.

I might add that unlike you I reject as incompatible with a decent society any cult that assigns a lesser value to women, as you will also see by re-reading that very short and simple post. If you were a feminist (which you seem not to be) you would do likewise.

"Feminists don’t challenge radical Islam because real misogynists are terrifying

JUNE 9, 2015 BY JANET BLOOMFIELD

Phyllis Chesler has a piece up at the New York Post demanding to know why feminists refuse to challenge radical Islam in any of its manifestations.

The Middle East and Western Africa are burning; Iran is raping female civilians and torturing political prisoners; the Pakistani Taliban are shooting young girls in the head for trying to get an education and disfiguring them with acid if their veils are askew — and yet, NOW passed no resolution opposing this.

What is going on?

Chesler diagnoses rampant feminist cowardice, and she is quite correct. Feminists are largely spoiled, middle-class white girls unaccustomed to concepts like accountability or responsibility, and courage is a rare sight with this lot. But Chesler misses just what feminists are terrified of:

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

And why? They are terrified of being seen as “politically incorrect” and then demonized and shunned for it..."
http://tinyurl.com/q7y4a68

Suse,

Here's an entertaining article on Q&A on Monday night from Neil McMahon, who, incidentally, told me he deleted the word "plastic" in reference to the "swizzle stick that passes for a thought process in the Hanson mind" - in the interests of fairness.

Lol!

Hanson is particularly dense....that is her greatest strength...she feels she can say "anything".

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/qa-recap-would-pauline-hanson-ban-a-young-muslim-sam-dastyari-from-australia-20160718-gq8i5y.html

SOL: can't make the majority of intelligent Australians believe that all Muslims follow that old book to the letter.

The Imams that preach at the mocks certainly do. Maybe the 80/20 rule applies here. *0% of Christians don't follow the Bible to the Letter 20% do. The reverse is true of moslims. There-in lies the problem. Then again even with the 20% of moslims who don't, just tell them Mahammad was an idiot & see if the don't return to 100% immediately.

So Suse how do you fare with those Quotes, I do believe you are in the M80% league with poirot, steelie & the rest of that ilk. Hmmm... mentioning steelie, no word from her on this subject. Is she back in the ME?

rechub: There is no doubt what so ever that if you stop importing Muslims, you will reduce the risk of terrorism. It is a plain simple undeniable fact.

Yes, Sonja & Hanson are very right.

SOL: 500,000 voters apparently blindly followed the racist One Nation party and their strange leader, hoping they would 'save' them from rabid local Muslim terrorists. Over 13 million didn't.

Now that sounds like a threat if I ever heard one. How many of that 13 million agree with her but are Partyphiles & vote for one of the two major parties regardless of their Policies. 80% I'd say. "I vote for XXX no matter what because I hate the other XXX." Isn't that a fact.

OTB: BLOOMFIELD

Correct in every instance, OTB, well said.

Come on poirot. Do you believe in those quotes from the koran or not?

"Yes, Sonja & Hanson are very right."

Both thick as two planks and into self-promotion.

Why are all the far right demagogue wannabe's all so dense?

Trump, and his plagarising wife, Melania...Boris Johnson, the lying coniving hack journo-politician.... Hanson, who plagarised great chunks of One Nation "policy" from right-wing blogs and wikipedia....Sonia, who's apparently been reading said blogs..

A conga-line of right-wing thickos as far as the eye can see!

The ABC says that Q&A is not to be taken seriously. It is not expected to meet the standards of news. Q&A is just entertainment.

Another opportunity lost however. Wouldn't it have been good if instead of the ethnic and cultural war baiting of Hanson in the ABC's taxpayer-funded Colosseum, the Q&A panel had devoted themselves to a commonsense appeal to Muslims to question and reform Islam in Australia?

That would cut the turf from under Hanson's feet and achieve some real, worthwhile change for once.

For example, why the hell is there ritual slaughter in Australia? Lets get rid of it, pronto. Why snarl at pork on the menu at fast food outlets? Hey, that is mediaeval so its gone too. Now, what about women and those compulsory hoodies? Maybe let the girls be free of that and the other restrictive clothing to enjoy sports and daily life at school?

What about making Ayaan Hirsi Ali the model for young Muslim girls in Australia and taking up her challenge for reforming Islam?

They don't call the self-titled Leftist 'Progressives' the Regressives for nothing and they are well matched with Muslims who cling to a creed and ways that defy commonsense. What does it take for them to get it? And they say that Hanson is slow.

Should be, 'medieval'.

Bill Maher to Ayaan Hirsi Ali Why Do Liberals ‘Blame the Victim’ When It Comes to Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE8FB75ZB08

A quote, "Stop investing in life after death instead of life before death"

poirot: Trump, and his plagarising wife, Melania...Boris Johnson, the lying coniving hack journo-politician.... Hanson, who plagarised great chunks of One Nation "policy" from right-wing blogs and wikipedia....Sonia, who's apparently been reading said blogs..

So what! A good idea is a good idea or Policy, regardless of who thought of it first. I believe the, in the Courier Mail the other day, Wilkie wants to make all Poker Machines have a maximum of $1 bet. Now this is one of my Thank Tank Ideas I sent him some time ago. Does that means he is Plagiarising me? In fact most ideas have been thought of by someone else first. When I was about 14 years old I drew a machine that, if people went into it, the Doctor would be able to tell what was wrong with them. It looked very much like an MRI only standing up. Did some scientist Plagiarize my idea?

poirot: A conga-line of right-wing thickos as far as the eye can see!

Right along side a Conga line of Left Retards.

jayb,

Plagiarism is the lifting/stealing "word for word" of another's content.

It's usually undertaken by those who are lazy and/or intellectually challenged.

Hanson did it with her "policies".

Melania Trump has done it with her speech.

Both too dense to realize it would be discovered.

Wilkie's idea is intelligent. He himself appears reasonably intelligent.

Btw, we don't have pokies in WA except at the casino...which is really intelligent.

'This carnage has nothing to do with Islam' and the left complain about Plagiarism. You are kidding me aren't you?

Only mentioned plagiarism as an example of these Einsteins being unable to think and write for themselves.

You should try it...might improve your run-by posts, runner.

Hope you are getting ready to cover up girls. The latest daily news in France

'A MOTHER and her three daughters have reportedly been stabbed in France because they were ‘scantily dressed’. '

'The youngest victim, who was eight years old, is currently in a critical condition in hospital after suffering a punctured lung.'

Oh well Susie and Poirot aren't afraid yet.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/mother-and-daughter-stabbed-in-france-for-being-scantily-dressed/news-story/2ce577ad3c01548f6be3323397aead3e

poirot: Plagiarism is the lifting/stealing "word for word" of another's content.

It's usually undertaken by those who are lazy and/or intellectually challenged. Hanson did it with her "policies". Melania Trump has done it with her speech. Both too dense to realize it would be discovered.

If a good idea or Policy is "good" then why not use it. They should, of course, give credit to where they got the idea from or that it's in the General Domain., which is what happens in

Wilkie's idea is intelligent. He himself appears reasonably intelligent.

So are you saying I'm intelligent, seeing that the $1 Pokey Limit was my idea to him, would you say he has plagiarised my idea.

No reply on your thoughts on the Koranic Quotes poirot. Why not? Just the usual diversion.

"Oh well Susie and Poirot aren't afraid yet."

Oh, by that I take it that you'd like us to be..."scared"?

Would ya, runner...would you really like that?

runner will just have a trawl around to find the latest nutter and then post it on OLO with the addendum:

"Oh well Susie and Poirot aren't afraid yet."

Because we're women...why didn't you include the fellas in your little scare tribute?

But really, you don't have to trawl so far afield...here's one from Oz.

"Cleaner Vincent Stanford admits murdering Stephanie Scott"

"The man accused of killing NSW high school teacher Stephanie Scott has pleaded guilty to her murder.

Vincent Stanford, 25, appeared via videolink from Long Bay prison in a NSW Supreme Court this morning, where he officially entered a plea of guilty to the charges of murdering and sexually assaulting Ms Scott."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cleaner-vincent-stanford-admits-murdering-stephanie-scott/news-story/660e9bf16fcd8fbe417d8eae9f2b83d6

What's that you say, runner?

This guy doesn't qualify for a runner scare post because, even though he committed a heinous crime in our own country, he's not Muslim.

Oh right, then.....

Suse,

Please, will you stop trying to link Islam with 'race' and then accusing others of doing so ? 'Race' is irrelevant to Islam. Anybody can be a Muslim. What Islam preaches via the Koran is equal-opportunity violence and medieval/mediaeval brutality in the interests of world domination, with a bit of Arab super-dominance thrown in.

