Hamas gunmen attack Fatah police jeep, killing 8
Associated Press
May. 15, 2007 02:37 PM
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas gunmen riddled a Fatah police jeep with gunfire at close range Tuesday, killing eight policemen in the most ruthless round yet of factional fighting, pushing the Palestinian unity government closer to collapse.

Gunmen in black ski masks took up positions in the streets and terrified residents huddled in their homes. Israel, too, was briefly drawn into the battle.

"I don't know when it's going to end and what the future will bring," said Salman Abu Arafeh, 42, a Gaza City interior decorator who was pinned down by gunfire in his apartment for hours, along with his wife and two children. A total of 15 people were killed in Tuesday's fighting.
     

 





An Egyptian mediator said a truce was reached late Tuesday - the third in as many nights. The others have collapsed within hours.

In the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for the immediate implementation of a security plan that would put all rival forces under one command. However, his call is unlikely to be heeded: the fighting made it clear the Hamas-Fatah power struggle was never really resolved, despite formation of the unity government in March.

Gaza's turmoil further weakened hopes for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, despite a new push by the Arab world to bring the sides to the table, based on an offer of Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from all lands it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War.

Israel has expressed major reservations, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday that he's ready to meet with Arab leaders in Israel or anywhere else to talk about the idea. Abdullah, in turn, asked Olmert to set a timetable for reaching a peace deal.

Negotiations, however, are inconceivable if the Palestinians descend into a protracted civil war.

This week's fighting was the worst since Hamas and Fatah agreed to share power in February. In all, 23 people have been killed and dozens wounded in three days of street fighting. Among the injured was a 10-year-old girl caught in the crossfire late Tuesday and critically wounded by a gunshot to the head, Palestinian rescue workers said.

In the deadliest battle, Hamas gunmen fired rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars early Tuesday at a training base for Fatah forces guarding the Karni cargo crossing with Israel. U.S. security experts had helped set up the base to improve security at Karni.

After the initial attack, Hamas fired on Fatah reinforcements rushing to the scene, and one of the jeeps carrying Fatah fighters veered off the road and crashed. Hamas gunmen surrounded the vehicle and riddled it with gunfire, said one witness, who works in a nearby factory.

"It was unbelievable. May God help us," said the man, who gave only his first name, Jamil, out of fear for his safety.

Eight men were killed, hospital officials said. Fatah security men also came under fire as they tried to move the bodies away from the overturned jeep.

Two Israeli helicopter gunships and three tanks moved toward the area, and Hamas fighters quickly withdrew. At one point, a major in the Palestinian Presidential Guard was killed by Israeli army fire as he tried to leave the crossing, security officials said.

Before sundown, Hamas said it fired rockets at Sderot, an Israeli town near Gaza in retaliation for the Israeli attack. Residents counted more than 20 rockets. One rocket hit a house, seriously wounding an Israeli woman. It was the first time in three weeks that Hamas has claimed responsibility for a rocket barrage.

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz summoned army commanders for late-night consultations. Earlier, defense officials said Israel would not be dragged into the fighting.

However, Israel closed Karni, the only route for cargo into Gaza. The closure means Gaza will soon run out of fuel for its power plant and electricity to most of the strip could be shut down by Wednesday, said Abdel Karim Abdeen, head of the Palestinian Energy Authority.

The current fighting had many of the elements of previous Hamas-Fatah clashes: combatants kidnapped scores of rivals, set up roadblocks to search cars, took over rooftops of high-rises and often fired randomly in crowded residential areas.

Around Abbas' seaside compound in Gaza City, security forces searched cars and inspected motorists' ID cards. They gave those with beards - a possible sign of Hamas support - an extra close look.

Both sides have become more ruthless this time, with Fatah accused of an execution-style killing of two Hamas supporters Sunday and Hamas ambushing the Fatah jeep Tuesday. This might make it more difficult to negotiate a cease-fire and revive the coalition.

At the core of the fighting is the unresolved power struggle between Hamas, which won parliamentary elections last year, and Abbas' Fatah, which has dominated Palestinian politics for four decades. Squeezed by an international aid boycott, Hamas realized it could not govern alone and brought Fatah into the government. But the two sides never worked out their differences, particularly over security.

While the power-sharing deal largely halted factional fighting for three months, both sides continued to smuggle weapons through tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, preparing for the next round.

Past II , due to word limitations


While the power-sharing deal largely halted factional fighting for three months, both sides continued to smuggle weapons through tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, preparing for the next round.

The spark for the new fighting was deployment of 3,000 Fatah-allied members of the security forces in Gaza City last week, over Hamas' objections. Hamas has also bristled at Abbas' appointment of former Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan as his national security adviser.

"Palestinian society is now similar to Lebanese society - always in civil war or on the verge of civil war," said analyst Hillel Frisch of Israel's Bar-Ilan University.

"It's going to be cyclical: both sides know the tremendous costs, so they try to contain it, but the problem is simply left unresolved, and is probably unresolvable," he said.

Both sides accused each other of waging a carefully orchestrated campaign to destroy the other.

The National Security, a force loyal to Abbas, said Hamas is leading a military coup against the Palestinian security establishment. A Hamas spokesman, Abdel Latif Kanuah, said Fatah is involved in a U.S.-backed plot to overthrow Hamas, referring to U.S. backing for Abbas' elite forces, the Presidential Guards.

Despite the unity government's shortcomings - and its failure to end the international embargo imposed on Hamas - it's unlikely Abbas will dissolve it and call early elections. Hamas would consider that an attempt to steal its election victory and likely oppose it violently.

The U.N has confirmed Iran has expanded its rather than reduced its nuclear program.
Sanctions now appear likely after its failure to meet the 60 day deadline.
Iran has installed 2 networks of 164 centrifuges in its underground enrichment plant, sparking fears they are assembling nuclear weapons.

Bloody hell, Why does'nt the U.N strike Iran NOW  while we still have the chance?
We invaded Iraq for less!
I seriously dont understand the worlds leadership.

---

If we strike Iran now - that will be the end of us.  We haven't the resources.  The US is already bogged down in quicksand in Iraq while more troops are needed for Afghanistan because the Taliban aren't doing what they're told.

Iran is using the threat of nukes because they don't want the US to strike.  Some think that Israel might launch an offensive at Iran.  If that happens - let's say goodbye to any semblance of peace the Middle East may have dreampt of or we may have hoped to maintain in the West.

The US would be cutting their throats forever if they bombed Iran.  It would probably be the last war this world ever saw as all nations with nuclear capabilities will bring them out in defence of either themselves or an ally.

There never will be peace in the mid east anyway, as long as israel exists.
Jews and muslims are like oil and water. does not mix no matter what.
Russia is'nt doing anything, could'nt they do something? Or are they scared of sandmonkeys now after their afghanistan affair?
Any how i believe the west still has the capabilty to fight another war.
I mean if we could fight and win the second world war, which was a total war and against very well trained,fanatical soldiers of japan and germany why cant we defeat the arabs?

And of muslims with nukes, the only one that posesses them now, is pakistan and they can be held in check by india.
And if china tried anything, to defend iran , the showdown with china is coming anyway so why not invade iran and destroy communist/islamic systems FOREVER.

I think Russia and China are pro Iran - in fact a lot of this has to do with Russia and Iran joining forces to launch the new Iranian oil trading bourse, which will be in direct competition to the US.  As Iran will begin eventually trading oil in Euros, this may affect the US economy fairly severely, so the yanks are worried.

To think of bombing China and Iran is absolute insanity - but then the US has an insane president, so it might be on the books.  China and Japan hold many $ trillions of US credit notes - so whatever move the US makes, they will have to tread carefully.  If their debts are called in, the US will end up being owned by the Chinese.  Now that would be interesting, except we will be affected as well.

That is no good at all. :(
And just bombing places is stupid, im talking about large scale military invasion forces.
Ground forces are needed. Bombing does not work, this was proven in 1940/41 when Hitler could'nt bomb england into submission.

AusNat, I wouldn't worry about nukes being in the hands Muslims too much. Pakistan have had them for years, and they've never used them. They should be aware that IF they use it, the USA will blow them sky-high.

My only concern is the use of them on Israel... wait a minute... scratch that... our only HOPE is for them to use it on Israel.  :D


Seriously though, our only concern is for them to use it for 'negotiation' and to get 'money.'
I severely doubt they can build a launcher capable enough to reach any western country. Only other Muslim countries.

So hopefully, they'll use it on themselves. The less Muslims that remain on this earth the better.

In my opinion, Iran having nuclear weapons is more good than bad.  ;)

Thats right- No Israel=peace in mid east.
That would be nice if they used it on themselves!
Pakistan has'nt used them because india has them and yes, the U.S would flatten them.
Yeah, islamic blackmail. Whats more they WILL sell them to terrorists.

                                               DEATH  TO  ISLAM !

---

hi all, after reading though this forum i noticed that there are alot of anti-islamic topics being discussed.

i can't help but notice the irony in some posts, where they criticise muslims for being intolerant, but then they themselves are intolerant of muslims. personally, i think that's a case of the "pot calling the kettle black".

wouldn't it make more sense to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level? since hate only breeds hate, so by hating them u actually make the situation worse. that's is what Jesus meant when he said "turn the other cheek".

i will be interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

Yeah I noticed that too.

Yeah, i also noticed that.
i think it's because people tend to rely on emotions, rather than thinking logically.

Well, part of the critism is true. They base their lives on their religion and use to further their 'cause'. The koran preaches of peace and unity without prejudice. So the extremist do not do alot of good with the violence. Some of the Arabians I have seen do look or act particularly religious even with clothes. Just my observations.

Correction:     "do not look...."  

freediver you can edit if you want

Gee ... I noticed that too  ::)

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 8:55am:

wouldn't it make more sense to take the moral high ground and not stoop to their level? since hate only breeds hate, so by hating them u actually make the situation worse. that's is what Jesus meant when he said "turn the other cheek".

This is a very good point!

I fear that the Muslim part is only half the story, remove the Muslim element and you will still find these people seeking out a minority to defecate on from great heights. Remove all ethnic minorities and no doubt they will find minorities to target within their own 'pure' group.

Quote:

I fear that the Muslim part is only half the story, remove the Muslim element and you will still find these people seeking out a minority to defecate on from great heights. Remove all ethnic minorities and no doubt they will find minorities to target within their own 'pure' group.

Does it ever work to 'turn the other cheek' with bullies in the school playground? In my experience, no.

If you don't stand up and tackle the issue head-on... it'll never go away.


I'll leave this rhetorical statement for you politically correct wankers to ponder: How can the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?

Quote:

I fear that the Muslim part is only half the story, remove the Muslim element and you will still find these people seeking out a minority to defecate on from great heights. Remove all ethnic minorities and no doubt they will find minorities to target within their own 'pure' group.

I wouldnt call them ''pure'' but yeah we would be targeting  communists, anarchists etc.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:27pm:

I'll leave this rhetorical statement for you politically correct wankers to ponder: How can the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?

If you think I'm 'politically correct' then you've got a lot to learn mate. To see the intelligent logical solutions is not to be PC.

The answer is in another question: How do you put out a fire by throwing petrol on it?

The answer to the bully question is to be further up the social ladder than the bully, he won't hit you if you are the coolest in the schoolyard. You were picked on for being the schoolyard loser weren't you trump?  ;D

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:27pm:

I'll leave this rhetorical statement for you politically correct wankers to ponder: How can the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?

by not tolerating the intolerant, u can no longer call urself tolerant.
that's a tongue twister. basically, u can't say that ur tolerant if u return the favour and hate them back.

do u understand now?  

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:32pm:

I wouldnt call them ''pure'' but yeah we would be targeting  communists, anarchists etc.

So you're an intolerant bigot who must project his own deep self-loathing onto his surroundings. thank you for your admission.

This mentality will never be at peace with anything, clearly by your own words you seek out conflict with others endlessly and thus your arguments regarding Muslims are utterly meaningless when considered in the context of your personal philosophy.

What confounds me 'nationalist' is that your views are anything but nationalistic in every way. Australia is a place of freedom of speech and expression, and yet you regard this highly held national value with contempt. I shall hereby call you "Aussie Noodle".

zoso wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

wrote on Mar 16th, 2007 at 3:32pm: I wouldnt call them ''pure'' but yeah we would be targeting  communists, anarchists etc. So you're an intolerant bigot who must project his own deep self-loathing onto his surroundings. thank you for your admission. This mentality will never be at peace with anything, clearly by your own words you seek out conflict with others endlessly and thus your arguments regarding Muslims are utterly meaningless when considered in the context of your personal philosophy. What confounds me 'nationalist' is that your views are anything but nationalistic in every way. Australia is a place of freedom of speech and expression, and yet you regard this highly held national value with contempt. I shall hereby call you "Aussie Noodle".

Glad to see you are still on your high horse zoso.

Communists/socialists and anarchists are just as bad for society as islam.
They all will send us back into the stone age.
After they are gone, im happy.

Have i ever said i see the asians as a threat?? NO. so there goes your theory of bigotry.

Have i ever said i see the asians as a threat?? NO. so there goes your theory of bigotry.

Tolerating only some minority groups does not mean you aren't a bigot.

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:51pm:

Communists/socialists and anarchists are just as bad for society as islam. They all will send us back into the stone age. After they are gone, im happy.

And like your own opinions, all of these examples are free to be expressed in our country, whether they are good or not is irrelevant it is the freedom that counts. Remembering that 'expression' and 'actuality' are very different things.

Freedom of speech is a strongly held Australian value, Aussie Noodle. One you seem to enjoy utilising. Tell me, if these groups you identify have their freedom of expression stripped from them, who is to say you should not have the freedom to express your noodle views stripped from you?

wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 3:51pm:

Glad to see you are still on your high horse zoso.

When you insist on rolling around in the mud, it would be forgivable of you to think I was sitting on high.

Oh and I call him steve, steve the steed  8-)

Quote:

The answer to the bully question is to be further up the social ladder than the bully, he won't hit you if you are the coolest in the schoolyard.

Pfft. Great solution.  ::)



Quote:

You were picked on for being the schoolyard loser weren't you trump?

I guess you got me there.  ::)

This is starting to sound personal again. Please stick to the topic.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 4:10pm:

Pfft. Great solution.  ::)

It was an analogy to my main point: Our hedonistic capitalist free and liberal society will steal their children away from their strict old world views.

And before you say I'm overly optimistic again, would you consider my point about human drive towards selfishness and hedonism 'optimisitc' ??

Quote:

Oh and I call him steve, steve the steed

Is that your lover? Sounds like you are passionate! :o

Skeptic when you made a Jesus comment I wonder how much the Islams would adhere/tolerate that?
I think its unbeliveable the Islams are coming about as they do. I don't necessary hate them but am suspcious. Who knows which middle easterners are extreme or not? The extremists usually go after innocents/bystanders so no wonder people are up in arms. It is their shock and awe strategy and is getting their message across to the world. I can't see to turn the cheek. It just not might necessarily be a religious war. And by the way it seems any group to get some kind of respect need to get violent for the masses to respect them. Are we all really civilized or uncivilized?

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2007 at 2:09am:

Skeptic when you made a Jesus comment I wonder how much the Islams would adhere/tolerate that? I think its unbeliveable the Islams are coming about as they do. I don't necessary hate them but am suspcious. Who knows which middle easterners are extreme or not? The extremists usually go after innocents/bystanders so no wonder people are up in arms. It is their shock and awe strategy and is getting their message across to the world. I can't see to turn the cheek. It just not might necessarily be a religious war. And by the way it seems any group to get some kind of respect need to get violent for the masses to respect them. Are we all really civilized or uncivilized?

Nicely put DEE.
Why not become a member?  Seems you have the brains for it.

I think I will later. Thanks

Why not! it costs nothing..................

wrote on Mar 17^th, 2007 at 2:09am:

Skeptic when you made a Jesus comment I wonder how much the Islams would adhere/tolerate that?

dee, why would muslims need to adhere to the teaching of Jesus when he said "turn the other cheek"?

my point is, we are a majority christian population and our society has been moulded by christian teachings. so why are we not using those teachings when dealing with potential terrorists?

wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 8:45am:

wrote on Mar 17th, 2007 at 2:09am: Skeptic when you made a Jesus comment I wonder how much the Islams would adhere/tolerate that? dee, why would muslims need to adhere to the teaching of Jesus when he said "turn the other cheek"? my point is, we are a majority christian population and our society has been moulded by christian teachings. so why are we not using those teachings when dealing with potential terrorists?

Okay, i get it, ur saying that muslims might not necessarily believe in "turning the other cheek" in accordance with their belief, whereas christians do. so it's up to christians to follow our own teachings when dealing with muslim terrorists.

is that right?

Gavin wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 11:40am:

wrote on Mar 19th, 2007 at 8:45am: wrote on Mar 17th, 2007 at 2:09am: Skeptic when you made a Jesus comment I wonder how much the Islams would adhere/tolerate that? dee, why would muslims need to adhere to the teaching of Jesus when he said "turn the other cheek"? my point is, we are a majority christian population and our society has been moulded by christian teachings. so why are we not using those teachings when dealing with potential terrorists? Okay, i get it, ur saying that muslims might not necessarily believe in "turning the other cheek" in accordance with their belief, whereas christians do. so it's up to christians to follow our own teachings when dealing with muslim terrorists. is that right?

Exactly. it's really weird that dee was asking whether muslims would obey the "turn the other cheek" rule, why should they? it's not their belief.

Hi Gavin and Dee, How are you both ?
From my knowledge muslims do believe Jesus existed.

As a christian, I am to turn the other cheek. I am also to tell the truth.
"Tunring the other cheek" is more aimed at individuals. Not as a nation.
Jesus always spoke on a personal basis.
ie, As a person, I should turn the other cheek if a muslim strikes me. The ones I know are pretty good, I see no need for that.
It is simulanously asked of me to tell the truth. ie, what I have leant about the muslim belief.
The belief does not necessarily reflect the individual people.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek when he was pointing out the differences between the Jewish law and His Way. ie, what God really wanted. See towards the end of Matthew 5.

Jesus came here to bridge the gap between man and God and to give us freedom from religion.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 1:27pm:

Hi Gavin and Dee, How are you both ? From my knowledge muslims do believe Jesus existed.

yes, but their account of Jesus (and his teachings) is different to the christian version, so the "turn the other cheek" rule which is in christian teachings might not be in Islamic teachings.

Hi Gavin,

Ah, sorry, I misread the posting saying muslims might follow the turn the other cheek directive.

