http://au.news.yahoo.com//080527/2/170zo.html
Tuesday May 27, 07:39 PM
NSW council votes against Islamic school
A south-west Sydney council has voted unanimously to reject a controversial proposal to build a 1,200-student Islamic school.

Camden Council voted against the proposal, following an adverse ruling in a report by council planners last week.

Mayor Chris Patterson said the decision was based on concerns surrounding the impact on traffic flows, loss of agricultural land, but not on religious grounds.

"It is a site issue, clearly a site issue ... we said all along religious issues, nationalistic issues, will not be entered into," Mr Patterson told AAP after the decision.

The Qu'uranic Society - were "absolutely" encouraged to resubmit their plan if they could identify a different site within Camden.

"We would welcome them to find an appropriate site. I'm all for choice of educational facilities," he said.

A crowd of more than 200 residents attended tonight's meeting in Camden amid heightened security.

The vote was the first item on the agenda and took place just after 6pm (AEST). The decision was greeted with applause from the crowd.

The council took the unusual step of holding a press conference straight after the decision to explain its actions, before resuming its normal meeting.

The community has been bitterly divided over the proposal since the Qu'uranic Society Dar Tahfez El-Quran lodged its plan for the 1,200-student school with Camden Council last year, sparking tension in the community.

The development has been the subject of heated town meetings and a protest rally involving up to 1,000 people.

Tensions reached a climax in November when two pigs heads were rammed on metal stakes with an Australian flag draped between them at the school's proposed site.

During community consultation over the proposed school, the council received more than 3,000 submissions about the school from local residents, with only 50 in favour of the development.

A council planner's report last week recommended against the development, but the final decision was left to a vote of the council tonight.

"The report was very clear (raising issues) from traffic concerns as to an increase in movements and the inability of the road to be able to cope with those movements," Mr Patterson said tonight of the planners' concerns.

"The Department of Primary Industries ... rejected it on the grounds of losing valuable primary industry lands. The RTA had grave concerns in relation to traffic. The police had grave concerns.

"The applicant, if they feel council has not made the right decision, they have every ability (to appeal) in the land and environment court, which is their prerogative."

The Qu'uranic Society was not represented at tonight's meeting.

It is understood the group, which spent $1.5 million on the land and $250,000 on the development application, is planning an appeal.

The group also could not rule out selling the land, ABC Television reported tonight.

Much as I dislike religious schooling of any kind, I think this was a case of mob rule thinly disguised as planning considerations.

Good on them I say, I continue to believe that most of the people on this web site have little contact will our Islamic friends, that was obvious on another thread. I understand it may be hard for people with an affiliation with an ethnic group to understand that people want to protect what they know, after all people who immigrate have forsaken their homeland, if their place was no good, why try to turn Australia into the very thing they turned their backs on.

if their place was no good, why try to turn Australia into the very thing they turned their backs on.

That's not what they are trying to do. No immigrant tries to recreate everything about their homeland. No immigrant rejects every single aspect of their homeland either. British immigrants are still using inappropriate crops and stock for this country. That doesn't mean they reject nothing about England and want to turn Sydney into London.

Let each idea be judged on it's merit, not which country it came from.

Thats comparing chalk and cheese, Australia is already Anglosized. England and Australia have a connection already. How far is the nearest Mosque or Islamic school from your house, not in the same post code I rekon.

So if we do it to a large extent, it is OK, but if someone else does it to a much smaller extent, it's not?

Like I said, you probably bought a kabab one day and now your an expert on people you hardly know. I know them and frankly dont want to know any more.

The same thing gets said about any group people want to justify discrimination against. It boils down to a double standard. You expect them to be nice to you while you make no effort to disguise your contempt for them.

I dont expect anything from them, they can F#@K right off for all I care. Until you have a someone you know killed like by these dicks, then you have no right to comment.

I have every right to comment. Knowing someone who was killed doesn't really give you any more perspective on the issue - most likely far less.

Until 7 years ago I didnt know any Islamic people, I moved to a mostly Middle Eastern part of Melbourne for work. I formed an opinion pretty fast, it was not a good one. People cry and moan about the loss of indiginous cultures throughout the world, yet at the same time a willing to through away our heritage and culture, so their bleeding hearts feel better, so they can sit and chat over a latte with their bohemian friends.