Just to return to Q & A: Tony Jones made a cheap comment that Indonesia was a Muslim country. No, it's a secular, multi-faith country: five religions are official religions - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity. Apart from Gus Dur around 2001-2002, it has not had a particularly Islamist President since Independence, and he was from a very inclusive and accommodating version of Islam, common in Indonesia.

Yes, Hanson is not too cluey, if she didn't even know that Sam Dastyari was Muslim, and also from a persecuted minority of Azeris in Iran. I thought he came out of all that very well, making the point that, coming from a progressive family, he had always been a non-practising Muslim.

Runner, I haven't heard or seen anything about that vicious attack on three women. Perhaps our feminist colleagues know of it and are, at this very moment, preparing a protest against such vile actions. What do you reckon ?

Joe

poirot: But really, you don't have to trawl so far afield...here's one from Oz. "Cleaner Vincent Stanford admits murdering Stephanie Scott"

Another deflection poirot. Do you play snooker by any chance, no probably not. You seem to go "end off" a lot.

Answer my questions, sweetie. What are you afraid of? Getting kicked out of Australia maybe?

In Islam when a person dies either from sickness, murder or accident it is viewed as the "Will of Allah". That is why the acts of Islamic terrorists have a double view. Imams in France can show sympathy to the victims of terror while believing their death was the will of Allah.

That is why Australian drug dealers in Indonesia undergo the death penalty while Bali bombers murdering kafir get a couple of years goal. One is shown sympathy for attempting to do Allah's will, while the other unbelievers is to atone for his sin against Allah.

Secular Islam is only a front as in Turkey, when the truth is known Allah must be submitted to [which is what Islam means] and the word of his prophet must be obeyed. That is why thousands of Judges and defense force personnel are arrested for becoming too Western Democratic. The people they believe must be ruled over.

Islam is the enemy of freedom and art expression. The population must be kept in fear of those appointed by Allah to enforce his laws.

"Answer my questions, sweetie..."

Lol!...one OLO fella surmising that the ladies should be "scared"

Another OLO fella calling one of them "sweetie".

Great stuff guys!

I hope neither if you are holding yourself up as superlative examples of Aussie manhood...patronising, macho, hysterics, more likely : )

"....What are you afraid of? Getting kicked out of Australia maybe?"

(Do they toss out Scottish and Irish descendants these days?)

Well ah'll be!

Love the way your posturing appears to have taken on a threatening overtone, Jayb.

Is that the kind of compensatory blokey conduct Oz can look forward to when we're controlled by bigots?

What fun!

'I hope neither if you are holding yourself up as superlative examples of Aussie manhood...patronising, macho, hysterics, more likely : )

and I hope Poirot as a feminist in pig headed denial that you don't hold yourself as an example of a modern day thinking woman. What an atrocious example for the young girls growing up today.

Word from Sonia Kruger.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sonia-kruger-i-stand-by-my-call-to-ban-muslims/news-story/20aa155fb2d781e2e9c9bfb772857af8

Craig Kelly Says:
Last week, 26 year-old Qandeel Baloch, a Pakistani model, feminist activist and social media celebrity was murdered in an Islamic "honour killing" by her brother.

Her "crime" was to post "objectionable videos" on Facebook.

When caught, her killer boasted, "I have no regrets ...... Whatever was the case, it [her behaviour] was completely intolerable..... I am proud of what I did. I drugged her first, then I killed her. Girls are born to stay home."

And just days before her death Qandeel Baloch posted to her 758,000 followers on social media;

"As women we must stand up for ourselves. As women, we must stand up for each other."

Ms Baloch's murder was just one of the more than 1,000 women killed each year in Islamic "honour killings" in Pakistan.

However, when it comes to standing up and speaking out against Islamic "honour killings" - from the feminist left in Australia, we hear all but crickets.

Yet, the very same individuals that have be deathly silent, failing to speak out against Islamic honour killings, have had no trouble in finding their voice to engage in vicious attacks against Sonia Kruger.

Now I disagree with Sonia Kruger, Australia should NOT have blanket bans on people from any religion.

For example, Qandeel Baloch was a Muslim. If she had sought to migrate to Australia, because she feared being murdered in an "Islamic honour killing" - we should have giving her application every consideration. It would be wrong to exclude her just because she was a Muslim.

However, as a sovereign nation, we do have the right to decide who migrates to Australia, and we should not hesitate to deny any type of visa to anyone that has even the slightest sympathies with Islamic honour killings - let alone grant such a person the opportunity to migrate to Australia.

should NOT be allowed to migrate to Australia.

poirot: "Answer my questions, sweetie..."

Another deflection, How many is that now?

poirot: (Do they toss out Scottish and Irish descendants these days?)

They never gave Australia a reason to, unlike moslims.

I guess if Australia denys entry to any more moslims then that would be a reason to commit more terrorist attacks in Australia. Wouldn't it? If anyone stops a moslim from getting what they want for Islam then they have declared War on Islam & have the right to Kill, Maim & Terrorize Infidels.

Koran.Ch33 v57-61).Kill anyone who insults Islam or Mohammad.
Ch2 v193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

poirot, I do believe you are infidelophobic. & you believe the above. True?

Cont:
Likewise, anyone that has any sympathies with the Islamic State (whom we are currently at war with), or who holds the view that;
* "Girls are born to stay at home", or
* It's acceptable for men to beat their wives for disobedience, or
* Female genital mutilation is acceptable, or
* People don't have religious freedom, including the freedom to change religions,

should NOT be allowed to migrate to Australia.

Second time lucky. Bastard computer.

Back to topic, folks :)

I'm uneasy with any suggestion of deporting Australian citizens anywhere, unless they have committed very serious offences against other Australians, including against Muslim women, our fellow-citizens. Australian law should always prevail. Anybody promoting, or attempting to practise, another alien body of law should face the appropriate penalties.

The dilemma, of course, is that devout Muslims are necessarily bound to abide by Shari'a (although, as with every religion and ideology, some are more devout than others): as they see it, that's an expression of their surrender to the will of their god (Islam = 'surrender').

But honor killings, child marriage, stoning of women for supposed adultery, genital mutilation, inferior legal rights, enforcement of clothing restrictions on women (it's almost always to do with restricting women, isn't it?), throwing gays from tall buildings, death for apostasy or blasphemy or for criticising the Koran, etc., etc. - none of these have any place in Australia, and we shouldn't give the slightest hint that they do, or ever will.

No, not all cultures are equal, whatever that might even mean. It's understandable that when Boas and Benedict and Mead put this idea forward, eighty and ninety years ago, they saw themselves as defending 'subject peoples' from racist imperialism, and good on them for their sympathies.

But suttee, infanticide, child sacrifice, the stoning of women suspected of adultery, the burning of witches, slavery, and so much else: all - let's be honest - give the lie to 'equality': not all cultural practices are equal.

Maybe all 'cultures' have unsavoury practices embedded within them. If so, we must always have the courage to call them out. Maybe, to re-phrase the Boasian formula, 'all cultures equally embrace practices which are invalid'.

Joe

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya, at the way you people are attacking Hanson and Mrs Trump for plagiarism. True enough, plagiarism occurred. But, in the case of Trump we know that it was done by her (male) speech-writers and in the case of Hanson we can be fairly sure that she didn't personally put the website together. Again males were more likely to be involved.

But the arch-misogynists here like Poirot just like picking on women. What next? Attacking Hillary for misremembering what went on in Serbia or demanding that rape victims in Germany actually report the crime even though it'll implicate a (male) refugee?

I'd like to hope that Poirot attacks Trump and Hanson rather than the men because they're on the wrong political side. But that would be soooo shallow and dishonest. So the only option is to assume the attacks on these women occur due to Poirot's clear misogyny.

Jayb,

You know what you can do with your questions.

....

runner,

"...What an atrocious example for the young girls growing up today."

Which girls would that be, runner?

Surely not the girls who come from Muslim families in Australia who are now having to look sideways and keep their heads down because people like you, Jayb and Hanson are running around hysterically spitting out venomous hate speech in their direction.

Wonderful stuff...grown men and women hell bent on frightening kids and their families because they're not to your preference.

....

mhaze,

Oh it's all the fella's fault is it.

We can rest assured that if the boneheaded right-wing front-ladies hadn't been found out pinching other people's words and ideas, they have accepted all the glory and would be lauded far and wide on places like OLO.