There is very little of Jesus in the koran. I doubt there is the turn the other cheek, or much else of anything he said or did.  
They follow mohammad. Funny sort of setup really.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 3:33pm:

Hi Gavin, Ah, sorry, I misread the posting saying muslims might follow the turn the other cheek directive. There is very little of Jesus in the koran. I doubt there is the turn the other cheek, or much else of anything he said or did.   They follow mohammad. Funny sort of setup really.

actually sprintcyclist from what i gather from muslims i know, Jesus and the virgin Mary are mentioned extensively in the koran. the teachings of Jesus, according to muslims, centered on worshipping only one God without partners, which is the same as what Mohammed preached.  

In terms of the teachings of "turn the other cheek" and other stories in the modern day bible, they believe that the original bible sent by Jesus has been distored by man after Jesus was raised to heaven. they do kind of have a point, especially when u have christians admit that some verses of the bible are not found in the original manuscripts, e.g. Mark 16:9-20.

so it's entirely possible that the "turn the other cheek" verses are a fabrication.  

skeptic, u know what, i think u have a point.
i had a look at those verses u mentioned and it states that these verses are not in the original bible.  

i haven't thought about it that way before, but i guess it makes sense, if we are willing to accept some verses of the bible are distorted then we can't really call it the unchanged word of God.

it actually kind of brings the accuracy of the entire bible into question, since i didn't think u would change a letter of it as it is supposed to be the word of God.

Gavin wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 4:14pm:

it actually kind of brings the accuracy of the entire bible into question, since i didn't think u would change a letter of it as it is supposed to be the word of God.

;D You realise this... NOW?

Not only is it a hand me down of a hand me down of a hand me down of a.... ad infinitium. It was assembled by a council of men with entire texts missing, the new testament was written entirely after the time of Jesus, some of it centuries. It has been translated so many times from different languages much of the original contexts have been lost. Example: originally translated into ancient greek (yes you heard it) the bible originally had two words for 'love' one meaning love as in general love for things, the other meaning love as in love between a man and a woman, this context was lost where we now have only the word 'love' and the onus is on the reader to decide on the context. Considering the vast quantity of Christian sects all with their own interpretations I'd say this is quite the problem!

Ok I'll stop being an @ss now... sorry for my outburst I didn't mean any of it and I'm probably all wrong. You're allright mate ;)

Hi skeptic, gavin and zoso,
How are you all ?

Skeptic - I have read bits of the koran myself. Found a copy in a few bookshops so had a lengthy "skim" through."  There is very little mention of Jesus at all. It is all mohammad.
yes, the old testament was before Jesus. In the beginning of the new testament Jesus was there.
The majority of the new testamant was written after He was crucified.
Have you read the whole bible? Or even the new testament ?
I have never heard a christian say parts were not in the original manuscripts.
So how come christans "got it wrong" when they personally knew jesus, yet muslims "get it right", even though it was written 500 years AFTER Jesus was here in the flesh ?

Gavin - Be wary of what people lead you to. Look up "abrogation", there is a interesting bit about an unchanging word of God !   :)


Zoso - Yes, most of the New testament was written after Jesus ascended to heaven.
have you read the WHOLE Bible ??
yes it has been translated many times.  It is THE most popular book.
I can't read  Aramic, hebrew and ancient Greek, so just as well it has been translated.
What about french, spanish or indian christians ?? They should have a Bible in their native language.
Every translation is taken from the original texts.

yes, there are at least 2 root words for the english word "love." The love between a man and God is different than the love between a man and a woman. Quite specific and correct.
All christians have the basic understanding of the Bible. We are not a sect.

My concordance has the root meaning for every word in the NIV bible.
Feel free to ask about any specific word.
I can give you the aramic, hebrew or greek original word and its meaning in english.


The message and story of the Bible is the same and unchanged.
From Genesis to Revelation. From when it was written till today.
It is to be read as one complete book.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

Skeptic - I have read bits of the koran myself. Found a copy in a few bookshops so had a lengthy "skim" through."  There is very little mention of Jesus at all. It is all mohammad. yes, the old testament was before Jesus. In the beginning of the new testament Jesus was there. The majority of the new testamant was written after He was crucified. Have you read the whole bible? Or even the new testament ? I have never heard a christian say parts were not in the original manuscripts. So how come christans "got it wrong" when they personally knew jesus, yet muslims "get it right", even though it was written 500 years AFTER Jesus was here in the flesh ?

sprintcyclist, skimming through the koran and actually reading it are two different things. the koran itself is quite a large text and is roughly the same size as the New Testament, so i highly doubt u can make a comment about Jesus not being mentioned in it by just skimming it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

I have never heard a christian say parts were not in the original manuscripts. So how come christans "got it wrong" when they personally knew jesus, yet muslims "get it right", even though it was written 500 years AFTER Jesus was here in the flesh ?

sprintcyclist, i actually looked up Mark 16:9-20, which skeptic noted above and according to my bible (which is the New International Version) there is commentary which states:

"The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

if we're willing to accept these verses are not in the original, then it is possible that christians "got it wrong" even though they personally knew Jesus. Especially when most of the New Testament was written after Jesus was crucified.

HI skeptic and Gavin,
How are you both ?

skeptic - yes, that is why I was careful to say I had just "flicked" through it, and had not read it all.
A good flick through does let me know quite a few things. Have you had a look at it ??
It is written by an unintelligent man and has no "relationships" or empathy in it.
There is no "flow" of a story or moral in it. It is extremist , the more the extreme action, the better.
There is no moral code in it.
I read not a word from Jesus in there.  I did not say Jesus is missing from there, I said there is very little mentin of him.
It is mainly threats, laws, bloodythirsty acts.

gavin - There are a few footnotes like that in the Bible.  Some of the older versions were translated with respect to the current king. ie, he would execute them if there was someting they printed that he did not like.
It is a sign of the transparency and honesty of the translators that the translators DO include footnotes such as this.  
Within 2000 years and many translations, variations will occur. That is human.
If there would be NO variations, that would be suspicious. They are all referenced back to the original manuscripts and what was decided to keep there. It has not changed.
It is the human factor that varies, not Gods Word and the message given within.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 1:34pm:

Within 2000 years and many translations, variations will occur. That is human. If there would be NO variations, that would be suspicious.

i would disagree with that, the bible is supposed to be the unchanged word of God. so, it shouldn't change at all and should be preserved throughout time.

to have variations in a holy scripture, then u run the risk of changing God's words. and come to think of it, with the Mark 16:9-20 verses, if it wasn't in the original manuscript, then where did it come from? it can only be created by man. and if those verses are created by man, then the bible cannot be the word of God.

I think the Christian philosophy was that it was done under God's guidance. The whole thing about the 'original' manuscript is moot as it was all written down by people at some stage after it happened anyway.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 1:34pm:

skeptic - yes, that is why I was careful to say I had just "flicked" through it, and had not read it all. A good flick through does let me know quite a few things. Have you had a look at it ?? It is written by an unintelligent man and has no "relationships" or empathy in it. There is no "flow" of a story or moral in it. It is extremist , the more the extreme action, the better. There is no moral code in it. I read not a word from Jesus in there.  I did not say Jesus is missing from there, I said there is very little mentin of him. It is mainly threats, laws, bloodythirsty acts.

sprintcyclist, unless u have read the koran from cover to cover, then ur not really in a position to comment on what it does or doesn't have.

flicking through it isn't sufficient, besides r u sure that u didn't accidently "flick" through the parts about Jesus without noticing? i think that would more likely be the case, it doesn't make sense that muslims would see Jesus as a prophet, yet they wouldn't mentioned him alot in their holy book. that is kind of like the bible not having mentioning Moses or Abraham (i.e. prior prophets).

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 1:54pm:

I think the Christian philosophy was that it was done under God's guidance. The whole thing about the 'original' manuscript is moot as it was all written down by people at some stage after it happened anyway.

And constructed by a council of men. Men who had a vested interest in maintaining a church.

I'm no expert... reaaaly far from it, but every single quote I hear from Jesus freaks sounds to me like he was trying to get people to circumvent the whole institutionalised church bit. I really don't get the impression that setting up a christian religion was his intention... But maybe thats just me. The bible is the word of men, good bad or other is irrelevant.

Jesus had a remarkably similar philosophy to Gandhi the way I see it. Anyway, enough I shouldn't even open my mouth in religious conversations...

Why not? Jesus seems like a bit of a hippy to me too. He did not seek power in a conventional sense, nor encourage his followers to.

Hi Gavin, freediver and skeptic ,

Gavin - fair enough, you are allowed to disagree. God warned about adding or deleting words from His Bible. Yet another human failing He warned us specifically about, but we still went ahead and did it ??
If some parts were not in the original, it may have been added later. Perhaps I could "leave" those out as I read it ??
Thorough of the translators include ALL previous versions and to tell us which parts were not in the original.  Very open, transparent and honest of them.  
Certainly no deception involved.


Freediver - yes, written under Gods guidance and leading. Was written after or during the actual events.


Skeptic - given I saw few if any comments on Jesus, and no direct quotes from him at all,  that ALL instructions were solely from mohammad  I feel my comments are fair.
Feel free to do as I did. have a read through in a bookshop. Give us all your impression.


Freediver - I would agree that Jesus was "unimpressed" with the "religious" leaders of the day.
As he probably would be of today.  There is a MASSIVE difference between "religion" and "spirituality". Guess which one we are meant to be - according to the Bible ??
IMHO - The Bible IS the Word of God, written and interpereted by man.
Ghandi was pretty good. I read a biography about him - "freedom at midnight", I think . Really good.
I also admire the buddhists for their renown peaceful ways.  


God is bigger than a "religion" or a "church", in my thinking.
Feel free to open your mouth !!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 3:15pm:

Skeptic - given I saw few if any comments on Jesus, and no direct quotes from him at all,  that ALL instructions were solely from mohammad  I feel my comments are fair. Feel free to do as I did. have a read through in a bookshop. Give us all your impression.

u saw few comments about Jesus when u "flicked" through the koran, i.e. u didn't read it.

if i wanted to know about a religion, i would actually read their religious text, not just flick through it, be it the Torah, Bible or Koran.

wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 3:22pm:

u saw few comments about Jesus when u "flicked" through the koran, i.e. u didn't read it. if i wanted to know about a religion, i would actually read their religious text, not just flick through it, be it the Torah, Bible or Koran.

Unless of course you are a follower of Kabbalah!  ;D

All you need to do is TOUCH the words! PRAISE the LORD!  ;D ;D ;D

Hi skeptic - I just had a thought.

I have never seen direct quote from Jesus from the koran.
Have you ?

They are all from mohammad.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 20^th, 2007 at 4:10pm:

Hi skeptic - I just had a thought. I have never seen direct quote from Jesus from the koran. Have you ? They are all from mohammad.

Of course you haven't seen a direct quote from Jesus in the koran, u only "flicked" through it, rather than reading it.

Like i said before, if i wanted to know about a religion i would read their religious books entirely. flicking through it for a few minutes while in a bookstore doesn't make me an expert on the religion.

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2007 at 8:15am:

Of course you haven't seen a direct quote from Jesus in the koran, u only "flicked" through it, rather than reading it.

not just that, it could be that sprintcyclist is looking for Jesus quotes as stated in the Bible and looking for identical quotes in the Koran.

but as we mentioned before, some quotes in the Bible weren't in the original manuscripts and therefore may be a fabrication, i.e. they (whoever wrote the bible) may have attributed some quotes to Jesus that he didn't really say. Therefore, the quotes from Jesus as stated in the Bible may differ to those in the Koran, hence the reason sprintcyclist probably hasn't noticed it.

for example, u wouldn't find a quote in the Koran along the lines of "Jesus said: I am the son of God", since muslims don't believe that. they see Jesus as a prophet of God and they don't worship him as the Son of God or God himself.

Hi sheptic and gavin,
How have you both been ?
Skeptic - yes, you have said that before. No need to repeat yourself. I have researched muslim stuff a bit and did have a look at the koran. Unjust to base my thoguhts on jsut what others say.
I am not an expert in muslim stuff, but know a bit about it.  

Gavin - I saw few if any mentions of Jesus in the koran. Nor has a muslim ever given me a quote about him. They are all from mohammad.  
Jesus is mentioned in the Koran, fleetingly.
yes, it is possible due to the honesty and transparency given in the Bible to assume some parts were not in the orginal scripts.  It shows the versions are related directly back to the original maunscripts and have also taken into account other versions of the Bible since then.  
Much better than learning aramic, hebrew and ancient greek.
Pretty naughty of someone to add them later if that is what happened!!

sprintcyclist, you mentioned before that u haven't read the koran and have only "flicked" through it. if you haven't read it from cover to cover, then u can't really make comments like "Jesus is mentioned in the Koran, fleetingly." How do u know when u haven't read it entirely?

In other words, u aren't really in a position to comment on the extent Jesus is mentioned (or not mentioned) in the Koran since u haven't read it.

I know i'm repeating myself here, but that's because your still not getting it, so i have to repeat it. I'm obviously hoping that u will understand after reading the same points over and over, maybe it's just taking some time to sink in.

I hope u understand now.  

It seems to me that he understands you loud and clear.

WOOHOO!!! Skeptic has joined up!

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26^th, 2007 at 11:34am:

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate.

If you agree with this tired view of our good friend, Brian Ross, despite the fact that:

• The support for Hilaly and assorted other extremist Muslim leaders throughout Australia with similar views
  
• The terror plots within Australia
  
• The revenge attacks after the Cronulla protests
  
• The rise in crime in Bankstown, Lakemba and other Muslims occupied areas across Australia
  
• The isolation of Islamic communites from the greater Australian community
  
• The formation of extremist Islamic political parties within Australia
  
• Similar patterns emerging throughout the rest of the world
  

...and despite the fact that the Muslims make up about 1-2% of the total Australia population, then please, follow this link, it's right up your alley...

http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

I still agree with Brian.

The support for Hilaly and assorted other extremist Muslim leaders throughout Australia with similar views

Hilaly has been sacked. That's what it means when your salary suddenly stops arrriving in the bank account.

The terror plots within Australia

A majority of muslims plot terror attacks? Maybe they are just really stupid.

The revenge attacks after the Cronulla protests

Again, a small minority.

The rise in crime in Bankstown, Lakemba and other Muslims occupied areas across Australia

It only takes a very small minority to spike the crime rate. Not that crime necessarily equates with extreme political views.

The isolation of Islamic communites from the greater Australian community.

Are mormons extremists too now?

The formation of extremist Islamic political parties within Australia

Does one nation represent a majority of white people?

Similar patterns emerging throughout the rest of the world

Yes, the tendency to jump to conclusions is pretty universal.

::)

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 27^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:34am: The overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate. If you agree with this tired view of our good friend, Brian Ross

I wasn't aware that I was your friend, Mr. Trump.

Now, if what you claim was true and that the majority of Muslims are not moderate and are active supporters of Terrorism and extremism, why then don't we see open Terrorist activity on our streets and extremists promoting their views of Islam, openly in the Mosques of Australia?   Mmmmm?

Appears to me that you fear the tiny minority of Muslims whom are extremist Islamists.  Indeed, your accuse others of bigotry but it seems to me that the only person displaying bigotry here is yourself - against Muslims.   Ordinary Australians who just happen to practice a different religion to that of the majority of Australians and who merely seek to be left alone by both the Islamists and people such as yourself.

THREE Singaporean Muslim women, all married to the same man, have been sentenced to jail for persuading some of his under-age daughters to have sex with him.

The man, who has 10 wives and 64 children, was sentenced to 32 years in prison and 24 strokes of the cane in April 2006 after he was found guilty of raping five of his under-age daughters.

The man, citing the Koran, had told his wives and daughters that he had complete ownership over his children, including the right to have sex with his daughters, the papers showed.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21790684-5003402,00.html



One can see where his is coming from. It is in the koran I guess (not read that part myself) but that is the intention of it.  
eg it says "a woman is worth 1/2 a man" and "most of the people in hell will be women", mohammads said to one of his henchmen, his "killing of some women means no more than two goats butting heads."
mohammad himself married a 6 year old girl, then slept with her when she was 9 .
Of course, muslims justify this, saying women then were "different "  then!!!!!

sprintcyclist, just because the guy cited the Koran doesn't mean he properly understands it.

for example, someone could do something similiar and can quote the story of Lot in the bible and use that as justification to sleep with his daughters. does that mean christianity accept this?? no, it doesn't.  

from memory, Lot does not do that.  I could be wrong


The other rough quotes I have given support his understanding.
One wonders how else it could be interpereted ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 12:20pm:

from memory, Lot does not do that.  I could be wrong

yeah, ur wrong, Lot does have sex with his daughters, it's in Genesis 19:30-36


Quote:

the other rough quotes I have given support his understanding. One wonders how else it could be interpereted ?

u just said in ur first post u didn't read that part of the Koran urself, so ur just speculating.
show the quote in the Koran that says it's okay to sleep with ur daughters and i would probably say u have a point.

Ah, you are entirely correct Gavin. i was thinking of Job for some reason !
Yes, Lot does indeed committ incest, after sodom and gemorrah fall.  Well, moreso his daughters do it to him while he has lost his mind.
The justness of that story is good. Of course it is not an action God approves of. Lot has a short life after that.  The offspring are destined for bad things.
God gave me a word of understanding about that one.
Did you see the indepth discussion of that in cracker ?

That action is a crime in the old testament. But that antiwoman attitude is in the koran. Hence that mans actions in singapore are commensurate with the koran. As I have given in other quotes.

have a good weekend gavin

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 1:05pm:

Ah, you are entirely correct Gavin. i was thinking of Job for some reason ! Yes, Lot does indeed committ incest, after sodom and gemorrah fall.  Well, moreso his daughters do it to him while he has lost his mind. The justness of that story is good. Of course it is not an action God approves of. Lot has a short life after that.  The offspring are destined for bad things. God gave me a word of understanding about that one.

Really, did u manage to record that conversation u had with God?
i remembered asking you to record ur conversations with God yesterday.  ;D ;D ;D ;D
just a way to prove that's ur not a nut.


Quote:

But that antiwoman attitude is in the koran. Hence that mans actions in singapore are commensurate with the koran. As I have given in other quotes.

mate, i asked for the quote that says it's okay to sleep with ur daughters, which u haven't provided. like i said before show my that quote and i would probably believe you.

also, for those quotes u provided, do u have a chapter/verse reference?
it would be interesting to look up.