If there was a genuine problem, our culture would be the last thing that gets lost. To compare it with the loss of indigenous cultures, which is actually happening, is absurd. We are changing our own culture far faster than any 'outside' influence could achieve. Try putting it in terms of something that actually matters. Muslims setting up an Islamic school is not an attack on our culture. You don't have to send your kids to it.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 6:55pm:

Muslims setting up an Islamic school is not an attack on our culture. You don't have to send your kids to it.

Ok Freediver. Now, Camden only has 150 muslim families there and not all of them have kids.
Now, would some of those 150 muslim families who do have kids amount to 1500?
No. and if they did it would reinforce my theory of Muslims breeding like rabbits which is way too fast for our dry continent to handle and our culture to survive.
Building an expensive school like this for 1500 children when there is no where near that number in the Camden shire is a stupid and irresponsible decision wouldnt you say?
Here is the single plain as day fact:
The school is supposed to be built to move more muslims into the Camden region. ITS AN INVASION freediver plain and simple.
Just like here in the area i live.
15 years ago in my little suburb here there were a very tiny number of muslims. there were only about 5 in my high school.
Then, just on the outskirts of my ex semi rural town a college was built ''Sule College'' and all of the sudden, 100's of muslims turned up in droves into the area to settle. I guess the Sule College was not large enough for all of them as a good 500 lebs and other muslims turned up at my school, amounting to one quarter of the schools ethnic make up of 2000 children/teenagers.
Since then, crime has risen dramatically as well as graffiti, loud 'fully sic'' cars and roaming gangs.
The police are now almost a constant presence who were once scarce.
Our peaceful quiet outer suburb has become a loud dirty place where you can no longer walk the street at night safely.
I forsee the same fate for Camden.
Do you see the similarity here?
That is why im fighting for Camden as this is purely an invasion without a doubt.
I was at the protests, next you will see me out the front of the court house in Sydney when the Qu'uarinc society fights the rightfully made decision.

---

The people of Camden are saying, there are no Muslims here at this stage, so why build a school unless there is going to be a large influx of people to fill that school. The council did also say that the area is not appropriate for any school of any kind but that seems to have slipped by the people who dont want to hear.

Why is it inappropriate? Surely that's a matter for the school to decide. It's not like it's a factory or something.

The area chosen has no infrastructure or utilities and no public hospital to service the area, at this stage.

Good on you Mr Burns.
I heard what the muslim leader there said of the decision.
in my words he said "Sooner or later australians will have to accept the reality of islamic schools ."

shows his arrogance.
I got two words for him, one is "off"

It is easy for me to oppose this project, because I oppose all religious schools.

I find it totally repugnant that children are indoctrinated with religious fantasy, and do not believe that a cent of public money should go to aid them in their brainwashing of children to accept ludicrous religious beliefs.

When they are adults they should be allowed to make up their own minds.

To all who believe in their own version of god, whilst denying the validity of peoples' beliefs in other gods, I say you are on the right track.
You have identified all but one belief system as incorrect.
Now you just have one more to go.

In there a whole heap of housing development going into this area? that makes it a perfect spot for a private school. Lack of infrastructure like schools is a bog problem with big new estates.

[edit]
freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:

Is there a whole heap of housing development going into this area? that makes it a perfect spot for a private school. Lack of infrastructure like schools is a big problem with big new estates.

[/edit]

Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town.
Its Expansion Freediver.
A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed.

but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town

Ah, so the real reason comes out. Nothing do with with whether a school is appropriate, it's about Islam again.

'Not in my backyard'

They don't need a 'mandate'. As Australian citizens they can choose where they live and choose to build a school for their children.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 1:56pm:

but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town Quote: Ah, so the real reason comes out. Nothing do with with whether a school is appropriate, it's about Islam again. That is my understanding. The ''official'' stance is lack of infrastructure and this is true also, but most of all its the Qu'uaranic society's sticky hairy fingers trying to snatch away some more valuable land from its 'original' occupants. [quote]'Not in my backyard'

Yeah Im a fan of NIMBYism in most cases.


Quote:

They don't need a 'mandate'. As Australian citizens they can choose where they live and choose to build a school for their children.

Thats just a title they hold. nothing more. As far as Muslims are concerned, they are their own people, culture, religion, nation and law apon to themselves and will not listen to the infidel.
They are merely paying lip service to our western laws at the moment until they hold enough ground and political power to introduce and enforce their own system of sharia law apon us infidels.
Look at England now for example. The Muslims are that close to obtaining their dream even though they are still a minority.
One thing they are better than us at is forming lobby groups, and this is their main tool to push their agenda on everyone else.