Fact is, these people have trouble stringing a coherent sentence together without resorting to hate speech and fear, let alone composing their own policies or speeches.

Btw, I'm not too keen on Clinton either (no doubt due to my misogyny:)...it's come to pretty pass when you've got a narcissist lunatic on one side vying for president and a dodgy Hillary on the other!

Fancy me, a woman, being a misogynist....you learn something new every day!

Revoking citizenship,

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4356/can-you-ever-lose-your-australian-citizenship-stat.aspx

Yes Poirot, I was being facetious. I just find it fascinating that the sisterhood will defend every moronic utterance from any women provided she is saying (or trying to say) the right things. But just let a women step off the reservation and the claws will come out in a way that no man would be permitted.

Meanwhile, as the usual dills concentrate on the absolute trivia as to whether someone decided to use an phrase they rather liked, great and important things are being said at the convention addressed by Mrs Trump.

The greatest speech ever given on behalf of a GOP candidate was, of course, Reagan's 'Time for Choosing' speech of 1964 (which he himself wrote). Giuliani's speech delivered over-night isn't of that standard, but it's up there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luzajJDsGOY

poirot: You know what you can do with your questions.

Ah Ha! so you do agree that Democracy is a foul evil System & Islam & Sharia Law should be implemented immediately.

As per;
Quran:
4:59. O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination.

4:123 Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper.

4:141 (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: "Were we not with you?" But if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?" But Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.

5:44 It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's Will, by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

5:59 Say: "O People of the Book! do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"
cont

9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the pagans. If, then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith.

18:26 Say: "Allah knows best how long they stayed: with Him is (the knowledge of) the secrets of the heavens and the earth: how clearly He sees, how finely He hears (everything)! They have no protector other than Him; nor does He share His Command with any person whatsoever.

33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

39:9 Is one who worships devoutly during the hours of the night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed of the Hereafter, and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord--(like one who does not)? Say: "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition."

45:21 What! do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds, that equal will be their Life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make.

63:8 They say, "If we return to Madinah, surely the more honorable (element) will expel there from the meaner." But honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the Hypocrites know not.

& Then to quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law should govern the society; not man's."

Yep, the camel and merchandise trader sure had it all worked out; one political party for all with some borrowed and a bit of original religious teachings thrown in to keep the mob in line.

'Surely not the girls who come from Muslim families in Australia who are now having to look sideways and keep their heads down because people like you, '

Wrong again Poirot. I suspect these young girls would demand much more respect than what you demonstrate. As I have said all along the sisterhood dogma is as gross as Islam. The young muslim girls are victims while your blind ignorance is stupidity at best.

"What the Left does is lump people together as Muslims and as various other groups and subject them to the bigotry of low expectations".."The left finds it perfectly OK to criticise other religions, but what we have done to Muslims in the West is that we only see them through this prism as victims and victimisation, which plays into the hands of those who wish to indoctrinate them and want to present them as victims.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA1XcbZJfG4

I wonder if anyone has ever done an honest economic costing of what it cost the Australian tax payer for security at airports, middle east crime departments, programs to deradicalise, etc etc. And all because of less than 2%of population. Imagine it was 10.

"..."The left finds it perfectly OK to criticise other religions, but what we have done to Muslims in the West is that we only see them through this prism as victims and victimisation, which plays into the hands of those who wish to indoctrinate them and want to present them as victims.."

How dare we see them as victims!

If the West could keep its mitts off the region for a while...well...

"UK licences £2.8bn of arms sales to Saudis since kingdom entered Yemen war"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/uk-issues-28bn-export-licences-arms-saudi-arabia

Our mates, the Saudis....what a monstrous regime - 490 days of mercilessly bombing Yemen - armed by the UK and the US.

Here's a good one"

"A US warplane hit the forces of an allied Sunni Muslim militant group that Washington had trained in an apparent case of friendly fire in late May, according to a WSJ report. Pentagon has launched an internal investigation."

http://www.rt.com/usa/346359-us-friendly-fire-syria/

Happens all the time.

And just today:

"US air strike in Syria kills up to 85 civilians 'mistaken for Isil fighters'"

"Some eight families were hit as they tried to flee fighting in their area, in one of the single deadliest strikes on civilians by the alliance since the start of its operations in the war-torn country.

Pictures of the aftermath of the dawn strikes on the Isil-controlled village of Tokhar near Manbij in northern Syria showed the bodies of children as young as three under piles of rubble."

(I'm sure "as a mother" that Sonia would have been upset by that as well)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/

Notwithstanding the many thousands of innocents who have been slaughtered by drone attacks.

Or the "millions" who fled Iraq after the US invasion of 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301604.html

Or the half a million death toll from the war itself:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256

There's a certain karmic irony in Muslims from the middle-east. displaced and traumatised by Western interference, seeking sanctuary in the West.

Cont
as per;
Koran.

Ch33 57. Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger--Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.

59. O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

60. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbors for any length of time:

61. They shall have a curse on them: wherever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).

Ch2 v193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

&so many others I’ve run out of my limit.

I see you & you followers as exactly what the Krugers, Hansons & a whole heap of other silent majority think. You & your ilk are an endemic danger to Australians. Therefore I support the Positive. Bye!

The whole premise behind this question of supporting law, as in this case "Sharia law" is flawed.

What would happen if I was to support law (elements) from other countries, like Germany, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy etc....?

One example was China's very well known 'one child policy'. This could have serious implications upon Australia if it was implicated, but if someone does want to undertake that and take that move, well I suppose that is their decision.

I forgot to add, If I did follow any other countries laws here.... which country could or would I be deported to? Tough question.

Poirot, 'It's all America's fault..'

And white men, you left out white men. LOL Already dealt with. Here again, to make it easier for you,

"Feminists don’t challenge radical Islam because real misogynists are terrifying

JUNE 9, 2015 BY JANET BLOOMFIELD

Phyllis Chesler has a piece up at the New York Post demanding to know why feminists refuse to challenge radical Islam in any of its manifestations.

The Middle East and Western Africa are burning; Iran is raping female civilians and torturing political prisoners; the Pakistani Taliban are shooting young girls in the head for trying to get an education and disfiguring them with acid if their veils are askew — and yet, NOW passed no resolution opposing this.

What is going on?

Chesler diagnoses rampant feminist cowardice, and she is quite correct. Feminists are largely spoiled, middle-class white girls unaccustomed to concepts like accountability or responsibility, and courage is a rare sight with this lot. But Chesler misses just what feminists are terrified of:

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

And why? They are terrified of being seen as “politically incorrect” and then demonized and shunned for it..."
http://tinyurl.com/q7y4a68

"And white men, you left out white men. LOL Already dealt with. Here again, to make it easier for you."

White men - you mean like these types?

Perish the thought.

"The Anglican Church of Newcastle buried complaints about sex abusers, including reports of a senior priest who was part of a paedophile ring that involved priests and lay people.

"I was subject to a death threat and on advice from the police and with the support of the Church's insurer, they agreed to relocate me and my family for a period of two weeks," John Cleary, the diocese's business manager, said.

His colleague Michael Elliott, the director of professional standards, moved house five times within a year because of weekly vandalism to his car and house.

His family's dog also disappeared."

"Anglican abusers 'better organised'

Mr Elliott has worked for both the Catholic Church and the Anglicans investigating sex abuse complaints.

He said the Anglican abusers were worse than the Catholics because they cooperated with each other.

"My experience in the Anglican Diocese is that the abusers tended to be better organised, more cooperative … it was a larger scale of child abuse and they cooperated together," he said.

"If you want to call it a paedophile ring … certainly there were groups of child sex abusers that were working together to facilitate their abuse of children, without a doubt."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/whistleblowers-reveal-paedophile-ring-in-newcastle-anglicans/7645228

Now, in keeping with tradition around here, should I condemn all Christians for the paedophile rings that seem to infest their clubhouses?

Poirot,

You have proved Janet Bloomfield and Phyllis Chesler right about the gutlessness of feminists. An shorter excerpt from the article, which you really should have read before your usual deflections where Islam is concerned,

"Phyllis Chesler has a piece up at the New York Post demanding to know why feminists refuse to challenge radical Islam in any of its manifestations.

The Middle East and Western Africa are burning; Iran is raping female civilians and torturing political prisoners; the Pakistani Taliban are shooting young girls in the head for trying to get an education and disfiguring them with acid if their veils are askew — and yet, NOW passed no resolution opposing this.

What is going on?