Here is a mass of quotes for you Gavin.
I can find more, have some at home


"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"If you wish to replace a wife with another, do not take from her the dowry you have given her..." (Surah 4:20)

"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)

""Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)

"As for the faithful who do good works and believe what is revealed to Muhammad...He will forgive them their sins..." (Surah 47:1)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

These are from an exmuslim woman
Muslim women are not allowed equal right to their inheritance (Quran 4:11-12) because they are only worth half of a man's share. In most Islamic countries, women are not allowed to vote and are certainly not allowed to be elected to public office.

Islamic justification for raping woman prisoners can be found because Muhammad gave permission for Muslim warriors to rape enemy prisoners "except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you.." Surah 4:24. The key words for the Islamic legal code are "whom your hands possess" and "thus Allah has ordained for you."

Muslim Quranic (bible) verse 4:34 instructs Muslim men to "admonish" and "beat" their wives if they become "rebellious" and that "men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights."
In an Islamic court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to override the testimony of one man. Justification for this legal tradition is found in Quran 2:282.

Quranic verse 24:31 warns Muslim women not to make eye contact or allow any part of their skin or jewelry to be seen by strangers, "and tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect themselves from illegal sexual acts, and not show off their adornment [to all men] and boys]." As a result of this verse, if an adult girl (9 years and older) is raped by an adult man, she will be considered at fault because she was careless and provoked the attack. Her parents will be expected to severely punish or kill her for dishonoring her family.


What God told me about the moral of the stpory of Lot was "You will be judged by your actions."

Could you just quote the one about having sex with your daughters?

Interesting, but none of those quotes justify a man to sleep with his own daughters.

So i'm guessing u started this typical muslim-bashing thread, to show us how bad Islam since it allows a guy to sleep with his own daughters. Yet, u can't provide a quote to show that.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 3:36pm:

Could you just quote the one about having sex with your daughters?

that's the point freediver, he can't provide that quote, even though i asked for it more than once. that tells me that quote doesn't exist or sprintcyclist is still looking for it. in the meantime, his just posting all these other quotes that aren't relevant to the topic being discussed.

Here are a few others


Sura IV.34:”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”
Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”
Sura IX verse 73    Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”



Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammad’s hatred of the Jews :
1. “Kill any Jews that falls into your power” said the Prophet: p.369
2. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.369
3. The killing of Sallam ibn Abu’l –Huqayq: pp.482-483
4. The assassination of Ka‘b b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-369
5. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banu‘l-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-445
6. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-469
7. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666

Sura 37:22-23 implies that women will be punished on Judgment Day for sins committed by their husbands.


going home now. Happy reading and studying Gavin  ;)

What does hating jews and beating your wife have to do with sleeping with your daughters?

sprintcyclist, can u post the quote from the Koran that says a man can sleep with his own daughters? this is the fourth time i've asked, does that quote even exist? i have a strong feeling that such a quote doesn't exist, since u seem to be posting other quotes that are irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

is there a quote in the Koran that says a man can sleep with his own daughters??
that's all i want to know, yes or no.

no need for u to post other quotes.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2007 at 3:46pm:

What does hating jews and beating your wife have to do with sleeping with your daughters?

Absolutely nothing.

Hi gavin,

No, I did not say the koran said to do that. That is what the guy said. I said the mans actions are commensurate with the teachings given in the koran about women.
as is shown in the quotes I have given
That sort of extremism is encouraged , as is shown in the quotes I have given, verses notated as you asked.

But the quotes you have given do not show that.

---

A key supporter of controversial Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has prepared an Australian translation of the Koran.

Keysar Trad, of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, has "tweaked" the meaning of 799 words and phrases in a revised edition of the Holy Koran, Fairfax newspapers report.

The translation challenges the use of words critics say have been used to justify a ban on Muslim friendships with Jews and Christians.

However, it has not changed a verse some critics suggest sanctions abuse of a wife, despite Mr Trad's personal reservations about the passage.

the quotes given encourage violent dominating actions that most people (except muslims) would consider to be extremist.
They also demonstrate a sexist attitude toward women.
Put the two together, what do you get ??


If trad disagrees with many of the koran quotes he should stop being a muslim as he does not agree with it's teachings.  
I mean, if the Bible told me to kill all nonchristians, I'ld think that was pretty off.

He doesn't disagree with the koran. He disagrees with how it was translated.

Sexist attitudes towards women have long been justified on religious gorunds in western society. Western society rejected it and low and behold, it turned out the Bible did too. Islam is no different.

Even with your efforts at re-interpretting the koran you cannot find any real justification in it for having sex with your daughters.

"Mr Trad's personal reservations about the passage."  cutting out the semantics, he disagrees with the koran.

No, islam is completely different. The Bible has not changed. Nor the koran.
Look at how Jesus treated women.  Look at how mohammad treated them.


I have not reinterpereted the koran at all. I have not even interpereted it.
There is no need to, you make up your own mind from direct quotes I have provided, complete with references.
I can see how that man got his theory on HIS desires being met, and HIS right to do whatever HE wanted.
Can you ?

If you can interpret that from the Koran, you can just as easily find a passage in the bible to support it. The Koran does not support having sex with your daughters.

Find one.

Find one that supports it.

Find one that supports any of the other assassinations, beheadings, domination, sexist, extremist actions supported in the quotes I have given.

Sure, it happens, but it is not supported or rewarded. The opposite.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21803296-2703,00.html

A RELIGIOUS ruling by an Islamic scholar permitting women to breastfeed adults with whom they work has led to his suspension this month from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world's leading Sunni university.

Izzat Atiyaa had issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, offering his bold suggestion as a way around the prohibition in Islamic religious law against a woman working in private premises with a man who was not her close relative. Breastfeeding, he argued, would create a familial relationship under Islamic law.

Dr Atiyaa explained to the Egyptian newspaper al-Watani al-Yawm that: "A man and a woman who are alone together are not (necessarily) having sex but this possibility exists and breastfeeding provides a solution to this problem (by) transforming the bestial relationship between two people into a religious relationship based on (religious) duties."

Dr Atiyaa argued in his fatwa that if an adult male was nursed by a female co-worker it would likewise establish a familial bond that would permit them to work side by side without raising suspicion of illicit sex.

Dr Atiyaa headed al-Azhar University's department dealing with hadith - oral tradition, outside the Koran, attributed to the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. He said he had based his ruling on one such tradition according to which, at the Prophet's order, a man named Salem was breastfed by the wife of another disciple.

The breastfeeding fatwa moved even some conservative Muslims to attempt to draw a line between ancient tradition and modern life.

Sayyid Askar, an Egyptian politician belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood and a former member of the Academy of Islamic Studies, said the hadith regarding Salem was authentic but irrelevant.

Ah yes, Islam..... The choice of civilized men. ::)

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Temporary-marriage-draws-female-ire/2007/06/03/1180809311732.html

Iran's interior minister has faced criticism from women activists after advocating the practice of temporary marriage as a way to meet the needs of young people in the Islamic state, which bans extramarital sex.

"Is it possible that Islam is indifferent to a 15-year-old youth into whom God has put lust?" newspapers quoted Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi, who is also a cleric, as telling a religious seminar this week.

Temporary marriage, or sigha, is an agreement between a man and a women to get married for a specified time, even for just a few days. It has long been practised by Shi'ite Muslims, who are dominant in Iran, even though it is unclear how common it is.

Sunni Muslims say it is illegal and akin to prostitution, but some Shi'ites scholars say it reflects the reality of human nature and provides for the rights and responsibilities of both the man and the woman.

"Although temporary marriage has always existed in our law, it is considered improper by Iranian culture," Shadi Sadr, an Iranian activist for women rights, told the ISNA news agency.

"For fulfilling the sexual desires of the youth who do not have the possibility to get married, a decision should be taken."

A temporary marriage is easy to arrange. A couple will agree on how long they will get married - it's usually anywhere from a day to months - and on financial matters.

Couples often go to a Shi'ite cleric for approval of the contract. The practice is believed to have pre-dated Islam among the tribes of the Arabian peninsula.

But a female former parliamentary deputy, Fatemeh Rakei, suggested that entering into a temporary marriage made it difficult for young women to later find permanent husbands and also expressed concern about the future of children from such marriages.

Quote:

mohammad himself married a 6 year old girl, then slept with her when she was 9 .

What a great prophet ay!
I wonder if all the pedo's in the world would turn to islam if they knew about this.

I wonder if the term ''If they can bleed, they can breed'' came from islam? :o

IT'S not just clouds that shroud Waziristan's treacherous high country. Up here on the Afghan border, a veil of state secrecy also cloaks a new Taliban wave breaking eastward across Pakistan.

Against the totemic thump of the drums of war, dust churns as the bodies of suspected anti-Taliban spies are dragged behind Toyota utes - as many as four at a time.

The severed heads of those who cross the fanatical jihadis are held aloft in cheering, jeering crowds. And in the bazaar, just a few rupees buys one of the hottest selling new DVDs - that's the one in which a 12-year-old boy wields the decapitation knife.

Now heard for the first time in years, the boom of the dhol drums summons the lashkars - tribal armies - for an episode in George Bush's war on terror that reads like a South Asian version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

But this incendiary mix of extremist Islam and guerilla war unfolds amid great confusion. As President Pervez Musharraf wrestles with an explosive political crisis of his own making in Islamabad, two deadly wars are playing out on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, there is a dangerous spillover from the US and NATO-led struggle to pacify neighbouring Afghanistan. But within Pakistan a brutal, fundamentalist uprising also frays the fabric of a society that, politically at least, has been broadly secular for decades.

In remote Miram Shah, the Herald was a captive as much as it was a guest of the Pakistani security forces - and where the military minders had us corralled, the drums were silent. All the Conradian horror happens outside the high, protective walls of this military fortress which is home to the Tochi Scouts - a unit of Pakistan's border-protection forces.

We were kept inside, pinned down amid the crisp white table linen in an officers' mess built by the British more than a century ago. The aged pipes and drums of the scouts' former colonial masters were a feature display - still draped with the regimental tartan and a tiger skin.

Framed and faded pages from the The Illustrated London News, dated 1878, recounted Britain's travails in past Afghan wars. A glass case among the antique and silver weaponry held the pistol used by the scouts' first British commanding officer in the late 1800s.

Step away from the marbled terraces and the gardens were English country, as they might have been in the time of the Raj. The lawns were flat and tight, like a billiard table; the flower beds were manicured - nodding cornflowers, stocks and foxgloves. An oak cast an eerie shadow and creepers in tubs climbed the ornate veranda posts.

Going beyond the walls was deemed to be out of the question - "too dangerous," we were told in one breath; "there is nothing for you to see - everything is peaceful," we heard in the next.

But despite the smother blanket that the authorities have thrown over the country's sprawling western flank, news of administrative chaos, fundamentalist thuggery and security madness does seep to the outside world. Here is a summary of life in Pakistan's grandly named North-West Frontier Province during a recent Herald assignment in Pakistan.

The Taliban had taken over the historic small-arms bazaar at Dara Adam Khel, near Peshawar, where long lists of those they intended to kill as spies were plastered on walls. Barbers' shops, internet cafes and businesses selling video and audio cassettes and CDs in bazaars across the region are regularly torched or bombed.

In towns like Barawal, in the Dir district, there were pitiable pleas from barbers who had complied with the Taliban threats - they were being ruined because customers were less likely to come in for a haircut unless they could have a shave at the same time. After Dir, the barbers in Bajaur took a hiding; and then it was the turn of their colleagues in Mardan to receive the infamous night letters: "Our beloved Muslim brothers ... shaving off beards is a great sin."

Militants march into boys' schools, demanding the right to lecture and recruit pupils for jihad. They hurl grenades at teachers who object and kidnap school principals who persist in opposing them. Girls' schools are constantly harassed and tribal elders deny women the right to vote. Curfews and school closures are a part of daily life as women and children are evacuated from restive centres like Tank in the frontier province.

Banks are robbed. Government compounds, including those of the security forces, and NGO depots are bombed or commandeered. The country's security forces and government ministers are under deadly attack. Suicide bombings are on the rise. Gas pipelines and power pylons are sabotaged and railway lines are blown up. Civilians die in the crossfire.

More than 120 tribal elders who opposed the Taliban or were deemed to be siding with the erratic regime in Islamabad had been murdered. Hit-lists of difficult mullahs are circulated, containing dozens of names. The mutilated bodies of some so named turn up on roadsides ... with notes fixed to their clothing denouncing them as US spies.

The whole article at :
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/21/1179601331182.html

This is why we have to stay in iraq

sprintcyclist, u post an article about the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan, then u conclude based on that article that why we have to stay in Iraq.

funny, given that the US has not been able to link Iraq with the Sept 11 attacks or the war on terrorism, did u manage the find the link via ur own intelligence agencies? please do tell, i'm sure the US is dying to know.

and by the way, last time i checked we didn't leave Afghanistan at all, so if the Taliban are gaining control then that's a reason to stay there (or more specifically concentrate our forces there rather than having them scattered all over Iraq).

I read an article in the Australian a while back claiming that they did find definite links between Sadam and Al Qaida. It was an article about how badly the war is going.

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2007 at 10:46am:

I read an article in the Australian a while back claiming that they did find definite links between Sadam and Al Qaida. It was an article about how badly the war is going.

Really? do u have a link? would be an interesting story to read.

I remembered watching a press conference in August last year where George W Bush was asked "what is the link between terrorism and Iraq?", to which George W Bush replied "Nothing".

I think I looked for a link at the time but they didn't have it online. I probably posted something about it in one of the Iraq threads.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/thread-list/topic.html#cn

Hi Gavin,
How have you been ?
The war is against islamists. Appears muslims have no interest in stopping them.
You want the war there, or here ?



http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21773231-954,00.html

PAKISTAN'S most senior female cabinet minister quit in despair last night after failing to get support from her government colleagues when rabid Islamic extremists issued a fatwa against her for hugging her 60-year-old French paragliding instructor.

As embattled tourism minister Nilofar Bakhtiar, 45, sent her resignation from the cabinet to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, she insisted she had not meant to offend Islamic values when she hugged the instructor after the charity jump to raise funds for earthquake relief.

"I can assure you neither of us meant any harm to cultural or societal norms. It is not un-Islamic or unpatriotic to jump from a plane with a parachute, as the clerics have indicated in their fatwa," she said.

But the fallout from photographs of the hug has proved too much for the feisty Ms Bakhtiar, with radicals from the pro-Taliban Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad demanding her sacking.

The mosque, where a rebellion against the Government's authority has been going on for months, was surrounded by paramilitary forces yesterday in a bid to gain the release of two policemen kidnapped by the militants.

There was speculation last night that leaving Ms Bakhtiar no alternative but to resign might have been part of a deal being worked out with the extremists.

sprintcyclist, do u read u write up before u hit the "post" button? since i get the feeling that u don't.
u posted another article, this time about Pakistan, which doesn't relate to our presence in Iraq at all.

again, do u have any evidence that Iraq was actively involved in training/funding terrorism against the US and/or Australia that warranted us going to war?

i reckon if u think about it, and i mean really think about it, then u would realise that Iraq wasn't involved in terrorist attacks at all and that Iraq only became a hot spot when we decided to go in there anyway (on false evidence as well). the reason being that we did a stupid thing by overthrowing Saddam Hussein who did a good job of keeping those terrorists down.

Hi Gavin,
The war is against this sort of madness. Also occuring with hamas and in pakistan

yes, i do read my posts.  The topic is islam, not a single country. sadam was a mass murderer who had defied the UN for decades.

you forgot to answer my question.
Do you want the war there or here ?



Aussie photographer injured in bomb blast
By staff writers
May 22, 2007

AN Australian photographer and three policemen were injured when a roadside bomb went off in southern Thailand today.
Philip Blenkinsop, who was on assignment for Time magazine, suffered minor face and eye injuries in the blast in Yala province, the Associated Press reported.

The homemade bomb, believed to have been set by Muslim insurgents, went off when police were inspecting the body of a Buddhist man shot dead and set on fire, police Lieutenant Colonel Saratwuth Wongderm said.

Blenkinsop, who has been based in Bangkok since the mid-1980s, is an award-winning photographer who has covered a number of conflicts, including the guerrilla war in Indonesia's Aceh province.

Thailand's southernmost provinces have been wracked by a Muslim insurgency which has killed more than 2200 people since early 2004.

Do you want the war there or here ?

You are trying to create a false dichotomy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 22^nd, 2007 at 1:12pm:

Hi Gavin, sadam was a mass murderer who had defied the UN for decades

again, do u have evidence to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism?

if not, then u have to agree that us going into Iraq to begin with was wrong, and the reason we have to stay there is to fix the mess we created. u can blame the Islamists all u like, but the fact of the matter is that the Islamists didn't have any power prior to us going into Iraq as they were virtually crushed by Saddam Hussein's rule. they only got some breathing space when the US came in and overthrew Saddam Hussein.

and on ur question of fighting over here or there, i have to say i would prefer not to fight them at home. but at the same time, i wouldn't support us going into a war on false evidence and giving terrorists more power by overthrowing their enemy.

Hi Gavin,
Sure, the presidents of the free world acted correctly upon what seems to be in false information. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Course, was impossible ot see what was happening iinside there, same as iran now with their nukes.

I support their actions. Fully

iraq now has had their first free election for decades, if not for ever.
sadam crushed anyone he wanted there.

Freediver - fair observation.
However the war is happening all over the globe. eg thailand.

The media here and elsewhere called GWB on his 'evidence' the moment it came out. They could see there was something dodgy about it and that it didn't add up. You don't simply 'take someone's word for it' when deciding to invade a country.

Hi Gavin,

In my first post I did say "That is why we should stay in iraq."
Not about linking iraq to terrorism. we did a good thing to go there, albeit possibly on false info

The way to resolve a problem is to confront it. Not to pretend it is not there.

Militant islamists have been funded by saudi for some years. The war has bought that to common knowledge.
If we do not confront them now, over there. It will be later, over here.

I beleive that is not a false dichotomy. I believe it is an option we have.
There is little that will stop islamists. Only death or education.
Ever tried to talk to an extremist ?

Before the west started messing with the middle east (which goes back a long time) they were quite happy killing each other. There was no need for us to give them something to unite over. Fortunately they still seem more interested in killing each other than us, but we have definitely got their attention now.

they have always been interested in killing  westerners.
It is in the koran. "Kill all the jews, kill all the christians, kill all the unbelievers."

a saying from palestein is "First comes saturday, then sunday". Meaning, first the jews, then the christians.

mohammad was normally slaughtering nonmuslims, as soon as he died, the other muslims started to murder each other. They have not stoped.

