Some of the conditions under which the non-Muslims had willfully adopted citizenship of Daarul Islam, and which were proposed by Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu), are:

We will not sell liquor.

We will not display the Cross on our churches, or any other public place.

We will only ring our church bells softly, and only from within [and not outside] our churches.

We will not raise our voices during prayers.

We will not display the yoke at any public place.

We will not celebrate the festivals of Easter and Palm Sunday.

We will not call towards our religion.

(Al Mughni Vol. 10 pg. 606 as quoted in I’laa-us sunan pg. 520 vol. 12.)

When Abu Ubaida ib Jarraah (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Shaam (Syria), he stipulated similar condition on the non-Muslim citizens as Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) used to stipulate. The Christians thereafter requested to be allowed to celebrate one day of festivity within the year, in which they are allowed to display the Cross. Hazrat Abu Ubaida-tubnul Jarraah wrote to Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu), and received this reply:

“They may celebrate one day of festivity within every year. They may only display the Cross outside the city. As far as within the city, or the Muslim public, they may not display the Cross. This is only for this particular day. They may not display the cross on any other day. (Even outside the cities)” (I’laa-us sunan pg. 520 vol. 12)

Umar bin Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah) wrote to his governor such:

“Do not leave a cross exposed. Should you find one, demolish and efface it.” (I’laa-us sunan pg. 520 vol. 12; Idaratul Qur’aan)

These quotations bear ample testimony to the fact that religious symbols may not be publicly displayed in Daarul Islam.
It is only when Muslims firmly enforced such laws that Islam reigned superior on earth. Thus the object for which Daarul Islam was established had been achieved

We are breaking away from the original question, but I will write to answer about your point.

Firstly to say that I am not as familiar as these sacred writings with someone such as yourself. But I do know that there are some very fundamentalist ideas in their writings, which are very prone to misinterpretation.
We as well have very traditional and what many may call evil writings in Catholic texts, with events and doings that are horrific. You seem very educated in this area, so you would also know that there are writings in these Islamic texts that teach of peace and harmony and is very narrow minded to accuse a religion of being evil when our Western religion has its own deficiencies.

True , the catholic texts were violent, as was the church itself with the Inquisition ect. But that was yesterday. I would like to see the world's reaction should the church set up Auto de fa now.
Yet Islam still is as violent as ever, still preaches the same terrible dogma, still brainwashes it's youth into turning the streets and markets into 'rivers of blood'
And still people defend it's right to do so.
How about a good old fashioned barbie?

Dear Epi
I can answer your question about the 'fundamentals' of Islam very easily, from a transcipt of an ABC interview with Sheikh Fehmi of the Preston mosque.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Geraldine Doog

The ..... Holy Qu'ran (is) considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God and not open to interpretation ?

Sheikh Fehmi Iman
Islam is the clear clean page which doesn't change. It didn't change in the past, is not changing now, it will not change in the future.
END TRANSCRIPT

Epi, you only task now is to determine what Islam teaches. Have a look at Sura 23:6 which states that a man can have wive(s) and also captive slave girls for sex. (Those your right hand possesses)
Much more could be said. Have a look at Sharia law and "Apostacy".

Shorbe.. thanx mate :)

The task of establishing Australian Identity is not an overnight thing, nor can it be implemented in a rough and harsh way.
The key is 'Nationality First/ Ethnicity second.' we must promote this idea at every level of society. After 2 generations, any sense of ethnicity should have dissappeared, being replaced by 'Australian'.

We need to set the major reference points in place now..Immigration,Education and Media. It should be done as far as possible in a concensus manner. Those opposing this, will without question be marginalized, by themselves, not by us.

Dear Jeff Davis.... "amen"... right on.

We are in this together.

I've never felt so close to living under Sharia Law as I do now...

But Shorbe.. stand up comic ? :) nah.. I did consider standing outside RMIT in my TaeKwanDo outfit.. (street theatre to get attention and for protection so I don't die the 'death of a thousand kicks to the guts' :)

My strategy would comply with the RRT. but would most likely have an impact they are seeking to avoid. "TRUTH".....

The worst enemy of Islam is truth... about its founder.. (torture, murder, sexual exploitation, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc)

Remember.. it is not illegal to have a genuine good faith POLITICAL or..Artistic purpose. In my case, it would be the Political purpose raising awareness seeking a change in the law.

Which of course, demonstrates the stupidity of the law. It is possible to criticize Mohamed, Islam, Muslims and Christ, Christianity and Christians as long as it is artistic or political and in good faith.

What I find ludicrous is that Humor..comedy is something which 'holds up to public ridicule' yet it is not prevented by the act. Yet Pastors who inform based on real world experience are declared 'villains' by the same Law .....

I am now working up a case to have the Quran banned, and some Bookshops as the 'respondents'.... with a goal of ridding us of this stuuuupid law. But have to fit that in between earning a living :)
So please don't ask me in 2 days time how I'm going with it....
Cheers and solidarity with u all.

Epi, I think that some of the posters so far on here are answering
your question!

In fact if we look around the world, a pattern emerges. You'll
find that in say the Middle East, lots of Jews and Arabs get on
fine. That same principle applies in most places. There
seems to be a small % of the population who are religious nuts,
Jewish, Xtian or Muslim. They are extremists and they are 90%
of the problem in all these squabbles. They are obsessed with
religion and that only their's is the correct one. Yet they
are as bad as one another, no matter which faith.

In my experience, secular kinds of people soon blend in and get
on with one another, they are rational kind of people in general.
Once you throw relgious fundamentalism in there, no matter which
faith, squabbles will be inevitable, all very sad really.

The intolerance of religious extremists of all faiths is the
real problem. Thats why I have become intolerant of the intolerant.