Chesler diagnoses rampant feminist cowardice, and she is quite correct. Feminists are largely spoiled, middle-class white girls unaccustomed to concepts like accountability or responsibility, and courage is a rare sight with this lot. But Chesler misses just what feminists are terrified of:

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam"
http://tinyurl.com/q7y4a68

Waleed Ali sees the problem raised by Sonia Kruger as fear mongering. He sees her as the problem but says nothing about the Muslim religion and its conflict with Western culture. Islam without the will of our society takes upon itself to be judge and executioner of non believers. Islam will not allow criticism of their barbaric beliefs because it is the will of Allah. It cannot coexist in a Western free society, it must be shut down.

It in our day it is the anti-Christ,having a form of religion but not demonstrating the character as expressed by Jesus the Christ. Love, pray and feed your enemy were his words. Put away your swords, those that live by the sword will die by the sword. Share good news with the nations not subversion.

As I posted earlier, Islam will not allow its followers to enter portraits for the Archibald prize; no matter how talented a Muslim may be painting portraits is forbidden.

Weird.

Josephus,

"It in our day it is the anti-Christ,having a form of religion but not demonstrating the character as expressed by Jesus the Christ. Love, pray and feed your enemy were his words. Put away your swords, those that live by the sword will die by the sword. Share good news with the nations not subversion."

Oh, really...is that why the good Christian president, George W. Bush, told us God encouraged him to bomb the daylights out of Iraq?

Here's some good Aussie stock threatening to bomb the Cessnock City Council for approving a mosque.

"Sounds like the council chambers might need a bomb," one man wrote on an anti-mosque Facebook page, while three separate people proposed setting the mosque on fire."

"If it is approved I hope it is burnt to the ground," a man wrote on the STOP the Buchanan Mosque - kurri kurri page.

"I bet a packet of matches and a litre or two of petrol it won't last long," another said. A third man added: "Isnt that a bushfire prone area? We can only hope!"

"Another poster on the page said residents "need to bring out the fighter in all of us and make them think twice about where they want to lay their hijabs"."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/furore-as-buchanan-mosque-is-approved-in-nsw-hunter-valley-20160720-gqa7gf.html

There's a rather fetching pic too of the types of good ol' Aussies who come out spitting and grunting at the Reclaim Rallies which flowered under Abbott's flag-waving and fear mongering.

Now tell me, Josephus, that these "outliers" of Australian society are representative of your vision for a community guided by Christ's tenets.

They appear to uneducated, fearful, reactionary thugs - home grown too!

Poirot: Our mates, the Saudis....what a monstrous regime - 490 days of mercilessly bombing Yemen - armed by the UK and the US.

On the bad guys. I guess you support the bad guys, eh.

poirot: "US air strike in Syria kills up to 85 civilians 'mistaken for Isil fighters'"

ISIS supporters anyway, so.

Poirot: an apparent case of friendly fire in late May,

Admittedly they are good at that. They hit our platoon once in Vietnam & their own countless times. Bloody useless.

poirot: Notwithstanding the many thousands of innocents who have been slaughtered by drone attacks.

ISIS, who cares. You I suppose, seeing you seemingly support them.

poirot: Or the "millions" who fled Iraq after the US invasion of 2003.

yes, & where did they flee to safety to , the West, the people who you say bombed them. Strange that. Or, was it to escape the barbarity of their own kind?

poirot: Or the half a million death toll from the war itself:

Yes ISIS & the other Bad groups have got an lot to answer for.

poirot: displaced and traumatised by Western interference, seeking sanctuary in the West.

Yes, strange that, looking for peace they can't find in their own country because of their own kind.

Poirot: George W. Bush, told us God encouraged him to bomb the daylights out of Iraq?

That was because Sunny moslims were killing Shiti moslems enmass & the Shiti moslims appealed to Bush to stop them. All the Shiti moslems were running off seeking asylum in Europe & Australia.

Poirot: good ol' Aussies who come out spitting and grunting at the Reclaim Rallies which flowered under Abbott's flag-waving and fear mongering.

Maybe so, but it is the left, greenie & moslim Anti- patriot crowd that who come out spitting and grunting at the Reclaim Rallies

Poirot: these "outliers" of Australian society.

The left, greenie & moslim Anti- patriot crowd. More deflection poirot, more deflection.

End off, again, poirot.

Aww...Jayb....

You failed to criticise those wonderful examples of Aussie nationhood threatening to blow up and/or set fire to the Cessnock city Council.

Now, come come....why aren't you shrieking about this apparent threat of "terrorism" - or don't you think it qualifies because it emanates from feral white Aussies?

poirot: You failed to criticise those wonderful examples of Aussie nationhood threatening to blow up and/or set fire to the Cessnock city Council.

I don't like that sort of behaviour or the behaviour of paedophiles. But now you mention it, I'm glad to see you can criticise Mahammad because he burnt down the religious houses of other religions & was a paedophile too. There are idiots everywhere & I didn't mention it because it not on Subject.

Now, let's get back to the Subject & let's not get waylaid again by your plethora of diversions.

<Should Muslims Who Support Sharia Law In Australia Be Deported?>

Do you support Sharia Law being practiced in Australia?

Jayb,

"...I didn't mention it because it not on Subject."

Lol!...that hasn't stopped you from responding to anything else not directly "on subject".

The reason you didn't criticise it is because they were bomb and arson threats from good white non-Muslim Aussies - and they are apparently exempt from censure around here even when they threaten such things.

Good point, Poirot.

Nobody should be threatening anybody else's right to worship, or to live safely, not even if it's written in the Koran. Nasty messages written on walls on the one hand, or hacking off heads, right arms and left legs on the other - none of any of that barbaric behaviour should be tolerated. The full force of the law should come down on such people. They are a disgrace to Australian values and Australian law.

Now, to get back to JayB's question, and the topic: Should Shari'a or any other alien body of discriminatory 'law' be ever practised in Australia, or allowed to diminish the rights of any Australians, including Muslim women in Australia in any way ?

Keep sticking up for women's frights, Poirot, I'm right there with you.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"...and the topic: Should Shari'a or any other alien body of discriminatory 'law' be ever practised in Australia..."

I thought the thread header - aka "topic" - was "Should Muslims Who Support Sharia Law In Australia Be Deported?"

I think you're all hysterical.

Sharia Law has about as much chance of becoming "Australian Law" as I have of becoming Pope.

"...or hacking off heads, right arms and left legs on the other - none of any of that barbaric behaviour should be tolerated...."

But that's a Saudi speciality...and the Saudis are the West's special friends.

Why are the Saudis the West's special friends?

Because they have the oil and are strategically in the right place.

We've even made them the head of the UN Human Rights Council...and the UK is up for backing them for another term as well as funnelling loads of arms to them to bomb Yemen into the ground.

How's that for double standards?

poirot: But that's a Saudi speciality...and the Saudis are the West's special friends.

Yes a Saudi/moslems speciality.

poirot: We've even made them the head of the UN Human Rights Council...

Yes, I couldn't believe it. One of the worst violators in the World & moslems. It beggers belief doesn't it.

Now let's look at the Question again. "Do you support Sharia Law being practiced in Australia?"

I didn't ask you if it were likely to be made part of Australian Law. (as much chance of becoming "Australian Law" as I have of becoming Pope.) I asked you, "Do you support Sharia Law being practiced in Australia?" Can't you tell the difference?

The question doesn't require another diversion. Just a Yes or No.

Simple Sherlock. Yes/No. That's all. Nothing else required. Now if you can't, or refuse to answer then one would have to assume that you side with the affirmative. Are you afraid to answer because you would be outted as one of those that may need closer scrutiny by the proper authorities. Too late mate.

"... Now if you can't, or refuse to answer then one would have to assume that you side with the affirmative...."

I could give a "you know what" about Sharia Law...or your silly question.

If you guys want to get all hysterical over something so peripheral, that's up to you.

With people like Sonia, Pauline and Jacquie - great minds of the 21st century (not) - tickling the plebs up, it's not surprising to see it reverberating around OLO at a rate of knots.

What - Muslims 2% of the population and you fellas going all hot and cold in rabid dread.

Laughable really....

Do not be mistaken elements of Shariah law are already being practiced in Australia, it is just that our Elected representatives have not introduced, and our police do not enforce.

Criminal elements no matter who must face the consequence of their action.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, only 2 %. The proportion of Muslim women of All Australians would be even lower, say 1 %.

1 %. Gord almighty. So why give a toss about their rights ? Child marriage, Muslim women's children taken overseas and never seen again, discriminatory property rights, women being beaten with impunity (as long as the bruises don't show), marital rape, genital mutilation, none of this matters to the 'Left'. They're only anonymous women anyway, Muslim women, none of our business. And only 1 %. Piss.