That is in the Bible in the prophecy about Ishmael, whom they follow

So what if they have always been 'interested'? There are plenty of locals they are interested in killing too. What matters is whether they actually go ahead with it. That depends on which group is in their face.

Hi freediver .

So what defines "who gets in their face" ?

Lets see ..... the koran says "make islam dominant over all religions", "Kill all nonbeleviers."

So, anyone who is not with them is "in their face".
As hilali infers strongly, they are bad muslims to do anything else.
mohammad was a mass murdering paedophile, they follow him

The war is better over there than here. It is not a false dichotomy

Putting military bases in the heart of Islamic country would be in their face. Invading two of their countries would be too. Who they actually attack is driven far more by current political issues than any grand scheme.

Quote:

Who they actually attack is driven far more by current political issues than any grand scheme.

Not true FD. The Islamists are driven by a desire to ''Dominate the world''.

First rule of war AN, know your enemy. They are driven by the same things that drive other people. They are human, just like everyone else.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2007 at 4:14pm:

First rule of war AN, know your enemy. They are driven by the same things that drive other people. They are human, just like everyone else.

Hey you've got it! ::)
I feel i know the enemy pretty well, and i'm still learning.
And what they want is the opposite of what we want.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2007 at 4:14pm:

First rule of war AN, know your enemy. They are driven by the same things that drive other people. They are human, just like everyone else.

Second rule of war: Make sure you apply the first rule.

Geez freediver... you're the most uneducated one in this forum when it comes to Islam and you're telling US to know our enemy? Newsflash: We alredy do.

'They're only human' eh?

Charles Manson and his followers were human too. Did they desire the same things other people did?  ::)

You're argument is so hollow it's frightening, freediver.

And let us not forget Malcom X and his black panthers.

Trying to characterise your enemies as mindless zombies fullfilling a plan to take over the world is just absurd. They would be just as happy killing each other.

Wherever would they get a plan to take over the world !!!!!!!!

Don't know, if they are just as happy killing each other, must be a "volatile" bunch. To say the least .

They have been killing each other for centuries. It is only recently that they turned their sights to the west, and only to a very limited extent. The west has interfered far more in the middle east than vice versa.

Quote:

Limit Muslim migration, Australia warned LIFE can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France, a Jewish expert on Islam says.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/limit-muslim-migration-australia-warned/2007/02/15/1171405374552.html

Interesting.

Yes it was interesting - and perhaps this could be the case if the Muslim population reaches 10% - but this Israeli character has been condemned by Jews in Australia for what he has said.

Political correctness still exists in our society and is necessary and Israeli's comments aren't acceptable even if he might be right.  If the shoe was on the other foot and a Muslim scholar said the same about Jews - there would be outrage from the Jewish community.

I'm not saying Israeli is wrong, but if we don't at least keep up the appearance of being a civilised society and rejecting these sort of comments - we'll just end up with total anarchy as each religious or ethnic group has a free for all against their enemies.

Quote:

Political correctness still exists in our society and is necessary

How so???  :o



Quote:

If the shoe was on the other foot and a Muslim scholar said the same about Jews - there would be outrage from the Jewish community.

And why do you think that is, mantra? -Because Jews have more influence in the media.



Quote:

I'm not saying Israeli is wrong

Really? I am.  8-)




Quote:

we'll just end up with total anarchy as each religious or ethnic group has a free for all against their enemies.

I hope so.  ;)

The more tension that occurs, the more people will wake up to the reality of multiculturalism.  ;D

When the islamic population reaches 10% we will definately be in trouble. Might not seem much but Remember though, this wont be too far away when you consider that an islamic couple will have 5 to 8 kids in their lifetime,in succession of eachother and those kids will eventually have 5 to 8 each themselves. While a christian based couple will have 1 to 5 kids and sometimes even none, each child born at least 2 years apart you can see what is going to happen. pretty scary isnt it.
Its not just a matter of disbanding multiculturism, ALL muslims should be removed from our country.
Do you feel safe catching a train any more? or walking through a shopping center?
The fruits of the labour and liberal governments and in particular, whitlam,frazer,hawke,keating and howard who i call this happy rich little family- The Immigration Criminals!

---

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1410/justsayno2cq0.gif

;D

Obviously there is a lot of distrust and hatred against Muslims - so what can anyone do about it.

As long as Howard is in power he will keep on increasing immigration and with the family reunions, many more Muslims will be brought here to join their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters etc.

What do you suggest we do in the meantime - vilify them, set up vigilante groups, imprison them - there's nothing we can do except learn to live with them, but ensure they adhere strictly to our laws.

We have a leader who enjoys being divisive and making snide comments about Muslims when he's in the mood, backed up of course by his deputy.   This encourages discrimination.  But in the next breath millions of dollars are being given to universities by the Federal government to teach Islam.  

This means that Muslims are here to stay and in the future we will have Islamic scholars with Australian pedigrees to lead their rebellious Muslim youth.  Maybe this will mean better integration, or on the other hand it could produce a Muslim cleric with the savvy to enter Federal Politics.

Then we'll have something to complain about.  If we can't beat them - we'll have to join them.

I think otherwise. we cant live with them because they wont live with us.

---

Quote:

As long as Howard is in power he will keep on increasing immigration and with the family reunions, many more Muslims will be brought here to join their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters etc.

I don't think Howard's going to be here much longer.



Quote:

What do you suggest we do in the meantime - vilify them, set up vigilante groups, imprison them - there's nothing we can do except learn to live with them, but ensure they adhere strictly to our laws.

I sincerely hope a new Government is voted in who will limit immigration from the Middle East and Africa, Mantra. I trust that every decent Australian is praying for the same thing.

True, there's probably nothing we can do about the current ones that are here without breaking UN laws, but we sure as hell can prevent anymore from getting in... in a legal way.



Quote:

We have a leader who enjoys being divisive and making snide comments about Muslims when he's in the mood, backed up of course by his deputy.   This encourages discrimination.  But in the next breath millions of dollars are being given to universities by the Federal government to teach Islam.

Indeed. Contradiction galore.


Quote:

This means that Muslims are here to stay and in the future we will have Islamic scholars with Australian pedigrees to lead their rebellious Muslim youth.  Maybe this will mean better integration, or on the other hand it could produce a Muslim cleric with the savvy to enter Federal Politics.

I'm not entirely sure how you came to this conclusion.  :-?



Quote:

If we can't beat them - we'll have to join them.

I'd rather die.  :o

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Queensland-to-help-Muslims-find-work/2007/06/12/1181414268416.html

Employers are overlooking Muslim workers because they fear they may have to accommodate time for prayers or change the canteen menu.

In a bid to encourage employers to hire Muslim people, the Queensland government has provided refugee settlement agency Assisting Collaborative Community Employment Support Service (ACCES Services) with a $19,100 grant.

ACCES Services spokesman Michael Krafft said a series of forums beginning next month would "debunk the myths" surrounding the faith.

"I think it's mostly misunderstanding around how often people are required to pray and those types of issues," Mr Krafft said.

Do you go to a place of employment to work or to pray?

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 4:28pm:

Do you go to a place of employment to work or to pray?

i have a muslim guy at my place of work that prays, it takes a total of 5 minutes and isn't much longer than ur average cigarette or coffee break.

it's not really an issue, he still does his job - that's what counts.

Quote:

i have a muslim guy at my place of work

Ahh, i see. ::)

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 4:43pm:

Quote: i have a muslim guy at my place of work Ahh, i see. ::)

so i take it ur view of muslims would change if u had one working with you?

i reckon it would, i used to have the same view of muslims that u have - that was until i actually met some muslims and they turned out being normal, everyday folk.

still - prayer isn't an issue, like i said it only takes about 5 minutes, as long as the guy does his job then it's okay.

Gavin wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 4:47pm:

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12th, 2007 at 4:43pm: Quote: i have a muslim guy at my place of work Ahh, i see. ::) so i take it ur view of muslims would change if u had one working with you? i reckon it would, i used to have the same view of muslims that u have - that was until i actually met some muslims and they turned out being normal, everyday folk. still - prayer isn't an issue, like i said it only takes about 5 minutes, as long as the guy does his job then it's okay.

I HAVE WORKED WITH THEM BEFORE!  and it only re-enforced my belief.
They hide behind a veil of niceness, behind your back they talk.  Ive spied on them.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 4:56pm:

I HAVE WORKED WITH THEM BEFORE!  and it only re-enforced my belief. They hide behind a veil of niceness, behind your back they talk.  Ive spied on them.

so u've seen them pray?? it doesn't take too long now does it??
so what's the issue? they still do their job.

Quote:

so u've seen them pray?? it doesn't take too long now does it?? so what's the issue? they still do their job.

Yeah ive seen them pray,(boy was i tempted to kick them up the ars e when they bent over) 5 times a day. 25 minutes lost, and they still had lunch and smoko. they made ME take up the slack.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:03pm:

Yeah ive seen them pray,(boy was i tempted to kick them up the ars e when they bent over) 5 times a day. 25 minutes lost, and they still had lunch and smoko. they made ME take up the slack.

mate, do u work 24 hours? since it's 5 times a day over a whole day, if u work like me - 9am to 5pm then only two prayers fall during that time and one of those prayers is during the lunch break.

so technically, ur only losing 5 minutes a day, which isn't much when u consider people who go for coffee or cigarette breaks. if it's an issue for you, if ur their superviser then u can insist they make up for the lost time.  

Gavin wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:08pm:

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12th, 2007 at 5:03pm: Yeah ive seen them pray,(boy was i tempted to kick them up the ars e when they bent over) 5 times a day. 25 minutes lost, and they still had lunch and smoko. they made ME take up the slack. mate, do u work 24 hours? since it's 5 times a day over a whole day, if u work like me - 9am to 5pm then only two prayers fall during that time and one of those prayers is during the lunch break. so technically, ur only losing 5 minutes a day, which isn't much when u consider people who go for coffee or cigarette breaks. if it's an issue for you, if ur their superviser then u can insist they make up for the lost time.

They prayed when they got there (8am) then 11am , 1:30pm, 3:00pm. well thats four.
the boss was one of them so how could i ask?  I quit after 2 months.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:14pm:

They prayed when they got there (8am) then 11am , 1:30pm, 3:00pm. well thats four. the boss was one of them so how could i ask?  I quit after 2 months.

well, here's a tip for you if u ever work with one in the future - muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day over the whole day - only two of those prayers fall during the hours u described.

if they were praying 4 times, then they were obviously milking it to get some extra time off.

well, i guess my situation is different, i am their supervisor and it's hard enough getting skilled personnel considering my type of work has a shortage of qualified staff in the industry. so i would cater to anyone who is qualified and willing to work for me, regardless of their ethnic or religious background.

Well Gavin, if they only take 5 minutes during THEIR lunch break, don't ask for any special favours, like five minutes extra for their lunch breaks, or prayer rooms like they have at Universities, then I see no problems with it. So long as your place of employment doesn't mind a jack-@ss on the ground crying out for Allah to save him.

What category does your profession fall under anyway? Labourer? Customer Service?

It largely depends on what position is up for grabs. I highly doubt Muslims who pray five times a day would be suitable for high pressure jobs like food and beverage and customer service. Especially ones in confined spaces.

You spied on them?  ;D Was this while you should have been working, or did you follow them home?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:37pm:

Well Gavin, if they only take 5 minutes during THEIR lunch break, don't ask for any special favours, like five minutes extra for their lunch breaks, or prayer rooms like they have at Universities, then I see no problems with it. So long as your place of employment doesn't mind a jack-@ss on the ground crying out for Allah to save him.

they don't ask for special favours, they pray during their lunch break. we don't have a special room set aside for it, but they usually just use a meeting room that isn't booked by anyone else - the room's empty anyway, so it doesn't affect anyone's work.


Quote:

What category does your profession fall under anyway? Labourer? Customer Service?

i'm operate an accounting firm - if ur not aware, there's a huge shortage of qualified accountants at the moment. the two guys at my work that are muslim are both qualified accountants and they generate alot of income for my company with their services.


Quote:

It largely depends on what position is up for grabs. I highly doubt Muslims who pray five times a day would be suitable for high pressure jobs like food and beverage and customer service. Especially ones in confined spaces.

food & beverage/customer service is huge pressure?? please, try comparing that to an actual profession like accountancy - especially during the busy season (July - November).  

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:42pm:

You spied on them?  ;D Was this while you should have been working, or did you follow them home?

During lunch breaks.

What did they get up to during lunch? Anything suspicious?

For one, I used to hear them talk about how great bin-laden was.

Gavin...



Quote:

they don't ask for special favours, they pray during their lunch break. we don't have a special room set aside for it, but they usually just use a meeting room that isn't booked by anyone else - the room's empty anyway, so it doesn't affect anyone's work.

Good... no problems then.



Quote:

i'm operate an accounting firm - if ur not aware, there's a huge shortage of qualified accountants at the moment. the two guys at my work that are muslim are both qualified accountants and they generate alot of income for my company with their services.

Oh please... don't try and turn this into a 'praise Muslims for the income they generate' post.  ::) you can get accountants from any culture/nationality. Unnecessary.



Quote:

food & beverage/customer service is huge pressure?? please, try comparing that to an actual profession like accountancy - especially during the busy season (July - November).

Give me a break.  ::)  Food and beverage is a high pressure job. Customer service can be depending on how busy the place is. Accountancy is ... what... business mathematics?  ::)

In English? That was polite of them.

Is this the future face of the Australian people?

With Islam, it will be.

---

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:54pm:

In English? That was polite of them.

Since when have you been sarcastic, freediver?  ;)

islam islam islam blah blah blah


we know what they are like, they always have been like that ever since the big M himself,m they are even proud of it.

less discussion more action.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:22pm:

islam islam islam blah blah blah we know what they are like, they always have been like that ever since the big M himself,m they are even proud of it. less discussion more action.

The kikes are no different.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:23pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12th, 2007 at 9:22pm: islam islam islam blah blah blah we know what they are like, they always have been like that ever since the big M himself,m they are even proud of it. less discussion more action. The kikes are no different.

kikes?

JEWS. Like yourself.

The jews dont wanna invade other nations and impose their beliefs by force.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:36pm:

The jews dont wanna invade other nations and impose their beliefs by force.

Bullshit! they occupy half of palestine!
They build illegal settlments in that country and FORCE the original inhabitants out!

wrong again.

"Palestine" had never been ruled by palestinians.

I assume you talking about the gaza strip and the west bank.

the west bank was a soverign territory of Jordan, the gaza strip, Egypt.

Israel occupied these territories in 1967 and they were legally given to israel in peace agreements between jordan egypt and Israel.

Israel handed the gaza strip to a palestinian goevrnemnt which only came into existance wirth israels go ahead a couple of years ago.

The palestinians still fire rocktes form gaza into Israel.

now imagine we gave the aborigainals the northern territory as a soverign country and they fired rockets into us?

Quote:

now imagine we gave the aborigainals the northern territory as a soverign country and they fired rockets into us?

HA HA HA!  Abo's with rockets! thats funny. imagine, how could an abo fire one. ;D
All they ever made as missiles were spears.

your a wally goodnight

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:58pm:

your a wally goodnight

At least im not in the CDP!  The party for child lovers. :D

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 5:54pm:

Oh please... don't try and turn this into a 'praise Muslims for the income they generate' post.  ::) you can get accountants from any culture/nationality. Unnecessary.

Exactly, a person's religious background is irrelevant.
If they can do the job properly, then there's no issue.

So these muslims at my work are doing a good job, and given it's so hard to find good staff in the accounting industry i would rather have them stay and give them time to pray. Due to the shortage of staff in the industry, i can't afford to be picky and reject someone just because they asked for some to pray.


Quote:

Give me a break.  ::)  Food and beverage is a high pressure job. Customer service can be depending on how busy the place is. Accountancy is ... what... business mathematics?  ::)

pff, that just shows how little u know about accountancy - it's much more complicated than that. also, by high pressure in food & beverage, do u mean need to serve alot of customers in a short period of time?

have a think about what's the worst thing that can happen?? person doesn't serve a customer his lunch quick enough the customer gets upset, compare that to getting the accounts wrong - which could result in a company collapse.

yeah, ur right, food & beverage is much more pressure (p.s. - i'm being sarcastic here in case u didn't notice).  

Awwwww, he's gone.  little gimp must have been calling him.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:53pm:

Israel handed the gaza strip to a palestinian goevrnemnt which only came into existance wirth israels go ahead a couple of years ago. The palestinians still fire rocktes form gaza into Israel. now imagine we gave the aborigainals the northern territory as a soverign country and they fired rockets into us?

since when did the Palestinans get an independent state?

pender, the Israeli's gave the Palestinans autonomy in the Gaza Strip, but autonomy doesn't mean that they handed the last back. Officially, the Gaza Strip is still part of Israel - Palestine, as an independent state, doesn't exist today.  

Quote:

Exactly, a person's religious background is irrelevant. If they can do the job properly, then there's no issue. So these muslims at my work are doing a good job, and given it's so hard to find good staff in the accounting industry i would rather have them stay and give them time to pray.

Questions:

1) Is this 'your' company?
2) Are these FOTB Muslims?
3) If yes to the above, how much do you pay them? Same as everyone else?



Quote:

Due to the shortage of staff in the industry, i can't afford to be picky and reject someone just because they asked for some to pray.

Maybe so... if you're desperate. Should they allow it in all occupations? -Not really.



Quote:

pff, that just shows how little u know about accountancy - it's much more complicated than that.

I never claimed to be an expert... but I'd imagine it would involve largely just sitting around doing a bit of basic mathematics/filing and dealing with occasionally unruly clients.

In saying that though, have you ever worked in food and bev, Gav? Gotten the best of both world's?



Quote:

by high pressure in food & beverage, do u mean need to serve alot of customers in a short period of time? person doesn't serve a customer his lunch quick enough the customer gets upset, compare that to getting the accounts wrong - which could result in a company collapse. yeah, ur right, food & beverage is much more pressure (p.s. - i'm being sarcastic here in case u didn't notice).

OR... smart@ss... they cop heaps of abuse from  the boss, customers, waiters, kitchen staff, etc...  whilst being paid squat... hence giving them a rather poor lifestyle... furthermore... making their lives more miserable. And if they continue to screw up, or aren't fast enough, they get sacked with a snap of the fingers.

