Boazy: "Does anything more need to be said ?"

Not if you don't mind being being shown up yet again as a bulldust artist - concerning your apparently mendacious rabble-rousing around the UWS prayer room.

Let me see if I have this right.

>>I have been helping an asylum-seeker gain refuge in our wonderful country, a Christian who converted from a Muslim background, and my first hint of trouble was when her small child was kidnapped by Muslim relatives<<

An asylum seeker. I have to presume that only the two - she and her child - are trying to settle here, and the father is still in Iran? So, taking the emotion out of it, the religious leanings of the parties etc., we have a straightforward international custody battle?

>>For the moment, the child has been returned to his mother forcefully with police intervention. Australia has agreed to grant a protection visa to them, his safety though is not guaranteed.<<

Again, taking out the emotive stuff - "forcefully", "agreed to grant", "safety not guaranteed" - we have the information that the child has been returned to the custody of her mother.

The law has been upheld. Surely, that's a good thing?

I am sure that it is a traumatic time for all concerned, but there have been many such stories with similar features, but lacking any religious overtones. A good friend of mine described her escape from communist Romania many years ago, in very similar terms.

All very sad. But absolutely nothing to do with the topic. There is no virtue in ascribing religious motives or overtones to an already unfortunate situation. And it adds nothing to the blatant propaganda of the stuff Boaz brought to our attention.

The "enemy among us" is, I would suggest, far better described as "the enemy within us".

And Boaz, this does not absolve you from addressing the tough questions.

"...is the problem likely to get a) larger or b) smaller, if you keep picking at it like an old scab? Are your enemies likely to get a) more or b) less militant, as a result of your endless stream of febrile insults?"

If this battle was fought in the law courts, assigning rights to the child under the Hague Convention (to which Iran is not a signatory), the mother would no doubt have been awarded custody of the child.

But this battle was fought in the Refugee Review Tribunal, an immigration issue, not a custody issue.

For the record, the Muslim father was not involved. However, an unrelated Muslim person stepped forward to claim that the child was his own (at the Iranian Embassy in Canberra, where they were in the process of separating this child’s passport from his mothers,). Taqquia…a justifiable Islamic deception.

Traumatised? Intolerable, both for mother and child. Unimaginable, for Australian women and children.

The reason they are permitted to stay in Australia, is because the Australian government accepted that on return to Iran they would be persecuted (not an imagined or perceived persecution). For converts to Christianity, the penalty for apostasy is death and though the death penalty has not been carried out since 1994, torture, beatings, imprisonment, discrimination and punitive taxes help Iran climb to No. 3 on the Open Doors watch list for Christian persecution.

End of wake up call.

It is a triumph for Australian law, not sharia law, where this mother would have half the rights of the father or her male relatives.

In the tribunal, this woman said “Will I be safe anywhere?”

“ (Muslims are) here with an agenda to make Islam the law of the land” (Pt. 5, Nonie Darvish, daughter of martyr) resonates loudly if you care to listen.

Could it be that katie0 is a member of some fringe Christian group that shares the Islamophobia that characterises Boazy's obsessive crusade? Certainly, the references to taqqiya and Sharia law seem to come from the same prayer book.

How on earth does a custody dispute, successfully conducted under Australian law, give any kind of credence to the ravings of the nutters in Boazy's favourite movie?

KatieO, I am sure that you are a very caring and compassionate person, but all you have shown us so far is Australian law in action. That in itself is encouraging of course, as there are many on this Forum who would like to send everyone back to wherever they came from, without a second thought.

But in the context of this thread, you have simply added religious overtones to a family dispute in order to inflame anti-Islamic emotions. In doing so, you are joining the crack whack-a-mozzie brigade on this Forum, so I hope you realize you have some fairly high standards of obfuscation and self-deception to aspire to.

Just as an aside, would you have spent any time on the case if the woman concerned were a Muslim, rather than "a Christian who converted from a Muslim background"?

The radical Islamisation of Arabian children who are being taught to be suicide bombers (Pt 3) does not inspire fear, but great sadness.

As a Christian, my first response it to pray, pray that the grace found in Christ will cover us all. Believing the battle to be won for all eternity at the Cross, I have nothing to fear.

If the Islamic baseline is spiritual warfare for children’s hearts and minds, then so is mine. Christian playgroups for 2-5 year olds are not a breeding ground for radical Islamophobia. But the erosion of Australian institutions and freedoms via Islam-creep is increasingly hard to ignore, and I don’t believe tolerance is a biblical response,

- “…. We are strangling ourselves with our political correctedness” (Pt5, Nonie Darvish, Muslim)

And yes, in a separate issue, I am assisting a Muslim woman with her medical bills, her job search, and friendship.