So that's a 'YES' then ?

Joe

To all of you who think Sharia law would never get gurnsey in Australia, might I ask why you believe this? Is it because you trust Australian politicians to prevent it? Is it because Australia is a 'Christian country"? I'm sorry, but I cannnot imagine any other reasons why you think that we are not in danger of seeing Sharia, in some form, operating in Australia. You see, I'm very dubious that it would be prevented by our politicians if there was a vote in it for them. And, does anyone still think that we a Christian country, with enough people of faith left to "fight the good fight". I really admire your optimism. But then
I remember the (one before the current, think) Archbishop of Canterbury, the second most powerful and influential religious leader in the world afer the Pope, being very keen on experimenting with Sharia law in Britain. Then there's the ABC and Geraldine Doog on 'Compass' preaching the 'good' things about Islam (all the while using taxpayer dollars to lambast a media personality and an elected politician who say 'awful' things about Muslims and Islam, show their lack of even basic education by by referring to the criticism of a religio/political system as racism). Tell if you really have that much faith in our dumb, self-serving politicians; in pillars of the church too busy kiddy-fiddling and sucking up to weird ideas to have time to defend their faith against insidious Islam. Or do you have faith in the big-mouth trend setters who don't know the difference between 'race' and 'religion'. I doubt very much that a single one of you will be able to respond with any conviction that we are safe from Sharia law.

poirot: I could give a "you know what" about Sharia Law...or your silly question. If you guys want to get all hysterical over something so peripheral, that's up to you.

No it's not a silly question & it's nor peripheral. It's a very important question & one that is pertinent to this debate.

So I take it that you support Sharia Law for Australia. & that's the reason you refuse to come straight out & say "Yes." You couldn't say "No" because that would be denying Allah & you would go straight to Hell, don't pass "Go" or collect 200 Male virgins. ;-)

I guess Syria would be good for you. I feel that you would fit in quite well there.

poirot: What - Muslims 2% of the population and you fellas going all hot and cold in rabid dread.

Yes 2% too many unfortunately & what's happening in the rest of the World will soon happen here if the percentage goes any higher. Sonya, Hanson, Jacqui & the rest of us good Australians have good reason to be in rabid dread.

Hi JayB,

I don't know if Poirot would be entitled to her 200 male virgins: just after 9/11, I looked up Islam-Online and found a serious discussion about whether or not a woman could be a martyr (yes, if she fell down a well getting water for her family, or if she was kicked to death by a camel doing he same). The discussion dwelt also on how many male virgins she was entitled to and, in their wisdom, the imams and emirs found that a woman martyr was entitled to only one male virgin. Sorry, Poirot, that's Shari'a for you :)

I wish feminists, or ex-feminists, would try to understand that Shari'a is most oppressive to Muslim women. They're already coming under it, in spite of Australia's legal system. Many young Muslim girls are being genitally mutilated; many are being sent overseas at 12 and 13 to get married to blokes twice, three times, their age. Many women are in polygamous marriages here already.

No: Australian values, Australian law.

Joe

Poirot goes on about Muslims being only 2% of the population,

BUT,

in a democracy that matters.

It is easy for ethnic groups, their lobbyists and religious leaders, to blackmail political parties and candidates with either the threat or promise of influencing a voting margin that could swing a marginal seat. Come our way and there is an extra 2% in it. Appear to oppose and lose 2%.

On top of that there is the threat of conducting a continuing hate campaign in the media, including social media and with the assistance of the tabloid media (count the ABC in there!) against anyone who questions and stands in their way, accusing them of xenophobia, racism, islamophobia and other foul epithets.

How does Poirot imagine that the shocking practice of ritual slaughter was ever tolerated in domestic Australia (politically correct authorities turned a blind eye) and eventually reversed the federal and State DPIs' humane slaughtering regulations that were supposed to be cast in stone?

The Standard used to be stunning prior slaughter that resulted in immediate unconsciousness and death, ie., irrecoverable. Absolutely necessary for the larger food animals (including sheep) that are bred to have larger necks, significant muscle mass and deeply inset arteries.

To top it off, federal and State authorities know that boutique slaughtering establishments and private butchers and individuals are still conducting ritual slaughter as performed in the Middle East, ie entirely without even the pretence of prior stunning of the animals. Where are the prosecutions?

Medieval religious fundamentalism demands cruelty - the knife hacking at the throat of a live animal that is either fully conscious, or where prior stunning is forced on the religious fundies, that the stunning power is sub-optimal, allowing for the animal to recover just before the knife is drawn.

If so many of that 2% are moderate and one would hope have some commonsense, how the hell does ritual slaughter continue in Australia? And what if there is another religion where fundamentalists insist on ritual slaughter? Make the swing 3-5% maybe and heaps of negging for any politician foolish to say no.

otb,

We got around that by live exporting livestock...or haven't you noticed that.

So now all the livestock gets to have a long cruel journey before they are ritually slaughtered at their destination...or just cruelly slaughtered, depending on the country of destination

Are you holding us up as some sort of kind-hearted angels for that?

It's all about profit and damn whatever happens to the animals during the journey or at the end-point.

We recently saw shocking images of cattle being bludgeoned with sledge-hammers in Vietnam...we don't appear to have ceased live export to that country though.

"A leaked email from within the live export trade seems to suggest the industry put dollars and profit before welfare of animals.

Australian Livestock Exporters' Council chairman says email was "essentially saying it's better use the carrot than than the stick"

After viewing brutal pictures of Australian cattle sledgehammered to death in abattoirs in Vietnam, the chairman of the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, Simon Crean, was adamant animal welfare was a priority."

""It was Meat and Livestock Australia that [were] actively involved in facilitating the cruelty of cattle in Indonesia, so to now see them encouraging profits over compliance in Vietnam, when non–compliance means sledgehammering cattle, is just appalling" she said.

The ABC raised the internal email with Mr Crean, who said, "We don't want them to beat the system. If they beat the system … we'll close them and then they will be out of business"."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-17/email-leak-suggests-profit-before-welfare/7521620

Don't try and make out we're particularly altruistic on that front.

poirot: ""It was Meat and Livestock Australia that [were] actively involved in facilitating the cruelty of cattle in Indonesia,

We all know that the woman that reported that in Indonesia set the whole thing up by hiring some local thugs, who had never had anything to do with cattle in their life, then bribing the Security man on the Weekend to make her film. That's greenies for you & not the first time they've been caught doing something similar.

But again, poirot, you divert with heightened enthusiasm. Please try & stick to the subject. You keep forgetting. All-sigh-mers maybe? ;-)

ttbn,

Here you go again with this assumption of yours that non-belief equates to an indifference to Islam. I thought we had sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18387#326181.

It's no wonder you want to cling to a belief you no longer even hold.

<<And, does anyone still think that we a Christian country, with enough people of faith left to "fight the good fight".>>

There are Christians who fear atheists more than Muslims, because Muslims at least believe in moral absolutes and a god (and the same god at that). Likewise, there are some sections of Islam offering an olive branch to Christians in order to fight atheism because they see it as a greater threat than Christianity.

As for Sharia law, I don’t fear it at the moment because projections indicate that our Muslim population will still be under 5% by 2030. A part of me is ever-so-slightly concerned for my children’s, children’s children, but given the number of young Muslims leaving the faith (and I don’t even think the projections take that into account), I’m fairly confident that Islam will die out in the West almost as fast as Christianity is.

I follow on Facebook, and read the works of, plenty of young Muslims who have left the faith and are encouraging other Muslims to do the same.

We just need to ensure that we maintain high levels of education. That seems to the kryptonite for all forms of superstition.

Loudmouth, no feminist has ever spoken up for the Moslem cult. Anyone doing so has forfeited any entitlement to the term “feminist”. The reason for this is stated incontrovertibly by Pat Condell at http://www.patcondell.net/feministe-whores-for-islam/ .

The smart-aleck term “islamophobia” was launched on the world by Brfitish writer Mike Dobbins. What he now says, having done the research necessary for acquiring knowledge of the topic, is at http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2015/04/mike-dobbins-gives-public-apology-to.html . Apologists and appeasers including those who falsely present themselves as feminists need to take on board what he wrote on the basis of serious research. Or, even better, do some serious research themselves based on the actual self-description of the Moslem cult in its own holy books.

Cringing away from truth in order to feel “with it” leads only to untruth and to betrayal of feminism and every other decent product of the Enlightenment.