Compare this to a well paid profession where you sit behind a desk, earning a healthy pay and the most 'work' you ever do is pushing the buttons of a calculator. Yeah... 'high pressure.'  ::)

Moreso, if accounting agencies are in such 'desperate' need for accountants... what 'stress' is there for the employees if the company goes under if there's plenty of work everywhere?  ::) I think the only 'stress' that exists in accounting is for the actual 'owner' and not the employee, if what you say is true.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 11:17pm:

Questions: 1) Is this 'your' company? 2) Are these FOTB Muslims? 3) If yes to the above, how much do you pay them? Same as everyone else?

1. I don't own the company, but i am a manager who supervises several staff members and i report to the partner.
2. Not fresh off the boat muslims, rather born and raised here in Australia.
3. they are paid market rates, based on their level of experience - their religious background doesn't affect their pay.  


Quote:

I never claimed to be an expert... but I'd imagine it would involve largely just sitting around doing a bit of basic mathematics/filing and dealing with occasionally unruly clients. In saying that though, have you ever worked in food and bev, Gav? Gotten the best of both world's?

well ur imagination is wrong, it's much more than basic maths/filing - to name a few of our services, we do tax consulting, audits, general accountancy, business planning, process reviews, IT consultancy.

and yes, i did work in food & bev during my uni days, i can admit that u need to serve customers quickly and the pay was quite bad but it's hardly stressful.


Quote:

Moreso, if accounting agencies are in such 'desperate' need for accountants... what 'stress' is there for the employees if the company goes under if there's plenty of work everywhere?  ::) I think the only 'stress' that exists in accounting is for the actual 'owner' and not the employee, if what you say is true.

mate, if u stuff up as an accountant, ur personally liable - i.e. u can get taken to court. cast ur mind back a couple of years with the corporate collapses, e.g. HIH, Enron, One Tel guess who was taken to court? that's right, the accountants (Andersen), who subsequently collapsed as well.

Are you really trying to compare accountancy to food and beverage work? Although you probably haven't done it yet, let me know when you have filed your first tax return.

Quote:

2. Not fresh off the boat muslims, rather born and raised here in Australia.

Proof of non assimilation.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 11:32pm:

Quote: 2. Not fresh off the boat muslims, rather born and raised here in Australia. Proof of non assimilation.

interesting, how so??

they do everything that's required of them in their job, the only difference between them and anyone else is that they get a little bit of time to pray - it doesn't bother anyone and they still do their job.

Islam is not a traditional Australian religion. Those who were born here and still continue their arabian traditions have not assimilated.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 11:42pm:

Islam is not a traditional Australian religion. Those who were born here and still continue their arabian traditions have not assimilated.

two points:

1. Australia is a secular nation, which allows freedom of expression of religion, so there is no such thing as a religion that is "not traditionally Australian".

2. Not all muslims are arab - so arabian traditions aren't the same as Islamic ones.

Quote:

mate, if u stuff up as an accountant, ur personally liable - i.e. u can get taken to court.

How often do accountants stuff up anyway? How many of your guys have gone to court in the last year and lost their jobs forever?



Quote:

and yes, i did work in food & bev during my uni days, i can admit that u need to serve customers quickly and the pay was quite bad but it's hardly stressful.

Ha. As a Uni student, of course you didn't find it 'stressful'... as far as we know... you could have
A) Done one or two shifts a week.
B) Relied on centrelink for the bulk of your income.
C) The boss had tolerance for your 'inconsistencies' due to the fact that your young, stupid and above all... cheap.
D) Lived at your parents house and hence didn't have to worry about making a living and could afford certain luxuries.

As a full time profession... as you are with your accounting... I'm sure the bar would be raised slightly. Hence your view that compared to a 'full-time' and 'back-breaking' profession like accounting a 'mere' food and beverage job is nothing.



Quote:

1. I don't own the company, but i am a manager who supervises several staff members and i report to the partner.   2. Not fresh off the boat muslims, rather born and raised here in Australia. 3. they are paid market rates, based on their level of experience - their religious background doesn't affect their pay.

I was seeing whether you were the owner of the company and whether you were hiring them because they were cheap. A lot of companies do that believe it or not.



Quote:

well ur imagination is wrong, it's much more than basic maths/filing - to name a few of our services, we do tax consulting, audits, general accountancy, business planning, process reviews, IT consultancy.

Like I said... pushing a calculator.  ;)

I'm sure all the university experience and after doing the same thing a jillion times, it would get easy after a while and become a long, boring routine.

I severely doubt it's as stressful as you're making it out to be, compared to say, a job at McDonalds. As ridiculous as it sounds, I think they are among the hardest workers of all.



Quote:

mate, if u stuff up as an accountant, ur personally liable - i.e. u can get taken to court. cast ur mind back a couple of years with the corporate collapses, e.g. HIH, Enron, One Tel guess who was taken to court? that's right, the accountants (Andersen), who subsequently collapsed as well.

Hmm... so ALL the accountants in ALL the companies were taken to court and blacklisted from ever getting a job again were they?

Quote:

1. Australia is a secular nation, which allows freedom of expression of religion, so there is no such thing as a religion that is "not traditionally Australian".

It is, for as long as pender and the CDP stays out of useful government.
The Australian government is secular- not the Nation. this is a christian country.


Quote:

2. Not all muslims are arab - so arabian traditions aren't the same as Islamic ones.

I know that. i was generalising.

---

hi all, u always hear George W Bush talking about bringing democracy to the Middle East and that was one of the reasons Iraq was invaded since Saddam Hussien was a tyrant.

also, recently Turkey (another muslim-populated nation) had democratic elections where the pro-Islamic party got elected fair & square, however despite getting elected there are huge protests by pro-secular groups.

so it got me thinking, if we do succeed and bring democracy to the Middle East, what is the chances of pro-Islamic parties getting elected? also, if a pro-Islamic party is elected, would that government be recognised by western nations - on one hand, it should be recognised since they would be democratically elected, however on the other hand they have values that are totally incompatible with Western values.

or when we say bringing democracy to the Middle East, we really mean "democracy where a pro-secular government is always elected, not pro-Islamic ones"?

What do you mean by pro-islamic? Obviously people with Islamic values are going to get elected. That doesn't mean they are against secularism.

In Turkey, the president who was recently elected was only suspected of being 'proislamic.' He did not get elected on that policy platform. The protests were just to warn him against doing what some people fear he may do.

By pro-Islamic, i mean someone who is against secularism and wishes to impose sharia law. If a party with that agenda got elected via democratic elections in the Middle East, would that government still be recognised by the rest of the world?

if not, why not?

and if we would reject such a democratically elected government, are we really bringing democracy to the Middle East? or are we only happy with democracy in the Middle East when a party with Western ideals is elected into office?

We would not reject such a government. If the people want sharia law, they can have it.

I would expect a democracy to tend towards a less severe version of sharia law. You could argue that our alws are based on the ten commandments, but they have been expanded and modified beyond recognition.

What is perhaps implied by sharia law is that clerics decide all the details and the people have no say in them. Obviously that wouldn't be democratic. But building up a legal code democratically, even if it is based in principle on sharia law, is fine.

Good thought JJJ.

If the people voted in a fair, informed and democratic election to have an oppressive governing body that banned freedom of speech, dress, worship etc etc , then yes, it should be the governing body.

You cannot have an informed public without freedom of speech.

Oh.

So, a governing body that does not enbody freedom of speech  and  a democratic election are  mutually exclusive. (Is that the term ?)

ie, one cannot be where the other is.

Yes, democracy and lack of freedom of speech are in practice mutually exclusive.

I think that most democracies have consitutions that protect key things like freedom of speech. This allows citizens to prevent the passage of legislation (via the courts) even if the majority of citizens are in favour and the government wishes to make the changes. The government would have to hold a referendum to alter the constitution first.

This is necessary for a few reasons. As Turkey demonstrates, elections are never referendums on any one issue. Furthermore, without constitutional rights, government could gradually chip away at the foundation of a democracy and turn it into a dictatorship. As with Germany between the world wars, it is fairly easy for citizens to end up electing a dictator during a crisis, but it is very hard to get a dictator to give up his powers in the interests of democracy. A constitution helps to prevent citizens from voting away a democracy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2007 at 1:41pm:

Good thought JJJ. If the people voted in a fair, informed and democratic election to have an oppressive governing body that banned freedom of speech, dress, worship etc etc , then yes, it should be the governing body.

yeah, but such a party would not act in the best interests of western nations, so my question is would western nations recognise that government as legitimate?

Western nations already recognise many dictators as 'legitimate'.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2007 at 2:10pm:

Western nations already recognise many dictators as 'legitimate'.

yeah, but those dictators act in the best interests of Western Nations and as far as i'm aware, none of them are Islamic (i.e. sharia law).

Western Nations recognise Kim Jong Il as the legitimate leader of North Korea, even though he acts contrary to their interests. You have to in order to establish diplomatic relations. They would have no trouble recognising a democratically elected government that imposes sharia law, or something similar. We will likely have to do this in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Taliban was never offically recognised by the US and was eventually overthrown.

Democracy is often associated with freedom, peace and other noble goals, however this does not necessarily mean it is the cause. The experiment we are conducting in the middle east may well demonstrate this. The same thing that causes a group of people to stand up for freedom and peace would also make people stand up for democracy. While giving a group of people democracy may make it easier for them to protect freedoms, it does not necessarily guarantee it.

I believe democracy will work.
people the world over want the same thing.

Given a genuine choice (real democracy) between a party that wanted to opress me and a party that wanted to build libraries and have free concerts outdoors, guess my vote ?

Islamic nations have often thrived under strong dictators.

Salahadin and the sarecens, the seljuk turks,  and even Nasser and egypt in the 20th century. I think islam performs much better under a strong rule than a democratic one.

Thats right pender. the only way to keep WILD ANIMALS is to use force.

pender - I am unsure of the cause and effect there.
Does a strong dictator make islam possible ? aka mohammad
Does a genuine democracy dissolve islam ?

Is that why there is no real democracy under islam law ?

Democracy wouldn't destroy Islam, sprint, because they'd keep voting dictators in.

But... if they voted for... say... a libreral democratic party and TRULY embraced freedom of the individual... then yes... their religion would be screwed... because their religion relies on mob mentality and the need to supress other religions to survive. That's what Islam is all about.

Quote:

their religion would be screwed... because their religion relies on mob mentality

Exactly the point of my last post.

Thought I would bring this to a new thread.

For those who hold the ideal of unfettered democracy high above everything else, come hell or high water, the lesson of Turkey is simple: demography is destiny. If you let the hardline Islamists run free, and outbreed the secularists, then kiss your freedoms goodbye and say hello the sharia law and probably much worse.

The protesters chanted:

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” “Neither Sharia, nor coup d’etat, democratic Turkey,” they chanted …

You can chant until the cows come home, but if you don't control the regressive Islamists and their population, then they will bulldoze all in their path. I suspect since Ataturk brought Turkey out of sharia law and into secularism, the Turks have gradually done soft. The lesson is that only tough measures will keep regressive Islam from taking hold. Democracy, freedom, tolerance, equality - they all mean diddly squat when the hardliners come to town. You can call on your army to help, but in the end, demography is destiny and you will be outbred. The hardliners will soon have their own army.

Mark Steyn's take:

"But among all the lamentations only Michel Gurfinkiel’s recent analysis in Commentary got to the underlying reality: Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there have been two Turkeys: the Turks of Rumelia, or European Turkey, and the Turks of Anatolia, or Asia Minor. Kemal Ataturk was from Rumelia and so were most of his supporters, and they imposed the modern Turkish Republic on a somewhat relunctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. In its 80-year history, the population has increased from 14 million in 1923 to 70 million today, but the vast bulk of that population growth has come from Anatolia, whose population has migrated from the rural hinterland to overwhelm the once solidly Kemalist cities. Ataturk’s modern secular Turkey has simply been outbred by fiercely Islamic Turkey. That’s a lesson in demography from an all-Muslim sample: no pasty white blokes were involved. So the fact that Muslim fertility is declining in Tunisia is no consolation: all that will do, as in Turkey, is remove moderate Muslims from the equation too early in the game. "

Continued ...

ONE MILLION protesters rallied in Turkey the other day against the threat of regressive Islamists gaining power. There were children walking down the street holding pictures of modern Turkey's founder Kemal Ataturk. What are the lessons for Australia? With our Muslims outbreeding us 6 to 2 (or something like that) and our "softly, softly" approach to radical Islam ...

* Stop Muslim immigration
* Stop the Muslim population growth within Australia

AND/OR ..

* radically transform Islam in Australia into the form of an invisible personal faith with no hint of regressive or violent elements within
* Or do nothing and watch them outbreed us and their ideas grow ever more radical, and inevitably see future generations of Australian kids walking down the street with a picture of our first prime minister Edmund Barton - effectively saying "please Mr Muslim, Australia is secular, don't hurt us when you gain power".

It's not going to be easy, no matter which path is chosen. You have to control these regressive elements one way or the other. It will get ugly. They won't give a rat's about your much valued protections under the constitution or human rights charter - they mean nothing. Demography is destiny.

Can you please provide a source for your article, talkingtothemoon?

This forum would not let me post links. Let's try again with them buttons this time:

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/206/

http://michelgurfinkiel.com/articles/106-Geopolitics-Is-Turkey-Lost.html

http://abandonskip.blogspot.com/2007/04/million-rally-in-turkey-for-secularism.html

Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” “Neither Sharia, nor coup d’etat, democratic Turkey,” they chanted …

does anyone else see the irony when they are chant "democratic Turkey" and yet they are protesting against the result of a democratic election which the pro-Islamic party won.

i still don't get the issue, we've spoken about it several times on this forum, basically the pro-Islamic party won the election fair & square and as such has a right to be in office. the pro-secular protestors had a chance to voice their views in the election itself - so it's either they didn't vote or they were outnumbered (i.e. a minority).

to protest against the result of a democratic election is very undemocratic like behaviour.

Good research talkingtothemoon.
Thanks

They were not protesting the result of the election. They were protesting against suspected hidden agendas. Like if Howard got elected by lying to the public, the public would protest.

Moon, you can't post links or URLs in your very first post. I had to do that to cut back on the spam. You should be right now.

Hi JJJ,
Yes, I can see the irony about a protest against a democratically elected govt.

Can you see the other side of the coin also ?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2007 at 10:14am:

They were not protesting the result of the election. They were protesting against suspected hidden agendas. Like if Howard got elected by lying to the public, the public would protest.

but there was no hidden agendas, the guy made openly declared that he was a pro-Islamist during the election and won it fair & square.  

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 8^th, 2007 at 10:17am:

Hi JJJ, Yes, I can see the irony about a protest against a democratically elected govt. Can you see the other side of the coin also ?

yes, being that the pro-secular protestors don't want sharia law.
but like i said before, if they were so concerned they should have voted in a secular candidate. if they did that and the pro-Islamist still won the election, then that would mean the pro-secular protestors represent a minority of the Turkish population.

As I recall, the newspaper reports made it appear to be about 'suspicions' rather than the 'official' policy platform of the new president.

Just because something comes about through democracy doesn't make it right. Democracy requires citizen activism to be effective. This includes protests against a democratically elected government. It only seems ironic to those who see democracy as sufficient to protect citizens from their own government.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2007 at 10:23am:

Just because something comes about through democracy doesn't make it right. Democracy requires citizen activism to be effective. This includes protests against a democratically elected government. It only seems ironic to those who see democracy as sufficient to protect citizens from their own government.

isn't voting considered to be citizen activism?

I wouldn't call it that. It's even compulsory here.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2007 at 10:31am:

I wouldn't call it that. It's even compulsory here.

voting isn't compulsory in every country.
some countries allow u to abstain from voting.

assuming voting is compulsory in Turkey - pro-Islamic party won election as it received the majority of the nations votes. this indicates that the pro-secular protestors are a minority.

assuming voting is not compulsory in Turkey - pro-Islamic party won election as it received more votes than any other party. this indicates that the pro-secular protestors either didn't vote or they represent the minority of voters.

either way, the pro-Islamic party won and should remain in office. the protest after the election is really useless, since the protestors already voiced their concern (or should have voiced it) in the election process.

It isn't useless at all. It lets the politicans know how important it is to them. Remember that an election is never a referendum on a single issue.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10436402


"SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan - A Taleban video of a 12-year-old boy beheading a man accused of spying has angered many Afghans, drawing condemnation from tribal and religious leaders.
"It's very wrong for the Taleban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.
"I appeal to the Taleban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.
"The Taleban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."
The video released this week shows the boy in a camouflage jacket and a white headband using a knife to behead a blindfolded man accused of being a spy for foreign forces as men cry "Allahu Akbar! (God is Great)".
The Taleban frequently behead suspected spies and often release video footage.
A tribal leader in the south, the Taleban's heartland, said the beheading was un-Islamic.
"The Taleban are doing very bad things and it is against Islam to behead a man by a very young boy," Haji Saeed Jan said.
"Islam does not allow anyone to behead any man. The Taleban show the wrong image of Islam to the world. We condemn this."
In the border town of Spin Boldak, near Pakistan, a young man, Abdul Ghafur, was appalled by the footage.
"After I watched this, I could not eat any food for two days," he said. Some television stations broadcast clips from the footage.
Taleban commander Mullah Hayatullah Khan said the Taleban would kill anyone helping foreign forces in order to protect their guerrilla fighters.
"We showed the beheading video to warn others," he said by satellite phone from a secret location.
Asked why the Taleban used a boy, he said:
"We want to tell the non-Muslims that our youngsters are also Mujahideens (holy warriors) and fight with us against you."
"These youngsters will be our Holy War commanders in the future and continue the jihad for freedom. Islam allow boys and women to do jihad against occupying non-Muslim troops and their spies and puppets."
Last year was the bloodiest since US-led forces ousted the Taleban in 2001 and many security analysts expect this year to be worse, with the Taleban and other militant groups bolstered by money from another record opium crop and the ability to shelter and train in Pakistan.
Five insurgents were killed after an air strike and a clash with Afghan border police and US special forces on Thursday in Paktia province, bordering Pakistan, the US military said in a statement.
The US military said ground forces engaged and pursued more than 10 foreign fighters, but did not say how it was known the insurgents were foreign.
Pakistan denies any continued formal support for the Taleban which it helped to power in the 1990s, but the issue of cross border infiltration has soured ties between Islamabad and Kabul.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is due to meet his Pakistani counterpart, Pervez Musharraf, in Turkey next week.
Karzai told reporters in Kabul on Thursday he hoped the talks would help ease tensions and boost security.
"Afghanistan is going with a mood of friendship and honest and I hope we have a good outcome," he said. "We hope they (Pakistan) know that peace and security in Afghanistan means peace and security in Pakistan."
But Musharraf criticised Karzai in an interview published on Thursday in the Spanish daily El Pais, accusing him of being weak on terrorism.
"The ones who do nothing against terrorism, like Karzai, are those who criticise those who fight, like us, "' said Musharraf, who is in Spain on a four-day visit."

well, as least u can't argue there hasn't been any condemnation of the Taliban's actions, since there obviously has been (as stated in the article).