If the majority of people in Cambden dont want the school then thats their choice, not yours, its called Democracy.

lapaz62 wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 5:46pm:

If the majority of people in Cambden dont want the school then thats their choice, not yours, its called Democracy.

Exactly right. But the Qu'uranic society seems to think otherwise.
To Quote the society's president Fouad Chami ''We will get our school built here whether they like it or not''

Typical Middle Eastern attitude. Do as we say or die. >:(

And lets keep an eye on Jeremy Bingham who rules the Land and Environment court, the one bastard who can overturn the councils decision.
If he succeeds in turning over the decision, my friends, we are not living in a democracy where the people rule but a dictatorship where the minority rules just like ive always said.  

Your right, the vocal minority has always had a strong lobby and a lot of it is our fault and the media. We should do more than we do, but as soon as someone does make a stand the media shoots them down. Nobody really knows who pays their bills.

lapaz62 wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 8:29pm:

Your right, the vocal minority has always had a strong lobby and a lot of it is our fault and the media.

Yes it is our fault. for the past two or three decades the media has been using scare tactics and naming and shaming anyone who speaks out against the destructive governments.
We as a people were too stupid and chicken to stand up to this tightening noose in its infancy so now we are suffering the consequences.
History has shown that charity and having open borders with foreign peoples will be the downfall for any society, thus we are doomed.


Quote:

We should do more than we do,

Join the Australia First Party.
http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au


Quote:

but as soon as someone does make a stand the media shoots them down.

True, but thats all up to our resolve not to be knocked down.


Quote:

Nobody really knows who pays their bills.

I have a pretty bloody good idea who.

mozzaok wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 9:42am:

It is easy for me to oppose this project, because I oppose all religious schools. I find it totally repugnant that children are indoctrinated with religious fantasy, and do not believe that a cent of public money should go to aid them in their brainwashing of children to accept ludicrous religious beliefs.

The problem is that too many Australians equate religion with ethical and moral values. They think that society needs more fundamental values and the only way you can do that is to give them a dose of good old fashioned religion.

Of course you can choose the particular flavour of religion that you prefer for little Johnny, whether it's sexually frustrated perverts with a penchant for choirboys, sadomasochistic 'sisters', frustrated terrorists or at the very least, religious bigots who have total disdain for the views of people even slightly different to themselves.  

Sure, they'll provide moral 'roots' for society.

DILLIGAF wrote on May 30^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town. Its Expansion Freediver. A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed.

a peaceful jihad? how can they take the land without bloodshed?

Hi mailk,
thought you had left us.
how has your weekend been?

oh, the answer to that questions pretty easy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 4:16am:

Hi mailk, thought you had left us. how has your weekend been? oh, the answer to that questions pretty easy.

Please do tell.. I'd like you to say it in plain English

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 1:43am:

DILLIGAF wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:52pm: Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town. Its Expansion Freediver. A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed. a peaceful jihad? how can they take the land without bloodshed?

It was an expression Malik.

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 11:47am:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 1:43am: DILLIGAF wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:52pm: Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town. Its Expansion Freediver. A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed. a peaceful jihad? how can they take the land without bloodshed? It was an expression Malik.

Tell me more about why there shouldn't be a Muslim school there.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 3:25pm:

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:47am: Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 1:43am: DILLIGAF wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:52pm: Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town. Its Expansion Freediver. A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed. a peaceful jihad? how can they take the land without bloodshed? It was an expression Malik. Tell me more about why there shouldn't be a Muslim school there.

Before i do that (again), i want you to tell me why there should be one.

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 3:50pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 3:25pm: DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:47am: Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 1:43am: DILLIGAF wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 12:52pm: Thats not the point. Perhaps there is, but this school is designed to give the mandate for Islam to infiltrate and take over that small town. Its Expansion Freediver. A peaceful Jihad waged against the population to take land without bloodshed. a peaceful jihad? how can they take the land without bloodshed? It was an expression Malik. Tell me more about why there shouldn't be a Muslim school there. Before i do that (again), i want you to tell me why there should be one.

Well if there aren't any environmental issues preventing it. then I don't see the problem in having any school there, Islamic or not. It shouldn't matter.

Or do you have a problem with the school being an Islamic one in Camden?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 4:10pm:

Or do you have a problem with the school being an Islamic one in Camden?

I most certainly do.