For anyone game enough to face up to the TRUTH about the march of Islam, see

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history/

The Holocausts committed by Germany in the 1940s and by Turkey in the early 20th century are mere historical blips compared with the centuries-long bloodsoaked Moslem reign of terror in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia which expresses itself in pockets within those conquered and subdued regions to this day.

Disastrous as the British invasion was for the Australian Aborigines, it may have averted something very much worse.

"But again, poirot, you divert with heightened enthusiasm. Please try & stick to the subject. You keep forgetting. All-sigh-mers maybe?..."

Lol!...otb submits a lengthy post on ritual animal slaughter...I respond - and Jayb has a go at Poirot for "diverting".

Of course, like Loudmouth, when you can't put up an argument, the first thing you slosh on the table is BTT...hohoho!

I hope you're not under the misapprehension that I actually read your posts fulsomely. I gloss over the first and last portions and ignore most of your post.

It's necessary on forums such as this to preserve one's sanity and integrity, full to brim as it is with fearful bigotry and waffling he-men like yourself demonstrating their actual midgetry.

A la - "Yes 2% too many unfortunately & what's happening in the rest of the World will soon happen here if the percentage goes any higher. Sonya, Hanson, Jacqui & the rest of us good Australians have good reason to be in rabid dread."

poirot: Lol!...otb submits a lengthy post on ritual animal slaughter...I respond - and Jayb has a go at Poirot for "diverting".

You started the diversion & OTB fell for it.

poirot: I gloss over the first and last portions and ignore most of your post.

I put the pertinent bits first & last next time.

Me: Sonya, Hanson, Jacqui & the rest of us good Australians have good reason to be in rabid dread."

& that's why Muslims who support Sharia Law should be deported, along with their fellow travellers. (Greens, Womens Libbers, etc,.) One only has to look at Europe as a prime example.

Jayb,

You obviously have a problem with the truth.

otb began the issue of ritual slaughter of animals...Poirot didn't.

Poirot responded to otb.

Why aren't you having a go at otb for diverting?

What's that you say?...because otb agrees with your stance and therefore is not on your radar for diversion.

All righty then.

"Me: Sonya, Hanson, Jacqui & the rest of us good Australians have good reason to be in rabid dread."

& that's why Muslims who support Sharia Law should be deported, along with their fellow travellers. (Greens, Womens Libbers, etc,.) One only has to look at Europe as a prime example."

Snort...now the oh-so-stable commentary of the fabulous Jayb is calling for Greens, women's Libbers, etc to be deported for Oz as well!

This place gets more loony every day!

Hi Poirot,

Brilliant diversion ! Full marks.

Back to topic: Without a doubt, Shari'a involves women - as chattels, as inferiors, as objects to be used and controlled by men. The dangers of Shari'a are thus well and truly feminist issues. Sorry, Poirot.

It may have crossed the minds of some of the pseudo-Left and faux-feminists that, oh well, it doesn't matter if Sharia is applied ONLY to Muslims, that's just part of their culture. No: it would be applied to our fellow Australians, those who happen to be Muslim and women.

So what it would come down to is: should Muslim women in Australia have fewer rights under Australian law than Muslim men, and than other Australians ? I dread some of the dumb-dumb 'Left' replies.

YES? NO?

Joe

Loudmouth,

The diversions are the only sane input on this thread.

Now we have Jayb calling for Greens and women's libbers to be deported!

That's a better diversion than either otb or Poirot could have come up with.

Lol!....

poirot: Now we have Jayb calling for Greens and women's libbers to be deported!

The revolution has begun. Just on the ABC, Trump declares the end of Political Correctness. Katter, Jacqui, Hanson, Xenophon & most other Australians are dead against this evil Political Correctness as well.

Now we'll start hearing the Truth about moslim Plans for Australia. Force the Media to print the whole truth not a Politically Correct sanitized view. That'll be frighting.

moslim women are slaves to their husbands. Do you enjoy being a slave poirot, just because Mohammad said you had to be one. What a great con.

"The revolution has begun. Just on the ABC, Trump declares..." ..blah, blah, blah...

There has always been a type of demagogue to whip people into a frenzy for their own ends...and always been types, like you Jayb and others here, who are diminished, quakey souls who'll buy into any divisive rhetoric if it makes them feel a little like they're actually "in control".

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/22/australia-once-banned-catholics-from-mass-and-vilified-the-irish-havent-we-learned-anything?CMP=share_btn_tw

"I was passing through airport security somewhere in North America in October 2001 when I realised it: I was no longer the face of terrorism, and might never be selected for one of those comprehensive “special clearance procedures” again.

Until then, that’s what a passport with a Northern Irish birthplace had got me – it happened often enough anywhere in the world, and was almost inevitable at airports in the UK. I’d be taken away to a side room, physically searched, swabbed for explosives and asked to unpack my suitcase entirely. Sometimes I even had to unball my balled-up socks. I’d adjusted to it being the price of travel for someone with a birthplace like mine."

"Irish people crossing the narrow stretch of water to Liverpool in the 1950s and 60s were met with signs in some boarding house windows reading, “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs”. Even before we were all terrorists, we Irish drank too much, got into fights and ducked out without paying our bills.

But NINA – “No Irish Need Apply” – went back well before that, appearing not uncommonly in US job advertisements in the mid-19th century. You might be a trained tailor or baker or upholsterer but, if you were Irish, keep walking."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, there were signs up in parts of the US back a hundred years ago proclaiming "No Bohunks [i.e. Bohemians, i.e. Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles and above all Jews] Allowed."

You have a point; there are probably no signs up in Muslim countries saying "No Jews Allowed." I wonder why that would be ?

As for the question, should Shari'a Law be ever recognised or allowed in Australia, many of us are keenly awaiting your answer:

YES?/NO ?

No rush, Poirot :) The longer you refuse to answer it .....

Joe

Loudmouth,

"As for the question, should Shari'a Law be ever recognised or allowed in Australia..."

No Loudy, that's not what the thread header asked.

Geez, will yer stop veering off track!

Poirot,

You know very well that the question goes to the heart of the topic, otherwise it wouldn't be the topic.

YES?/NO?

Thick as a brick & twice as dense, loudy. No hope what-so-ever of getting a straight answer from that crowd.

Just on the side-issue of whether Muslims are slighted or looked down upon by other Australians, and harassed every single day and other confected outrage bullsh!t, I was on the bus home today (I love the bus, it's like a 30-minute community) when an Australian bloke got on, pretty drunk, about forty but looked fifty. He tried to engage, rather belligerently, in conversation with all and sundry, but was politely ignored.

Around him were a middle-aged Iraqi lady, an Indonesian student, a Chinese woman, a Hazara bloke and a rather dark bloke (who turned out to be Welsh, from Cardiff via NZ) with his son. The drunk couldn't open the back door and got even more noisy.

BUT (for what it's worth) he didn't have a go at any of non-Anglo passengers, even though they were as anxious as the rest of us: for whatever reason, he didn't go cheap and start abusing anybody on ethnic grounds. He eventually got the door open and got off, swearing and cursing. Somebody later helped the older Iraqi lady off with her large bag of onions from the market. Community.

For what it's worth .....

Joe

Jayb,

Mr14 (the history buff) was just telling me how the population of Fremantle was fearful of the Fenians being transported out here in the 1860's.

Mr14 read of the media coverage at the time - and how the population of Fremantle was in trepidation of the forthcoming arrivals.

Mr14 immediately grasped the parallel between the case of the transported Fenians and the current issue with Muslims.

I wonder if the likes of you would have had the same insight as Mr14 (son of his "Thick as a brick & twice as dense" mother) when you were that age?

If you want an idea of just how much of an issue the Muslim thing is, just look at the threads on the subject. This one is 35 pages and growing, I had one a few years back that set the record, 100 plus pages.

As I say, Brexit, Trump and Hanson are no accident, it is the people showing we have had enough.

These political leaders are either going to change the world we live in, for the better, or get shot.

We are entering a new world and not before time I might add.

Hey Toni,
Sorry I missed your earlier response.
Quote"If you're going to start threads about religions favouring their own religious laws and courts, do you not think it would behoove you to do a little research on the topic beforehand?"

I think maybe you're arguing for the sake of it, this thread wasn't about Jewish laws, it's about Sharia Law but if you had a particular point to make I'm happy to hear it.
I did take the time to look at the site you linked, and I did share what I knew.

To your original reply:
"Only if we're going to be consistent and deport Australian Jews that support Halacha (Jewish law) and the existence of Australian beth dins"
Well should we? Do tell.