If anyone actually claims the Taliban isn't Islamic, you're an idiot.

They're the most PURE Muslims under the sun.

Thanks Donald.

Either the taleban or Saudi Arabia. Both follow the koran quite correctly, I believe.

Pakistan hardliners honour bin Laden

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Pakistan-hardliners-honour-bin-Laden/2007/06/22/1182019316786.html

A group of hardline Pakistani Muslim clerics say they have bestowed a religious title on Osama bin Laden in response to a British knighthood for author Salman Rushdie.

The Pakistan Ulema Council gave bin Laden the title "Saifullah", or sword of Allah, in response to the knighthood awarded to Rushdie last week for services to literature.

Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses published in 1988, outraged many Muslims around the world. Muslims say it blasphemed against the Prophet Mohammad and ridiculed the Koran.

On Monday, Pakistan's parliament adopted a resolution condemning the knighthood and said Britain should withdraw it.

Iran denies supporting the Taliban

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Iran-denies-supporting-the-Taliban/2007/06/21/1182019275232.html

Iran rejected US accusations it was arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, saying an attack on its consulate there showed the hostility of the Sunni militant group towards Shi'ite Iran.

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns on June 9 accused Tehran of supporting the Taliban and fuelling insurrection around the Middle East.

"Iran's role in reconstructing Afghanistan has always been confirmed by friends and enemies alike," he said.

Aside from all the meaningless drivel, I did find some specific laws under sharia.
i do not know if they are correct or not.


10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.



Is this in agreeance with mohammads deeds, or did I invent them ?

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/afghan-clerics-demand-sharia-law/2007/07/03/1183351199382.html

A group of Afghan religious clerics is demanding the nationwide enforcement of Islamic Sharia law such as capital punishment and stonings for adulterers, it was reported.

Until overthrown in 2001, the Islamic Taliban government used to stage public executions, chop off the hands or feet of thieves and stone male and female adulterers.

The Taliban's imposition of Islamic law largely isolated the group worldwide, but at home was credited with reducing crime.

Since Western-backed President Hamid Karzai came to power, however, only one execution has take place and there have been no reports of stonings or lashings.

The call for the re-introduction of Sharia law came from more than 200 clerics in the western province of Herat on Monday, Arman-e-Millie daily reported.

It quoted a resolution from the group urging Karzai to "earnestly" campaign for implementation of the punishments.

The demand comes amid rising crime during an unprecedented period of personal freedom in the deeply conservative country.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2007 at 4:46pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/afghan-clerics-demand-sharia-law/2007/07/03/1183351199382.html A group of Afghan religious clerics is demanding the nationwide enforcement of Islamic Sharia law such as capital punishment and stonings for adulterers, it was reported. Until overthrown in 2001, the Islamic Taliban government used to stage public executions, chop off the hands or feet of thieves and stone male and female adulterers. The Taliban's imposition of Islamic law largely isolated the group worldwide, but at home was credited with reducing crime. Since Western-backed President Hamid Karzai came to power, however, only one execution has take place and there have been no reports of stonings or lashings. The call for the re-introduction of Sharia law came from more than 200 clerics in the western province of Herat on Monday, Arman-e-Millie daily reported. It quoted a resolution from the group urging Karzai to "earnestly" campaign for implementation of the punishments. The demand comes amid rising crime during an unprecedented period of personal freedom in the deeply conservative country.

So be it. its THEIR country.

Quote:

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

FREEDOM ;D


Quote:

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

HUMAN RIGHTS ;D


Quote:

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

CIVILISED LAW ;D


Quote:

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

BARBARIC >:(


Quote:

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

HOW BARBARIC >:(



Quote:

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

FOR ONCE I AGREE :o


Quote:

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

CIVILIZATION ::)


Quote:

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

I'D BE KILLED FOR SURE ;D


Quote:

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

WE DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IF WE DONT WANT TO. >:(


Quote:

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

It most certainly does.

Fancy the US military being unaware of the religious sensitivities in a country they are occupying.....

US military regrets Afghan soccer gaffe

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-military-regrets-Afghan-soccer-gaffe/2007/08/27/1188067022193.html

The US military in Afghanistan has expressed regret for a publicity campaign aimed at winning hearts and minds that ended up offending scores of Muslims.

US troops on Friday dropped dozens of free footballs for soccer-mad Afghan children from helicopters in an area of south-eastern Afghanistan, all marked with flags of various countries.

But the balls depicted the Saudi Arabian flag, which features the Islamic declaration of faith and includes the names of Allah and the prophet Mohammed.

The idea of kicking something bearing their names is considered deeply offensive to Muslims.

Fawad Ahmad, a shopkeeper in Kabul, said: "Americans themselves create insecurity by ignoring religious sensitivity, it is against Islam.

A spokeswoman for the US military in Afghanistan said the ball distribution was part of a "goodwill humanitarian aid mission ... for the enjoyment of Afghan children".

Captain Vanessa Bowman said the military had been unaware of the sensitivity of the issue.

The latest gaffe coincides with rising anger over the deaths of more than 350 civilians this year by Western troops, mostly in southern and eastern areas where the Taliban are largely active.

Yet another case of  muslims being constrained and enslaved by their rigid belief.

Just have to look at the muslim world to see its effects.  
muslim countres are backward, regressive and retreating from the world.

just something by the fruit it produces.  
Apart from suicide bombers and fanatics, what has come from the muslim past ?
Where are the muslim designed cars ?  The muslim humour ? the muslim art ?
The muslim .............. anything ??????????
If they did not have the polluting oil, they'ld be nomads still.

I meant,

Judge something by the fruit it produces.

"ALMOST half of Britain's mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to "shed blood" for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. "


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22380968-26040,00.html


This is assumedly all the fault of the english ??
lets not make the same mistakes.

The Hindu thing - is that just because Islam has a 'border' with Hinduism in the east?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Muslims-told-challenge-jihadists-online/2007/09/12/1189276801480.html

Australian Muslims could go online and challenge those promoting violent jihad in a bid to tackle growing radicalisation, a new study suggests.

The study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) said Australia, like other western nations faced the problem of a rising number of young disaffected Muslims.

These young Muslims could be persuaded to adopt a militant and violent version of Islam and perhaps resort to terrorist attacks.

The study said Australian security authorities faced the difficult task of identifying self-radicalised cleanskins, individuals not on any police or security service watch list and with no links to known militant groups, but who identified with Islamism and proceeded rapidly to jihadist violence.

"Such leaderless subversion does not necessarily require meetings with other terrorist operatives or training at an overseas camp, but can take place via the internet or through access to a spiritual sanctioner," ASPI said.

To counter this threat other nations have developed a range of strategies aimed at identifying extremists, engaging with the Muslim community and encouraging its commitment to the wider community.

Australia, with a population of 340,000 Muslims, is also developing such policies.

---

Saudis not stopping terror: US official

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Saudis-not-stopping-terror-US-official/2007/09/12/1189276770085.html

Despite six years of promises, Saudi Arabia has failed to pursue wealthy individuals identified as sending millions of dollars to al-Qaeda, the US official in charge of tracking terror financing says.

"If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia," Stuart Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury, told American network ABC.

---

Also, there is an interesting article on the front page of edition 58 (can't find the direct link):

http://www.pf.uq.edu.au/prop-press.html

The author claims that contrary to the impression you get online, Oman has personal freedoms - far more than the author experienced in western countries merely a generation ago.

---

'Reward' for death of Swedish artist

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Reward-for-death-of-Swedish-artist/2007/09/16/1189881320035.html

Stakes were raised after a reward was posted for the death of a Swedish artist and editor of a newspaper that recently printed a caricature of Islam's Prophet Mohammed depicted as a dog.

The leader of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq, an insurgency group held responsible for several acts of violence, put a $US100,000 reward on the head of Swedish artist Lars Vilks.

"From this day on we call for spilling the blood of the cartoonist who dared to denigrate the prophet's position," said an audio statement carried by the Islamist al-Hesbah website on Saturday.

This makes my head spin.


"Muslims attack $1m Saudi gift to uniFont Size: Print Richard Kerbaj | September 17, 2007
UP to $1 million will be pumped by Saudi Arabia into an Australian university, sparking fears the money will skew its research and create sympathy for an extremist Muslim ideology espoused by al-Qai'da.

Muslim leaders and academics have attacked Queensland's Griffith University for accepting an initial $100,000 grant from the Saudi embassy, which they accused of having given cash in the past to educational institutions to improve the perception of Wahhabism - a hardline interpretation of Islam. "

The Australian understands the Griffith Islamic Research Unit will in coming years receive up to $1 million from Saudi Arabia, which has injected more than $120 million into Australia's Islamic community since the 1970s for mosques, schools, scholarships and clerical salaries.

A former member of John Howard's Muslim reference board, Mustapha Kara-Ali, accused the Saudis of using their financial power to transform the landscape of Australia's Islamic community and silence criticism of Wahhabism. "They want to silence criticism of the Wahhabi establishment and its link to global terrorism and national security issues," he said.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not keep tabs on money from Saudi Arabia to Australian universities, despite having mechanisms in place to monitor official funding from the kingdom to local mosques.

James Cook University's Mervyn Bendle, a senior lecturer in the history of communication and terrorism, said Saudi Arabia would not provide funds to any Islamic initiative without wanting to propagate its own agenda and version of Islam.

"Historically, Saudi funding around the world has been used to promote Wahhabism," he said.

"It would be naive to just accept on the surface that this is not the case as far as this money is concerned."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22429399-12332,00.html

Lets talk about the dangers of the islamic dress code.
Anybody want to start off?

Also, Does anybody see the humour in this picture? ;D

---

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1202/islamphotoyr3.jpg

"Don't forget to smile."  ;D


Islamic dresscode (Cons):
1) Eyesore.
2) Alienates Australians.
3) According to Muslims, they don't have to wear it if they don't want to, therefore, they're purposely doing it to upset Australians.
4) Is very handy at concealing weapons.
5) Can disguise a man as a woman.  :P

Islamic Dresscode (Pros):
1) It 'enriches' our society with 'cultural diversity.'
(God knows I'm still trying to work out what's so beneficial about it).

*

What was the point in taking that picture! Well,it does tell of the intelligence of a muslim.
These are the 2nd main culprits in the deterioration of our country. The first being the polititians and hippy like multiculturists. I dont understand why it is legal for these letterboxes to be in public dressed as they are. Just stating the obvious here, a man could dress up as one and rob a bank, One or more could conceal explosives under it.... Does anyone remember the case where one of these walking bedsheets demanded that she (or it) must have the photo for her (its) licence with all of the gear on in south australia?  Minority group my arse,the government crumbled to her (its) will.
How could anyone identify these creatures? i call them ''its'' and ''creatures'' because of if i cant see their face,it loses human form. Well, then again, i can understand why they wear it. there are two reasons;

1. To cover up the bruises from the husbands beatings.
eg; im sure everyone is familiar with the afghan girl as featured by national geographic. when first photographed when 17 she had a clean face with no marks.
15 years later when she (now an it) was re-discovered by the photographers, and after much trouble to get it to remove its face cloth, she revealed to the world her scars and old wounds. how did they happen i wonder?

2. Does anyone find an arabian woman even remotely attractive? what with her moustache, monobrow big manly nose and so forth.... no wonder they have arranged marriges, otherwise they would become extinct, also if it werent also for the rapings.

So in that case perhaps it is good in a way that they wear all that crap. although it also causes a hygene problem. Ever smelt one before?

But the most important aspect of it all is, is the danger to us westerners. These are the fanatics. The question i also ask is why are they here? There is no way on earth that they escaped persecution from places like afghanistan and iran because if that was the case, they would have removed their bedsheets as soon as they arrived here!
I steer clear of them whenever i see them, just in case they go ''pop''.

And about them wearing that crap to annoy us Australians,i tell ya, i took great relish in walking around on Australia day wearing our flag as a cape! Man, the dirty looks i drew on that day! I loved it.

So, im just waiting for the day when suddenly over the radio or on the idiotbox a cold shock will run from the back of my head, down my spine to my legs as i hear of the horrible news of our first terror attack. What will all of you human rights, multiculturists, ignorant and leftist groups be saying once this has happened? will you still be kissing islamic arse or listening to the sheiks saying ''i dont support this'' Or  will you wake up and see the truth?

---

Are you saying we should ban that gear?

A GIGANTIC YES!

No Muslim has ever tried to tell me what I can and cannot wear. Only an aussie nationalist. Are you going to ban wedding outfits with viels as well? What about costumes with masks and baggy clothes?

This sounds to me like you want to get in ahead of the muslims and take away people's rights before they do. Sort of like a race to the bottom of the fascist barrel.

The muslims WILL eventually do that!- but with a gun to your head.
Nothing wrong with christian gear, they dont blow themselves up. I also thought this was a christian country. nothing wrong with a costume, baggy clothes? its unpresentable but not worth banning.
Also i am NOT a fascist. Are you a commie?

---

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But they aren't trying to take away my rights now. You are.

Do you really think a terrorist would only think of dressing as a muslim woman to hide gun or bomb? Not only is this idea fascist, it is also useless.

Now when was the last time a government started to dictate to a minority group what they can and cannot wear? Some time around 1937?

Trying to take YOUR rights away! did i ever say that? are you a fanatic muslim?
No a terrorist would not nessesarily always dress as a woman, i stated the point because
1 its easy to hide a bomb

2 if cops did try to check if they had a bomb,odds are they would not have one so the police would be in A LOT OF TROUBLE. but then again they might strap a bomb, because they know that no-one would look.

The greatest chance of a bomb going off would be from a bag or vehicle.

I did not mention the muslims that wear teatowels with their faces exposed now did i?
just the letter boxes.

So, your concern is the bombs strapped under their nose, not the one hidden in their dress or handbag? Actually I'm not sure what you are getting at. You seem to be agreeing that the letterbox is not a good place to hide a bomb, but you want to ban it anyway.

strapped under their nose?...........ok,.......

Letter box, is referring to the slit where their eyes are. it looks like the opening of a letter box.

---

Freediver, it's only fair that they make an ATTEMPT at integrating into Australian society.

They're always wondering why they're discriminated against. --It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why... their ridiculous outfits.

They're well aware that it offends Australians by wearing Islamic clothes. So why do they continue to do so?

Because it's their religion? -Hardly.
I've been told by many Muslims that it's THEIR choice to dress the way they do. Women don't even need to wear burqas if they do not wish to do so. -This can be confirmed by many Muslims.

It's quite clear that a muslim who wears Islamic clothes are making a political statement... not a religious one.

Therefore, their clothes are unnecessary.

Freediver, it's only fair that they make an ATTEMPT at integrating into Australian society.

I thought this was about hiding bombs. So what it's really about is forcing them to be more like us by taking away their right to be different?

They're well aware that it offends Australians by wearing Islamic clothes.

It doesn't offend me. Talk about taking politically correct to the extreme.

It's quite clear that a muslim who wears Islamic clothes are making a political statement... not a religious one.

Clear to who? Not me.

Therefore, their clothes are unnecessary.

And that's justification for taking away people's right to wear whatever they want? Do you really want to make it illegal to wear clothes that can be construed as a political statement by overzealous nationalists? Are you trying to turn Australia into the middle east?

Quote:

I thought this was about hiding bombs. So what it's really about is forcing them to be more like us by taking away their right to be different?

I think hiding bombs is exaggerated and it's not really a concern of mine.

And it's not about 'forcing' them to be like us. They should automatically try to be like us as a gesture of good will. If they refuse to be like us, then I think it's just a sign that they chose the wrong country. There's at least fifty Islamic states throughout the Middle East they could choose -Some of which are NOT in a state of war. United Arab Emirates. Kuwait. Turkey. Pakistan. Etc etc. So why did they choose to come here if they have so many alternatives? And reject the locals way of life, whilst clinging hopelessly onto their own with the nieve belief that Australians will eventually accept their way of life? They're wrong for doing that.
Quote:

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Quote:

It doesn't offend me. Talk about taking politically correct to the extreme.

You're one person and one person alone, freediver. MOST Australians dislike their choice of clothing. Speak to any Australian who lives among them, you'll get the same answer.



Quote:

Clear to who? Not me.

Clear to be people who actually know something about their religion... ME.



Quote:

And that's justification for taking away people's right to wear whatever they want? Do you really want to make it illegal to wear clothes that can be construed as a political statement by overzealous nationalists? Are you trying to turn Australia into the middle east?

Oh please spare me the 'you're just as bad as them' line. It's Australia, and their Islamic clothing is unnecessary. It's a political statement that's upsetting many people. And if it's not necessary to wear, why do they continue to wear it? Because they WANT to upset people and cause a stir. In my opinion, that's a LOW act.

Australians are the majority and I'm sure if we lived in a TRUE democracy, it'd be banned in a referendum.

I'm not suggesting for a total ban on Islamic clothing. Just limit it to privacy and on special occasions. It's ridiculous to wear it 24/7. It upsets too many people.

On that note, why is it illegal to walk down the street, naked? Under your reasoning, freediver, people should be allowed to walk down the street naked.

They should automatically try to be like us as a gesture of good will.

No they shouldn't. We certainly shouldn't hold any such expectations of them. If they decide that we are the sort of people they would like to be like, then they will be like us. The easiest way to reinforce someone's culture is to try to opress them.

If they refuse to be like us, then I think it's just a sign that they chose the wrong country.

The biggest thing about living here is freedom. That is probably why they chose this country. You cannot take away their freedom without taking away ours.

MOST Australians dislike their choice of clothing.

Most Australians respect personal freedom far more than they dislike any particular choice of clothing.

And if it's not necessary to wear, why do they continue to wear it? Because they WANT to upset people and cause a stir. In my opinion, that's a LOW act.  

That's just absurd. Of course they're not wearing it to upset you or anyone else. You really don't matter that much to them.

Australians are the majority and I'm sure if we lived in a TRUE democracy, it'd be banned in a referendum.