Sorry about misquoting your comment for Suseonlines.

You challenge my assumption that things will get worse, fair enough.
No, I don't have a crystal ball, but it's quite clear there's an obvious connection between immigrants, Islam and terrorism all over the world, anyone who denies this is placing our country and its people at risk.
I don't have to wait for the next Sydney Seige or Anzac Day type event to already use them as examples, but if you're unconvinced and want to wait until the next terrorist event which will happen sooner or later, I guess I can wait a little while for you to eat your words.

...And the last comment you quoted wasn't mine, it was Loudmouths.

rehctub,

"...I had one a few years back that set the record, 100 plus pages.

As I say, Brexit, Trump and Hanson are no accident, it is the people showing we have had enough."

You'll probably have to wait a long time before you see anything as overtly fascist as Trump and Trump's speech yesterday.

But there we go....the hilarious thing is that you and the rest of the plebs appear to think a man and an ideology such as he possesses will put you first.

Can you point me to an example when the fascist enterprise respected the common man?

Hey Rehctub,
Yes I think the response to this topic is evidence that it is certainly an issue for many Australians, and I'm getting tired of people calling Aussie's racist because we're not prepared to give up this country or see it flushed down the toilet without saying something.

People attacking Sonia Kruger for essentially sharing her fears, but if it was sharing your fears for a PC cause, then we must all bow down... Bloody hypocrites.
I doubt her life will ever be the same now, she'll probably be looking over her shoulder now I guess.

Essentially it's true-blue Australians being victimised by foreign born Aussies (or the kids of immigrants) and progressive retards who in their own country.

And Muslim apologists standing up for Islam like it's liberal.
Sorry hey but I don't support oppression of women, mutilating their 'bits', beheading people, terrorism, mass killings of innocents.. etc, etc.

Move along Sonia, nothing to fear here.... Say What??

And that foreign-looking guy yesterday with his Xenophobia spiel, the audacity to say we should leave instead, couldn't believe it. (and still stewing on it), but alas it is believable, and this is the state of things.

Nice job doing a hundred pager, this one was almost getting away from me around the 100+ comment mark, comments were coming in pretty quick.

Hey Everyone,

Thank-you to all commenters on both sides of the argument for contributing.

To try and make some unbiased observations:

The left are dreaming if they think they can use terms like 'racist', 'bigot', 'xenophobia' etc. to shut the right up.
The fact Pauline Hansons's back for Round 2 proves many Australian voters do in fact see this as a serious issue and they aren't planning to let it go without a fight.
The left HAVE TO accept that (But we know they won't).

For the right, they need to accept that the left will never allow our voices to be heard without victimisation.
They left will bring the violence, to stop the discussion taking place.

It's a vicious cycle that no side will win until we have a civil war.

So the real only answer in my opinion to let cooler heads prevail and look at the issue properly without so much of the passionate aggressiveness that comes with the territory.
The Australian people should hold a proper inquiry as Pauline suggests to try to look at all sides of the issue and deal with it peacefully.
It's a double edged sword though, as international publicity of us trying to deal with the issue will be portrayed as being a racist nation and will make us more of a target.

But this is our country, it does not belong to Islamic State or Al Qaeda.
It belongs to us.

- And just so everyone knows I didn't specifically create this thread to push a Hanson policy.
Others may disagree with me and are welcome to, but my opinion is that an official inquiry would not be altogether a bad idea.

We can't expect to ignore this issue and think it will just go away, because it won't.

Nationalist voices, the grandchildren of ANZACS deserve a voice too.
Did my Great Grandfather lead men into battle at Gallipoli for Sharia Law?
It's not all about what immigrants and foreign born Aussies who's feelings are hurt because they may not be able to import in their Muslim brothers and sisters.

Lol!...Armchair Critic....

Whacko!....I love your rendition of a general rallying his troups.

There's your daily dose of right-wing hysteria right there!

"Did my Great Grandfather lead men into battle at Gallipoli for Sharia Law?"

What Sharia Law - where?

It's not surprising that yourself and the butcher are now comparing how successful your "anti-whatever" threads are. This forum is now populated by around 80% scared white reactionary bigots and 98% are blokes.

Of course your going to score highly the minute you shriek "The Muslims are coming to get us".

Your hero, Hanson, appears to get by on one brain cell zipping around centrifugally from a mud cake at the centre of her cranium...but she gets by mouthing soothing platitudes and stirring up fear.

Trump is an irrational, uneducated, fascist spiv....but he's a hit around here!

Brexit was founded on a bed of lies appeaing again to fear and loathing....which of course was exposed the day after the vote by the fear-mongers and liars who promptly jumped ship - except for Boris who, being given the post of Foreign Secretary, the other day gave a speech referring to Turkey but got it mixed up with Egypt.

Another Einstein leading the fearful mob.

"Did my Great Grandfather lead men into battle at Gallipoli for Sharia Law?"

I don't believe he lead them into battle to have them, a hundred years hence, toadying to to fear-mongers and bigots who haven't got two brain cells to rub together.

poirot: . This forum is now populated by around 80% scared white reactionary bigots and 98% are blokes.

& With good reason. On the 98% blokes, that's not really our fault. If more women contributed, voluntarily, then the percentage would go down.

poirot: Hanson, appears to get by on one brain cell zipping around centrifugally from a mud cake at the centre of her cranium...

Well she obviously has quite a number up on you dearie.

poirot: Brexit was founded on a bed of lies appearing again to fear and loathing....

No it wasn't, the general mass in Britian are sick & tired of being bombed, having their throats cut, having areas they can't go, having lots of little kids raped & unwanted immigration forced onto them. That's the reason why.

Now to WA. Wa fas founded as a Private Enterprise, Stirling advises the British Government to open the land around the Swan River as a Settlement & Dale Advertises in England for English only Settlers. No Convicts allowed.

Stirling did the same in South Australia only the Advertisement went out though Europe. Settled by English sheep farmers, & Italian & German wine growers & again, No Convicts allowed.

Basic 7 grade Social Studies & Geography when I went to School. Didn't even have to look that up.

But you digress twice again poirot.

"& With good reason. On the 98% blokes, that's not really our fault. If more women contributed, voluntarily, then the percentage would go down."

Well, I wonder why they avoid this forum like the plague?

"Well she obviously has quite a number up on you dearie."

Oh "dearie"...what happened to "sweetie"?

Again, I wonder why women avoid this forum like the plague?

"No it wasn't, the general mass in Britian are sick & tired of being bombed, having their throats cut..."

Snort!....bombed, eh?

Having their throats cut?

Are you for real?

This is a kind of lunacy. I'll just bleat that the UK is being bombed and little kids are having their throats cut...and that makes it "true!"

"Now to WA. Wa fas founded as a Private Enterprise, Stirling advises the British Government to open the land around the Swan River as a Settlement & Dale Advertises in England for English only Settlers. No Convicts allowed."

BS, mate...

"IT'S A WARM SUMMER'S day on 9 January 1868 in Fremantle, Western Australia, and the last convict ship to transport prisoners to Australia is just coming in to port."

"This final complement of convicts signalled the end of a significant period in Australian history. Between 1788 and 1868, more than 165,000 convicts were transported to Australia, of which 10,000 were sent to Western Australia."

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/on-this-day/2011/12/on-this-day-australias-last-convict-ship-docks/

"Basic 7 grade Social Studies & Geography when I went to School. Didn't even have to look that up."

It shows!

Perhaps you should "have looked it up.

It's a fine thing when my 14 year-old has a better handle on history than the likes of you.

Hi Poirot,

You're quite right: "Can you point me to an example when the fascist enterprise respected the common man?"

Not many here would disagree with you: fascism was never the friend of humanity. But if you modify your question:

"Can you point me to an example when the fascist enterprise didn't claim that it respected the common man?"

or

"Can you point me to an example when the fascist enterprise didn't exploit the fears of the common man?"

you would get many nods of approval.

After all, Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, was, in a slightly earlier time, the founder and editor of the socialist party's newspaper, Avanti. And the Nazis didn't call themselves the National Socialist Workers' Party for nothing. All claiming to work tirelessly for 'the people'. In Nazi Germany, Goering used to hand out bread to the poor at Christmas. Good trick.

So there's plenty of examples of demagogues claiming to represent 'the common man' and exploiting their misguided fears. Such demagogues can be found in many places. Gosh, there may even be some in mosques. Fascism takes many strange forms, Poirot.

Cheers,

Joe

poirot: Oh "dearie"...what happened to "sweetie"?

I've come the conclusion that "You ain't sweet. ;-)

poirot: of which 10,000 were sent to Western Australia."

Well, as I have said before many times, School history was always incorrect.

Link: Some crimes were even carefully premeditated to warrant transportation with a lenient sentence as an escape from poverty in Britain, or to join family members.

Yes, my ancestors were sent out during the Clearances, "for poachin' rarebbits on the Lairds Lund." As told to me by my old Uncle Andy, Grandma's brother.

Now back to the Subject of pinging Sharia Law supporters off to whence they came & the fellow travelers.

one really wonders how an educated woman like Poirot could be so dumbed down to to despise the culture that has given her the most comfortable/luxurious life that women have ever had in history. Just like Islamist who poop on the countries that give them refuge so does much of our feminist do to the pioneers who made this land what it is.
We are all to blame I suppose for allowing Marxist/feminist to twist history and push their godless ideology onto a number of generations. Talk about self destructing as a nation.

runner,

I don't "despise" the culture.

I'm against the excesses.

And if you were a little more engaged and a little less indoctrinated, you'd question it too.

poirot: I'm against the excesses.

That's the beauty of living in the Free World. You get to choose. Unlike other places that you want to turn Australia into.

Now get back to the subject poirot & stop meandering about like a sick duck.

Hey Poirot,
- You may think mentioning my ANZAC was below the belt, but I think it's a fair comment.
Do the immigrants and Muslim's care about the sacrifices some Aussie's families made for this country?
Not unless we're taking away their free paid day off.

FYI, I'm not trying to rally the troops and trying to wind up hysteria, I tried to put forward some unbiased observations, and you're welcome to add to this.

I did in fact get to watch part of this weeks Q & A last night, and from what I saw I was encouraged that the issue was being taken seriously.

I don't like like being labelled as being part of any gang.
I look at each issue on its own merits and form my own opinions.
I don't base my opinions on what others think, though I do consider all their points of view to widen my own understanding of each topic.

I may not have responded to everyone's comments but I did take everyone's thoughts and opinions in.

As stated earlier the progressive left fight to stop discussion of the issue which was demonstrated in your response, all you did was prove my point.
One thing I've noticed with the left is that it doesn't matter if something is reasonable or not.
If it's not in line with their world view they attack it and stifle reasonable discussion.
You should watch this recent Milo Yiannopoulos video I watched yesterday Poirot, I think there's a lot in it for you.
http://youtu.be/7ZiQ8nLScpM
Skip to the 11 minute mark for a discussion on feminism.

That said, I do appreciate your input, we need to hear all points of view and I appreciate that this website allows us to do so.

Brexit was about British people not wanting to be ruled from overpaid faceless beuracrats from Brussels, and that they had little power over their own laws, which came to a head specifically over the immigration issue.
Americas problem is illegal immigration, where UK's problem is legal immigration.
http://youtu.be/s24bD7JAGwY

Hey poirot, AC is right.

May I Plagiarize please AC.

I don't like being labelled as being part of any gang.
I look at each issue on its own merits and form my own opinions.
I don't base my opinions on what others think, though I do consider all their points of view to widen my own understanding of each topic.

I may not have responded to everyone's comments but I did take everyone's thoughts and opinions in.

Poirot, I just cant believe you honestly believe the crap you write.

Whether it be labor waste, foolish negative gearing policy (election costing at that) or the fact that increasing the number of Muslims anywhere increases the risk of terrorism, you simply can not see the real issues.

Open your eyes. The western world is changing as people have had a gut full.

I have no doubt Trump is a nutter, but, people are attracted to him because he appears to be a man of action not words and is not frightened to step on someone's dick, if that is what's required to turn things back around.

So strap yourself in Poirot, because people like you are in for the ride of your life. Its a new world approach, brought about by successive failures. Even the new British Pm is being compared to Margie.

Bring it on I say because the feather duster approach has been a complete dud. We just need to dump this fool Turnbull now.

Butcher,

"I have no doubt Trump is a nutter! But, people are attracted to him because he appears to be a man of action not words and is not frightened to step on someone's dick...."

And you accuse me of writing crap!

You appear to be lauding full-on a guy who you believe is a nutter?

It's actually people like yourself, butch, who should strap themselves in....if you think a loon like Trump isn't paying your ilk anymore than lip service to get himself elected.

Petty middle-class whingers like yourself will be among the first to feel the heel of fascism upon their throats.

Hi Poirot,

Butch wrote: "I have no doubt Trump is a nutter! But, people are attracted to him because he appears to be a man of action not words and is not frightened to step on someone's dick...."

He was not necessarily praising him (and calling him, quite rightly, a nutter at the same time). This is perfectly in accord with the fascist populism that we discussed yesterday:

" .... there's plenty of examples of demagogues claiming to represent 'the common man' and exploiting their misguided fears. Such demagogues can be found in many places. Gosh, there may even be some in mosques. Fascism takes many strange forms, Poirot."

Trumpf is maybe not too bright, but bright enough to present his proto-fascist populism in a way that may win him the Presidency in November. God help all of us.

These days, people are usually not naïve enough to believe some fascist in a uniform, with marching bands, candle-lit night ceremonies, etc. Fascists have to lead up to their goals more subtly.

For example, supporters of Shari'a can't just come out and say they support female subordination, the stoning of women, or genital mutilation, child marriages, death to critics of the Koran and of apostates. They have to be a bit more tekkia than that. They have to gradually prepare the ground, and break Australian Muslim women away from other Australians, in people's minds. Slow and steady wins the race, eh, Poirot ?

As I've respectfully asked many times before, "Should Shari'a or any other alien body of discriminatory 'law' be ever practised in Australia, or allowed to diminish the rights of any Australians, including Muslim women in Australia in any way ?"

And as I said then, "Keep sticking up for women's rights, Poirot, I'm right there with you."

And I still will be, always, including Muslim Australian women's rights, those of our sisters :)

Cheers,

Joe

Poirot, it wont bother me if Trump wins, in fact, it may well be time for a complete turn around, one that sees the feather duster retired and some whoop arse brought to the table.

Let's face it, the non productive blood sucking leaches in society have not really had a genuine go, so perhaps the time has come to actually make them earn their keep, or at the very least, control what they spend their tax payer gift on.

While we don't actually have a Trump here in Oz, the likes of a Morrison, Dutton, or Abbott will most certainly make headway towards ridding our nation of welfare bludgers, which of cause has its fair share of Muslims as well. In fact, I have one comes into my shop, has five kids and is a labourer.

Of cause there is nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that those five kids are supported by the tax payers, while the lawyer/doctor with five kids gets squat. But I guess this is getting off track.

The fact is we need our country, the western world in fact, to return to grass roots and step one is to rid our nations of any religion/faith/beliefs that encourage harm to any of our fellow citizens, regardless of gender or race.

Immigrants should only ever be allowed to come here to make a better life, not take a better life from what we have worked for.

rehctub,

"Poirot, it wont bother me if Trump wins, in fact, it may well be time for a complete turn around, one that sees the feather duster retired and some whoop arse brought to the table."

It kind of makes me just want to sit back and watch the look on your face when you find it's your arse that's likely to be whooped.

Good luck with that : )

You have to be careful how you word questions. I'd prefer:

"Should Shari'a or any other alien body of discriminatory 'law' be ever practised in Australia, or allowed to diminish the rights of any Australians, including Muslim women in Australia, in any way ?"

to the current topic.

Fifty-odd years ago, here in South Australia, Premier Don Dunstan, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, decided that a particular settlement, where my wife was born, should be "open", meaning anybody could live and work there, and that the primary school - two miles from the all-White primary school down the road - should be closed. The Aboriginal people there were very proud of their school, by far the earliest in the area - it has the (incorrect) reputation as being the oldest continuing school building in South Australia - so they mounted a petition, asking if people wanted to send their kids to the other school, or to keep their own going.

The parents at the OTHER school countered, in a very (how to put it?) dumb-arsed way by circulating a petition asking parents if they wanted Aboriginal kids in 'their' school ?

When the Aboriginal parents at the mission got wind of this, they were understandably ropeable. The settlement's school is still open, although due to very low numbers, there is always talk of closing it. Intra-group feuds between mothers haven't helped.

You have to be careful how you ask questions.

Joe

While on the topic of the Donald, ye gads!
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

It's official, the world is nuts.

Hi Everyone,
I came across this video about Islam last night and I think everyone should watch it.
It's the most informative video about the topic I've ever watched.

What The West Needs To Know About Islam | William J. Federer
http://youtu.be/-YpJjRzQDIM