I think you have seriously misjudged the feelings in the community on this issue.

On that note, why is it illegal to walk down the street, naked? Under your reasoning, freediver, people should be allowed to walk down the street naked.

I see people get around naked occasionally. There is a naked bike ride in peak hour traffic coming up. I'm not sure what the laws are, but if it were up to me it would not be illegal, except wear it posed a health risk.

Quote:

No they shouldn't. We certainly shouldn't hold any such expectations of them.

Yes we should. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.



Quote:

If they decide that we are the sort of people they would like to be like, then they will be like us.

Why did they move here then? If they dislike the people in this country, why do they continue to be here then?



Quote:

The biggest thing about living here is freedom. That is probably why they chose this country. You cannot take away their freedom without taking away ours.

Right. So if they're so for 'freedom' and the 'opportunities' this country can bring, then why do they maintain their old lifestyle and customs? Why do they continue to live like they used to? What's the difference between living in a country that suits their customs than a country that gives them freedom that they don't want?

Your 'freedom' statement is meaningless. And you're just parroting a Hollywood film.



Quote:

That's just absurd. Of course they're not wearing it to upset you or anyone else. You really don't matter that much to them.

Bullsh1t.



Quote:

I think you have seriously misjudged the feelings in the community on this issue.

Bullsh1t.

I have polls/surveys to prove it.


Quote:

Most Australians respect personal freedom far more than they dislike any particular choice of clothing.

Bullsh1t.



Quote:

I see people get around naked occasionally. There is a naked bike ride in peak hour traffic coming up. I'm not sure what the laws are, but if it were up to me it would not be illegal, except wear it posed a health risk.

Actually, if people walk down the street naked it's illegal. They're arrested for indecent exposure.

So, do you think people should be allowed to walk the streets naked, freediver? Being naked and wearing Islamic clothes is no different, as it offends a majority of people.

So if they're so for 'freedom' and the 'opportunities' this country can bring, then why do they maintain their old lifestyle and customs?

Does it matter?

What's the difference between living in a country that suits their customs than a country that gives them freedom that they don't want?

What makes you think they don't want that freedom? You seem to think that freedom means chosing the same thing that you chose. Freedom can just as easily mean chosing to wear traditional garb.

Your 'freedom' statement is meaningless. And you're just parroting a Hollywood film.

I have no idea what you are talking about. And it is not meaningless. You cannot support freedom on one hand then with the other try to take away someone else's freedom.

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

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Being naked and wearing Islamic clothes is no different, as it offends a majority of people.

No it doesn't. You keep insisting that a majority are offended by islamic dress, without any kind of evidence to back up this absurd claim. The amjority of Australians are fairly tolerant.

Quote:

Does it matter?

How does YES sound to you?



Quote:

What makes you think they don't want that freedom? You seem to think that freedom means chosing the same thing that you chose. Freedom can just as easily mean chosing to wear traditional garb.

The thing is freediver, Muslims want LESS freedom than most Australians want. THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE!

For example, they don't want alcohol. For example, they don't want pork. For example, they don't want women exposing their bodies. For example, they don't want political freedom. For example, they don't want to live among other religions. This is all provided in a Muslim country, AUSTRALIA DOESN'T!


There is NOTHING Australian society HAS that a Muslim country CAN'T provide. They have everything they could ever wish for in the Middle East. By being in Australia, they're merely causing problems for Australians and RESTRICTING the thing you like to call FREEDOM for the rest of us!!!



Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not surprised.



Quote:

And it is not meaningless.

::)



Quote:

You cannot support freedom on one hand then with the other try to take away someone else's freedom.

Why not? Is it a law or something?



Quote:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Please excuse me if I don't cry, Freediver.  ::)



Quote:

No it doesn't.

Mate, I'm not joking, it DOES.



Quote:

You keep insisting that a majority are offended by islamic dress, without any kind of evidence to back up this absurd claim.

Easy tiger, you haven't given me much time to display my evidence. Unfortunately, I think I must have deleted my stats and polls to make way for hard-drive space, but I did a quick search to find this:


Quote:

PM on head-to-toe Muslim dress : Is he right? Yes, I find it confronting - 57% No, it doesn't bother me - 43% Total Votes: 5767  Poll date: 27/02/06 Source: Sydney Morning Herald

I'm not jumping up and down celebrating just yet, as there's only 5767 who voted in this survey, but I think it gives you a good indication that not everyone sees things YOUR way freediver.



Quote:

The amjority of Australians are fairly tolerant.

I think what was left of our tolerance has been smashed to pieces in recent years.

Aussie Nat please don't post pornography here. Please edit that post and remove the picture.

For example, they don't want alcohol.

You're equating alcohol with freedom? They are not the same thing.

They have everything they could ever wish for in the Middle East.

How do you know that? Have you asked them?

but I think it gives you a good indication that not everyone sees things YOUR way freediver

I would find it a bit confronting too, but I don't want to ban it. Freedom should be confronting.

Quote:

How do you know that? Have you asked them?

No. It doesn't take a genius to work out what they do need and don't need.

You talk so much about the 'freedom' (Oh, Glorious freedom) Australia gives them, yet you haven't named anything that Australia gives that the Middle East doesn't. This leads me to conclude that you haven't done much research on Middle Eastern society and Australian society.

I gave several examples of Muslims wanting less freedoms than Australia, which infringes on the Australian way of life, and yet, you've failed to give me ANY examples of UNIQUE freedoms that Australia gives them.


You didn't reply to my point about Muslims 'limited need for freedoms' in my last post.

Would you agree that the Muslim way of life interferes with the Australian way of life somewhat?

yet you haven't named anything that Australia gives that the Middle East doesn't

Freedom

I gave several examples of Muslims wanting less freedoms than Australia

No, you gave examples of Muslims making different choices.

Would you agree that the Muslim way of life interferes with the Australian way of life somewhat?

No, not at all.

Actually Freediver makes some good points.  I am neither for or against the Muslim people as long as they adhere to our laws.  Unfortunately they've had some bad publicity and haven't really helped their cause by having Sheikh Hilaly as their leader.

But the problems really stem from our Federal Government who has allowed the word "multiculturalism" to become abhorrent by allowing Bush's slogan "War on Terror" to apply to Muslims and throw them all in the same basket as terrorists.

There ya go FD. sorry about that.

New advertisement for election.

---

Mantra
Quote:

Actually Freediver makes some good points.

Where?  :-?


Quote:

I am neither for or against the Muslim people as long as they adhere to our laws.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.



Quote:

I am neither for or against the Muslim people as long as they adhere to our laws.

I'm an anti-Islamist.



Quote:

Unfortunately they've had some bad publicity and haven't really helped their cause by having Sheikh Hilaly as their leader.

They've had 'bad publicity' for the last 1300 years. It's not merely 'bad publicity' mantra, it's Islam itself.  



Quote:

But the problems really stem from our Federal Government who has allowed the word "multiculturalism" to become abhorrent by allowing Bush's slogan "War on Terror" to apply to Muslims and throw them all in the same basket as terrorists.

I agree that a lot of stupid people tend to actually say this, mantra. But if you look at the religion closely, they are not compatible with western civilisation... in the long run...    Short term... perhaps. I insist that you buy a copy of the Quran, put a bit of study into it, and try to understand this religion for what it is, mantra. Strong-minded people can push aside politically correct leftist dribble and find out the truth for themselves.


Freediver
Quote:

yet you haven't named anything that Australia gives that the Middle East doesn't Freedom

Freedom of what??? What does Australian society have that's so free that Muslims want that an Islamic country doesn't provide??? IS THIS THE 'GOOD' POINTS FREEDIVER RAISED MANTRA???  :o



Quote:

I gave several examples of Muslims wanting less freedoms than Australia No, you gave examples of Muslims making different choices.

And yet... you STILL haven't given ME examples of what 'freedoms' Australia provides Muslims that Islamic countries don't. What's a matter Freediver? Lack of knowledge on the subject? Jumping to your own politically correct conclusions? Judging a book by its cover? Typical.  ::)


Sounds like FREEDOM choices to me, freediver. And pleeease don't give me this 'different choices' garbage.  

Muslims restrict Australians freedoms by banning certain things in certain suburbs when Muslims make up a majority.

Does 'father Christmas' sound familiar? In certain Melbourne suburbs, Santa Claus has been banned from being displayed in public.
In my local butchers, they've put a ban on pork, because it's deemed offensive by the Muslim minority.
In certain suburbs, Muslims intimidate women by taunting them publicy as 'Aussie sluts' because they're 'exposing their shoulders.'

In my opinion, freediver, THAT'S restricting freedom.  Or can you somehow prove otherwise?



Quote:

Would you agree that the Muslim way of life interferes with the Australian way of life somewhat? No, not at all.

Ignorance is bliss, hey freediver?

Come back to me when you've got ACTUAL evidence or better yet, POINTS that back up your ridiculous argument. Until then, you've got NOTHING!

HERE HERE, DT.
8-)

DT - I agree with Freediver's comments on freedom - where we demand freedom for ourselves, yet want to deny it to others - this makes sense.

Look I can see your point of view and in so many forums where Islam is discussed - the very strong anti-Islamic views come from those who have been affected in some way - ie lived amongst them, physically abused, gone to school with them, worked  etc. so I am not condemning those who are angry.

Unfortunately this is not a good topic for me and I should leave it alone, because I really don't feel strongly enough about it.  Annoyed sometimes - yes, particularly when as a minority group some Muslims play on the government's political correctness and use it to their advantage, but then so do other religions - especially one in particular - the Exclusive Bretheren.  Considering they are Australian born and bred, they are a sly, bigoted and regressive religion that would be better suited to 16th century Europe.

Other than that, I'm too limited on this subject to make a decent contribution.

Well mantra, there is not many muslims on the central coast...YET.
Ive got a mate at warnervale i go to see often, And to escape sydney!

Quote:

DT - I agree with Freediver's comments on freedom - where we demand freedom for ourselves, yet want to deny it to others - this makes sense.

I can agree on that.
But my opinion stands that so-called 'freedom' is over-rated.

'Freedom' can mean anything depending on the country you live in. If the world was TRULY free, people would be free to take drugs, people would be free to murder anyone they liked and people would be free to rape and commit crimes. That's TRUE freedom.

'Freedom' is a term loosely used to describe many things and in my opinion shouldn't be taken too seriously

'Freedom' is what suits a society best. And as a 'so-called' free society, we should have the right to ban Islamic clothes if the majority (Australians) (No, I don't consider Muslims Australian) wished to do so.

We, as Australians, should be able to decide our own future. It's our so-called 'freedom' to do so.

I hope I've managed to raise a few points for you to think about. I think I confused myself a little bit with that bit of writing.



Quote:

Look I can see your point of view and in so many forums where Islam is discussed - the very strong anti-Islamic views come from those who have been affected in some way - ie lived amongst them, physically abused, gone to school with them, worked  etc. so I am not condemning those who are angry.

Cool. That's all I want. Just acknowledgement. Not denial. Nor acceptance. I just want people to THINK about it.



Quote:

Unfortunately this is not a good topic for me and I should leave it alone, because I really don't feel strongly enough about it... Other than that, I'm too limited on this subject to make a decent contribution.

Fair enough. Not everyone is passionate about this topic. I actually think it's quite noble of you to not get involved in a topic that you don't know nor care about. Some people usually do otherwise, paraphrasing quotes off a politically correct article, or some garbage like that.



Quote:

but then so do other religions - especially one in particular - the Exclusive Bretheren.  Considering they are Australian born and bred, they are a sly, bigoted and regressive religion that would be better suited to 16th century Europe.

I agree. There are definitely worse religions in Australia, but none so widespread as Islam. These religions should be dealt with.



Quote:

Well mantra, there is not many muslims on the central coast...YET. Ive got a mate at warnervale i go to see often, And to escape sydney!

I've been to the central coast. Great place.

But when I think about those Islamic basterds moving to that area to pick up 'fully sick chix' effectively destroying the area like Bankstown and Lakemba, I truly feel sick to my stomach.  :'(
I'm really sorry about Muslims destroying your city (Sydney), mate.  :(


Hence, Australians will keep relocating from city to city, trying to escape the Islamic plague until we have no cities left to run to. Then, GAME OVER.

Thanks DT - that was a good post from you.  I haven't lived in any area with Muslims and have had very little contact with them, apart from passing them occasionally in the streets of Sydney.

Islam is widespread, but I really believe we should have left it alone.  Many of the majority muslim countries have had their own resources to sustain them quite comfortably and have really had no need to start wars against the West.  It always seems to be us who are the aggressors into their territory and now as more disadvantaged people see the greedy westerners impose their might - they retaliate by becoming Muslims which appears to offer a solution to their misery.

Instead of spending all our wealth on wars - maybe we could lift sanctions and give these countries some of their resources back.  

Freedom of what??? What does Australian society have that's so free that Muslims want that an Islamic country doesn't provide???

For starters, to choose what they want to wear. The middle east is a good example of what happens when you allow people's rights to be taken away arbitrarily. They are very hard to win back, and there is always someone wanting to take away more of people's rights. You seem to be aware of this, yet you don't seem to comprehend that people would want to get away from that. Do you really think you can know what these people want without asking them?

Does 'father Christmas' sound familiar? In certain Melbourne suburbs, Santa Claus has been banned from being displayed in public.

I know plenty of non-muslim people who support that. Is it illegal to dress as Santa in public? I don't think so.

In my local butchers, they've put a ban on pork

Who put a ban on pork? As far as I know a butcher's is private property and it is up to them how to run their business. Something tells me it was the butchers who chose not to stock pork rather than them not being allowed to.

And besides, are these examples in any way relevant? Do they support your attempts to take away people's rights arbitrarily? You seem to think they do, yet most people would see them as demonstrations of how absurd it is to try to take away people's rights for no valid reason.

But my opinion stands that so-called 'freedom' is over-rated.

Isn't your greatest fear about muslims that they will take away your freedom? If so, why do you want to establish a clear precedent in this country?

If the world was TRULY free, people would be free to take drugs, people would be free to murder anyone they liked and people would be free to rape and commit crimes. That's TRUE freedom.  

Freedom cannot be absolute. Where one freedom infringes on another, society has to choose which freedom it values most. In most cases this is a simple process. For example, in choosing between the freedom to choose what to wear and the freedom to not be offended by other people's dress, our society usually chooses freedom to choose what to wear, especially if the 'offense' is baseless.

LISTEN NOW OR SUFFER LATER. :o

---

Quote:

Freedom of what??? What does Australian society have that's so free that Muslims want that an Islamic country doesn't provide??? For starters, to choose what they want to wear.

Oh for the love of :o... Thats my whole argument! Why are they here if they don't want to wear different clothes from their own country?... Oh, just forget about it!!!  >:( You're clearly too bigoted on this topic to be reasoned with.

Can anyone else see the lack of logic in freedivers posts, or am I just crazy?



Quote:

The middle east is a good example of what happens when you allow people's rights to be taken away arbitrarily. They are very hard to win back, and there is always someone wanting to take away more of people's rights. You seem to be aware of this, yet you don't seem to comprehend that people would want to get away from that.

And if they WANT to get away from that, WHY are they maintaining it here???

THINK freediver! They're living EXACTLY the same way here as they do in the Middle East. Their society DOESN'T infringe on their rights in the Middle East! In fact, it SUITS THEM! The only difference with our society and theirs is that our society gives them rights that they either DON'T WANT or TRY TO SPOIL FOR OTHERS.


Name just ONE of these MAGICAL freedoms that Muslims get in the Australia that they ACTUALLY put to use that they CAN'T get in the Middle East. You seem to be the expert, freediver.

ONE. That's all I ask, freediver.



Quote:

Do you really think you can know what these people want without asking them?

Oh okay genius, what DO they want then?

Freedom?  ;D Pffft. Oh yeah, that 'argument' of yours has kinda been flushed down the toilet, hey?

I don't know 'what they want,' freediver. It could range from anything from the 'unique views' of Ayers Rock, to the 'dream' of having a 'gum-tree' in their backyard. -Although, these outcomes are HIGHLY unlikely. There’s nearly nothing a Muslim wants that’s uniquely offered in Australia that Islamic societies don’t provide.

What I know FOR SURE is what Muslims DON'T want.



Quote:

Does 'father Christmas' sound familiar? In certain Melbourne suburbs, Santa Claus has been banned from being displayed in public. I know plenty of non-muslim people who support that. Is it illegal to dress as Santa in public? I don't think so.

Yeah, and I know plenty of Muslims who draw pictures of Mohammed.  ::)

It's self-evident that a majority of Australians don't support the banning of santa, as most are decent minded enough to be aware that it's harmless fun.

You're grasping at straws and it's showing, freediver.  



Quote:

In my local butchers, they've put a ban on pork Who put a ban on pork? As far as I know a butcher's is private property and it is up to them how to run their business. Something tells me it was the butchers who chose not to stock pork rather than them not being allowed to.

It's up to them, of course. But was it a necessary thing to restrict ALL of us of pork due to a bunch of Muslims who decided to move into the neighbourhood? I say, no. The restriction of pork was a direct result of Muslims in the neighbourhood. Like to prove otherwise? Go ahead and fail.  :-?

What? No comment about Muslims abusing Australian girls?  ::)



Quote:

And besides, are these examples in any way relevant? Do they support your attempts to take away people's rights arbitrarily?

Yes, actually they do.



Quote:

You seem to think they do, yet most people would see them as demonstrations of how absurd it is to try to take away people's rights for no valid reason.

That's one way to look at it. Or, a more likely outcome would be, 'Muslims who migrate here, shouldn't be acting like that, they should be acting like Australians instead.'
-It can go both ways.



Quote:

But my opinion stands that so-called 'freedom' is over-rated. Isn't your greatest fear about muslims that they will take away your freedom? If so, why do you want to establish a clear precedent in this country?

I never said it was my greatest fear.

I DON'T believe in 'ideal freedom.' I believe in SOCIETY freedoms. Every SOCIETY is different and people moving into that society should blend into that society. It’s simply common-sense. Either that, or conquer them and establish their own society through force.

And if we need to ban clothing to HELP immigrants fit into society and keep peace, so be it.



Quote:

If the world was TRULY free, people would be free to take drugs, people would be free to murder anyone they liked and people would be free to rape and commit crimes. That's TRUE freedom.   Freedom cannot be absolute. Where one freedom infringes on another, society has to choose which freedom it values most. In most cases this is a simple process. For example, in choosing between the freedom to choose what to wear and the freedom to not be offended by other people's dress, our society usually chooses freedom to choose what to wear, especially if the 'offense' is baseless.

Whatever.  ::)
TRUE freedom is doing whatever the hell you want. End of story.

"In my local butchers, they've put a ban on pork"

"It's up to them, of course. But was it a necessary thing to restrict ALL of us of pork due to a bunch of Muslims who decided to move into the neighbourhood? I say, no. The restriction of pork was a direct result of Muslims in the neighbourhood. Like to prove otherwise? Go ahead and fail."


yeah, i've heard about these butchers that don't stock pork and that is because of muslims moving into the neighbourhood.

but from the butchers perspective it makes sense to not stock pork since he can get muslim customers. it just comes down to the concept of supply and demand.

And if they WANT to get away from that, WHY are they maintaining it here???

They aren't maintaining it here. You are equating the wearing of traditional clothes with support of everything you don't like
(and they don't like) about the middle east. That is a lot of assumptions to make based on what people wear, and as far as I can tell you have made zero effort to find out if your assumptions are correct.

Their society DOESN'T infringe on their rights in the Middle East! In fact, it SUITS THEM!

DT, many of these women are from a society where the punishment for being raped is stoning to death. And you want to hassle them about what they wear! Do you really believe that it suits them to be treated like pieces of meat? I think it's reasonable to grant them a bit of leeway if they don't want to strip of to a bikini and go for a swim at bondi on their first day here. Our own ancestors took a long time to give up European traditions that have no place here, and still hang on to many of them against all reason.

Oh okay genius, what DO they want then?

I said ask them. There's no point asking me.

That's one way to look at it. Or, a more likely outcome would be, 'Muslims who migrate here, shouldn't be acting like that, they should be acting like Australians instead.'  

This may come as a surprise to you, but there is no one way to act Australian.

Quote:

And if they WANT to get away from that, WHY are they maintaining it here??? They aren't maintaining it here. You are equating the wearing of traditional clothes with support of everything you don't like   (and they don't like) about the middle east. That is a lot of assumptions to make based on what people wear, and as far as I can tell you have made zero effort to find out if your assumptions are correct.

Oh bvllsh1t. How do you propose that I go out and find out if my 'assumptions' are correct? Interview them and come back with the answers? They'll lie pal. Muslims are the most biased people as far as religion goes. They'll just say,  "oh of course I don't, I love Australia," while at the same time leaving out the little fact that they support sharia law.  All I can draw from is personal experience, freediver. All I know freediver, even if I did SAY I've met muslims who support my arguments.. you'd just say... "Oh but that's just a minority." You'll NEVER be satisfied, will you?

-It's not like you'reproving your assumptions either, freediver. All you're doing is:
A) Avoiding points I make in above posts, optioning only to choose the ones that 'mildly' support your argument.
B) Constantly avoiding giving answers and challenging me to give answers instead.
C) Have 0 knowledge on Islam yourself, but have the nerve to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.



Quote:

Their society DOESN'T infringe on their rights in the Middle East! In fact, it SUITS THEM! DT, many of these women are from a society where the punishment for being raped is stoning to death. And you want to hassle them about what they wear! Do you really believe that it suits them to be treated like pieces of meat? I think it's reasonable to grant them a bit of leeway if they don't want to strip of to a bikini and go for a swim at bondi on their first day here. Our own ancestors took a long time to give up European traditions that have no place here, and still hang on to many of them against all reason

Pfft. As if it was the WIVES choice to immigrate to Australia. They aren't even allowed to go out in PUBLIC, let alone going out to apply for immigration.



Quote:

Oh okay genius, what DO they want then? I said ask them. There's no point asking me.

So.. . let me get this straight, you don't know ANYTHING about what your challenging me with?



Quote:

That's one way to look at it. Or, a more likely outcome would be, 'Muslims who migrate here, shouldn't be acting like that, they should be acting like Australians instead.'   This may come as a surprise to you, but there is no one way to act Australian.

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Oh bvllsh1t. How do you propose that I go out and find out if my 'assumptions' are correct?

You're a smart man. You figure it out.

You'll NEVER be satisfied, will you?

I think you could do a lot better than making assumptions based on the clothes people wear.

It's not like you'reproving your assumptions either, freediver

That's because i'm not nmaking any. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings in this call to curb our freedom and gain nothing in return.

Have 0 knowledge on Islam yourself, but have the nerve to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm happy to go with neither of us knowing much about this issue. In the absence of any real knowledge, taking away people's rights based on assumptions is clearly absurd.

They aren't even allowed to go out in PUBLIC

Yes they are. Hence the clothes you are trying to take away from them.

So.. . let me get this straight, you don't know ANYTHING about what your challenging me with?

All I need to know is what you said in order to point out such obvious flaws in it.

I propose DT FOR PRIME MINISTER ! :)

Quote:

Oh bvllsh1t. How do you propose that I go out and find out if my 'assumptions' are correct? You're a smart man. You figure it out.

Mate, you've mixed and twisted around my words so much that I've forgotten what I need to prove.

Let me just point out something:

Quote:

They aren't maintaining it here. You are equating the wearing of traditional clothes with support of everything you don't like   (and they don't like) about the middle east.

I NEVER 'equated' the wearing of traditional clothes with support of everything I don't like. YOU just assumed this. I never said it.

So... quit making ASSUMPTIONS about ME and stick to the facts, freediver.



Quote:

You'll NEVER be satisfied, will you? I think you could do a lot better than making assumptions based on the clothes people wear.

Is that a 'no?'



Quote:

It's not like you'reproving your assumptions either, freediver That's because i'm not nmaking any. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings in this call to curb our freedom and gain nothing in return.

Pfffft. You've made plenty of assumptions, freediver... trust me. Would you like me to make a list?



Quote:

Have 0 knowledge on Islam yourself, but have the nerve to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm happy to go with neither of us knowing much about this issue. In the absence of any real knowledge, taking away people's rights based on assumptions is clearly absurd.

Seems to me I know more about this topic than you, freediver.




Quote:

They aren't even allowed to go out in PUBLIC Yes they are. Hence the clothes you are trying to take away from them.

What I meant to say was that in most Islamic countries they can't go out in public without being escorted by a male. But in some cases, they don't go out at all.



Quote:

So.. . let me get this straight, you don't know ANYTHING about what your challenging me with? All I need to know is what you said in order to point out such obvious flaws in it.

Where?

I NEVER 'equated' the wearing of traditional clothes with support of everything I don't like. YOU just assumed this. I never said it.

Well I have asked you many times whether you are basing these assumptions on anything more than the clothes they wear. If there was any substantive basis to your attempts tot ake away people's rights, I'm sure you would have mentioned it by now. I think it's reasonable to expect you to come up with the goods seeing as you are trying to erode people's freedom.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Muslim-girl-ejected-from-soccer-game/2007/02/27/1172338597996.html

The ejection of an 11-year-old Canadian Muslim girl from a soccer game has reignited Quebec's debate over the "reasonable accommodation" of minorities, even prompting comments from Premier Jean Charest.

The federation says wearing the hijab - an Islamic veil or head scarf - violates a no-headgear rule set down by the sport's governing body for safety reasons.

"My understanding is that the referee applied the rules of the soccer federation and that's why that decision was made," Charest said on Monday.

But that did not stop the chatter on TV and radio shows or blogs which saw the incident as just another example of a debate simmering in Quebec about the so-called "reasonable accommodation" of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities.

Herouxville, a sleepy town in central Quebec dominated by a towering Roman Catholic church, has adopted a declaration of "norms" that tells immigrants how to fit in and forbids face coverings other than on Halloween.

In Montreal, men were banned from prenatal classes at one Montreal community centre to accommodate Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women.

---

No headscarf for access card photo

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-headscarf-for-access-card-photo/2007/02/28/1172338713883.html

Muslim women who wear headscarves will have to make sure their face is fully visible when they have a photograph taken for the government's new access card.

The proposed system will replace the Medicare card and be compulsory for any Australian who wants to access up to 16 other government health and welfare services.

The instructions say the headscarf will have to be pushed back so that the forehead, cheeks and chin are clearly visible.

While some Muslim women wear the headscarf without any face covering, others wear it with a veil that leaves only their eyes exposed.

"The access card will not be a national identity card," the government said.

Penalties include up to five years' jail for a person who asks someone to produce the access card as proof of identity.

---

Group pushing for Muslim MPs: report

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Group-pushing-for-Muslim-MPs-report/2007/03/01/1172338745394.html

An Islamic group is being formed to get more Muslim candidates into Australian politics.

It's hoped Australia's first Muslim federal MP would come from the Sydney-based group being spearheaded by Labor-aligned community leader Omar Yassine.

The proposed group will distinguish between religious and political Islam and promote the merits of Muslims from all political parties to the Islamic and mainstream communities, News Ltd reports.

"We need someone from our community to represent us in the government and to be honest and straightforward," Mr Yassine told News Ltd.

"We have to achieve something and to show respect to ourselves for others to respect us."

While Victoria has state Muslim MPs, NSW does not and nor are there any Islamic MPs at the federal level.

The proposed Muslim committee would comprise men and women from various professions and academic backgrounds.

---

UK schools get right to ban Muslim veils

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-schools-get-right-to-ban-Muslim-veils/2007/03/20/1174153068687.html

Students in England could be banned from wearing full-face Muslim veils for security or educational reasons under government guidelines to be published on Tuesday, officials said.

The guidance paper from the Department for Education and Skills (DFES) would leave it up to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said.

"If they feel any garment imposes on a child's ability to learn or is a safety or security issue, they could be banned," the spokesman said.

The new school guidelines come after a British girl lost a legal battle a year ago to be allowed to wear full Islamic dress in school.

Shabina Begum's case was likened to a row in France triggered by a ban on Muslim headscarves in state schools.

Some Muslim groups accuse the government of creating an atmosphere of "Islamophobia".

The DFES said its guidance will recommend teachers take into account the religious requirements of some pupils to wear items such as a turban.

Referring to the niqab, he said: "Some teachers say it is difficult to read a child's expression or understand what is being said."

"It's not only in England, you have Muslim countries around the world which do impose the same requirements."

In February, the trial of six men accused of plotting suicide bombings in London on July 21, 2005, was told by prosecutors one of the suspects had escaped disguised as a woman in a burqa after the failed attacks.

---

Car company must pay up for scarf ban

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Car-company-must-pay-up-for-scarf-ban/2007/06/03/1180809306818.html

A United States federal jury in Phoenix has ruled a car rental company must pay a Muslim woman $US288,000 ($A348,500) after firing her for wearing a head scarf during the holy month of Ramadan.

Bilan Nur was fired by Alamo Rent A Car just four months after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. She had worked at the company's Phoenix offices since 1999.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Muslim-headscarf-out-of-school-photo/2007/06/04/1180809419335.html

A Victorian Muslim schoolgirl had her traditional headscarf airbrushed from a class photograph in just one example of the discrimination Islamic students face, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.

While the majority of Victorian schools support students who wear the headwear, some teachers needed more understanding of Islam, the inquiry into Dress Codes and School Uniforms heard on Monday.

The Islamic Council of Victoria is urging the inquiry to continue to allow Muslim students to wear traditional religious items as a "fundamental right" to freedom of religious observance.

Council executive committee member Sherene Hassan told the inquiry one Victorian student was told she would not be admitted to school if she wore her hijab.

Ms Hassan said she believed it was reasonable for a school to demand headscarves match the uniform.

---

German teachers' head scarf ban 'upheld'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/German-teachers-head-scarf-ban-upheld/2007/06/06/1181084317018.html

A court upheld a German state's ban on teachers wearing the Muslim head scarf in public schools, rejecting a woman's appeal against a decision not to employ her.

The 28-year-old plaintiff had argued that the state's law was discriminatory and violated her religious freedom.

However, the administrative court in Duesseldorf said regional law did not allow for religious statements that might infringe on the state's neutrality toward students and parents. Presiding judge Kurt Buechel argued that wearing a head scarf does to some extent constitute an expression of religious conviction.

---

'Purity ring' schoolgirl in High Court

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/purity-ring-schoolgirl-in-high-court/2007/06/22/1182019365967.html

A teenage schoolgirl will appeal to the High Court to overturn a ban on her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolise her decision to abstain from sex before marriage.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, from West Sussex, says the silver ring is an expression of her faith and should be exempt from the school's rules on wearing jewellery.

"It is really important to me because in the Bible it says we should do this," she told BBC radio. "Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22152791-23109,00.html

INSURGENTS dressed as women have killed at least three soldiers in an attack on an Iraqi army checkpoint west of the northern oil hub of Kirkuk today, security officials said.

Fighting began when several gunmen wearing Saudi-style black veils opened fire on the checkpoint, killing three soldiers and wounding a fourth, Captain Mohammed Abdullah said.

In the gunbattle that ensued the soldiers killed and wounded several of the attackers, destroying three cars and seizing another, he said, but without specifying how many militants were killed or wounded.

The soldiers then raided a nearby village, capturing 14 alleged militants connected to the attack. In a separate raid in another village west of Kirkuk the army captured four alleged al-Qaeda insurgents.

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 2:56pm:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22152791-23109,00.html INSURGENTS dressed as women have killed at least three soldiers in an attack on an Iraqi army checkpoint west of the northern oil hub of Kirkuk today, security officials said. Fighting began when several gunmen wearing Saudi-style black veils opened fire on the checkpoint, killing three soldiers and wounding a fourth, Captain Mohammed Abdullah said. In the gunbattle that ensued the soldiers killed and wounded several of the attackers, destroying three cars and seizing another, he said, but without specifying how many militants were killed or wounded. The soldiers then raided a nearby village, capturing 14 alleged militants connected to the attack. In a separate raid in another village west of Kirkuk the army captured four alleged al-Qaeda insurgents.

See what i mean! it could (will) happen here very easily.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Turkish-PM-wants-to-lift-headscarf-ban/2007/09/19/1189881589525.html

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted in the Financial Times on Wednesday as saying he wanted to lift the ban on the Islamic headscarf in universities as part of a planned constitutional overhaul.

The remarks by Erdogan, whose Islamist-rooted AK Party won a new five-year mandate in July elections, could reignite tensions with Turkey's powerful secular elite, including army generals, which suspects him of wanting to boost the role of religion.

"The right to higher education cannot be restricted because of what a girl wears. There is no such problem in Western societies but there is a problem in Turkey and I believe it is the first duty of those in politics to solve the problem," he told the FT in an interview in Ankara.

The secularists regard the headscarf as a symbolic threat to Turkey's separation of state and religion. They also fear any lifting of the ban would put social pressure on uncovered women to start wearing the headscarf in overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey.

But the AK Party says it is a question of freedom of expression and notes that the garment was only banned from university campuses in 1982 after a military coup.

Erdogan's government has pledged to replace Turkey's military-era constitution with a new charter that puts the focus on individual rights and freedoms and is more in line with the requirements of the European Union, which Ankara aims to join.

---

Govt has no plans to ban Muslim scarfs

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/govt-has-no-plans-to-ban-muslim-scarfs/2007/10/14/1192300585199.html

The federal government says it has no plans to ban the wearing of Islamic scarfs at Australian airports.

News Ltd papers reported on Sunday Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' office was considering prohibiting Muslim air travellers from wearing the hijab, burqa and other types of concealing scarfs, for security reasons.

---

Sikh students allowed to carry knives

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sikh-students-allowed-to-carry-knives/2007/12/06/1196812855186.html

Some students in Victoria could be allowed to carry small knives to school for religious reasons.

Sikh students would be allowed to carry small ornamental daggers under a plan that has outraged teachers and principals, News Ltd newspapers reported.

A Victorian parliamentary committee has also given the green light for Muslim students to wear hijabs in the state's classrooms.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Mullah-not-sorry-for-cameramans-death/2007/11/13/1194766613921.html

The former leader of the terrorist group responsible for the suicide bombing that killed an Australian cameraman in Iraq in 2003 is unapologetic about his death.

Paul Moran, a freelance cameraman, was in the Kurdish region covering the opening days of the Iraq war for the ABC when a blast killed him and at least five Kurdish soldiers.

Dozens more, including ABC journalist Eric Campbell, were wounded.

The suicide bomber belonged to Ansar al Islam, a Sunni Muslim group listed as affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Najmaddin Faraj Ahmad, the Kurdish Iraqi better known as Mullah Krekar, had by that time allegedly relinquished control of Ansar and fled to Norway as a refugee.

Krekar told ABC TV's Foreign Correspondent the suicide bomber's target was the Kurdish soldiers and not the film crew.

But he showed little remorse that Mr Moran was among the dead.

"How (would the bomber) know that this man is Australian - and is photographer only - and know he is innocent?" Krekar told Foreign Correspondent in Norway.

"(The bomber) came to kill this line, which is the military line, he cannot choose to stop, oh your friends ... who are with the other soldiers.

"I think it is, like you say, Muslims not say this, wrong time ... wrong work in the wrong time," he added with a smile.

What is norway doing in harbouring a terrorist ?
He should be assassinated/deported to meet justice.  He is hiding out in norway

There has been a lot of discussion on OzPolitic about whether Islam is inherently violent, but what about their treatment of women? Is that from the Koran, or is it just a cultural thing, as it was in Europe for a long time? I have seen a few TV shows about feminist movements that claim (with support from clerics) that it is a cultural development that has no justification in the Koran.

A nice article I found about this:


Quote:

Islam Respects Women as Equals The Myth:   The Qur’an places men and women on equal foundation before Allah.  Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds.  Women have equal rights under Islamic law. The Truth: Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards.  In fact, Sura 37:22-23 implies that women will be punished on Judgment Day for sins committed by their husbands. There is no ambiguity in the Qur’an, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men, despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation. After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men.  In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands.  Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers.  There are at least three Qur’anic verses in which Allah makes it clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape. The Qur’an gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience.  It plainly says that husbands are “a degree above” wives.  The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants. Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at the drop of a hat.  If he wishes to remarry her, then she must first have sex with another man.  Men are exempt from such degradations. Muslim women are not free to marry whomever they please, as are Muslim men.  Their husband may bring other wives into the marriage bed.  She must be sexually available to him at all times (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam). Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portions to males.  Their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s.  Unlike a man, she must cover her head and often her face. If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then there must be four male witnesses to corroborate her account.  Otherwise she will be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.” Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons.  This is an entirely new stratagem that is designed to appeal to modern tastes, but is in sharp disagreement with the reality of Islamic law and history.

8-) Need I say more?