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 1^st, 2008 at 5:11pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 1st, 2008 at 4:10pm: Or do you have a problem with the school being an Islamic one in Camden? I most certainly do.

Is that because it is an Islamic School? If so, why?

AN (or 'Gerley'), people don't have to justify their actions to you. The fact that they want to build the school is the only justification they need. It seems the Muslims have a better grasp of personal freedom than you do. If you want to impose arbitrary restrictions on a particular religious group, you need to justify it. Not that you will be able to.

I also most certainly have an issue with the school being an islamic one.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 11:33am:

AN (or 'Gerley'), people don't have to justify their actions to you.

And i dont have to justify my statements to you lot either. Malik, if you want to know what i think, look through ALL of my previous posts to see where i stand. I'm not going to repeat myself once more.


Quote:

The fact that they want to build the school is the only justification they need.

Hows that? Camden has a tiny muslim population.
I AND the Camden population clearly do not see the justification.


Quote:

It seems the Muslims have a better grasp of personal freedom than you do.

Of course they do. its called Sharia law. ::)


Quote:

If you want to impose arbitrary restrictions on a particular religious group, you need to justify it. Not that you will be able to.

It can be done on a case by case basis.

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 7:43pm:

Quote: It seems the Muslims have a better grasp of personal freedom than you do. Of course they do. its called Sharia law. ::)

Haha.. That really is funny. If you knew anything about Islam you'd see that Islam provides a greater right to practice one's religion than any other religion, History can also attest to this. You only have to take a look at the history to see that it is an obligation in Islam to protect Christians and Jews from persecution. We have protected the Jews from the Christians and the Christians from the Pagans and Persians.

Heck while the Christians from Europe where in Jerusalem, they were slaughtering the Arab Christians and Jews, it wasn't European Christians fighting and dying to protect them but instead it was the Muslims giving their lives to save the Christians and Jews and their places of worship.

When your friends, the Nazi's were committing genocide against the Jews the Muslims in France were hiding Jewish children in our mosques and smuggling them out of the country to escape the Nazi concentration camps..

It was Muslim diplomats from Turkey that were putting their own lives in danger and standing their ground against the Nazi S.S. who were trying to take Jews from Greece and Turkey to concentration camps. The Turkish government threatened to go to war with Germany because of it.

If you really knew anything about Shariah you'd understand about things like the Madinah Constitution, the first agreement between the Muslims and Jews of Yathrib to protect their rights.

Muslims always trot out the same spin, your not fooling anyone but Freediver.

lapaz62 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2008 at 10:54pm:

Muslims always trot out the same spin, your not fooling anyone but Freediver.

i don't have to fool anyone.. I know the truth, I've lived as a non Muslim and as a Muslim.. I accepted Islam out of my own free will..

You all believe the lies and misconceptions about Islam.. Gullible people indeed

ill be back later, run away malik.

DILLIGAF wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 2:32am:

ill be back later, run away malik.

run away from what? your racist, contradictory and illogical arguments?? You're delusional if you think that I'm somehow feel intimidated by you, I've debated people far more intelligent than yourself and still succeeded. You are only filled with hate and racism..

malik - freedom of religion under islam ???

In saudi it is illegal to have a bible - 2 years jail.
In the koran (as we discussed before) mohammad forced jews to become muslims. I beleive none did. They all preferred to be beheaded.

want me to quote some of the bloodthirsty quotes against non-muslims from the koran??

Sprint, Saudi and Islam are not the same thing. That is the association fallacy - like if someone were to insist that Christianity is defined by the spanish inquisition.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:50am:

malik - freedom of religion under islam ??? In saudi it is illegal to have a bible - 2 years jail. In the koran (as we discussed before) mohammad forced jews to become muslims. I beleive none did. They all preferred to be beheaded. want me to quote some of the bloodthirsty quotes against non-muslims from the koran??

Yeah there is freedom of religion in Islam actually. And Muhammad pbuh didn't force Jews to become Muslims. In fact let's take a look at the parts of the Madina Constitution (which was the agreement between the Muslims and Jews when Madinah became an Islamic State). Lets see those parts which relate to the treatment and rights of the Jews:


*Those Jews who follow the Believers  (ie those who participate and fulfill their duties as citizens will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

*No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

*The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

*The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

*The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

*The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

It was MUSLIMS who fought and died to protect the Jews from the CHRISTIAN Crusader hordes who came into Jerusalem and massacred every Jewish, Christian and Muslims man, woman and child. It was such a brutal massacre that the Crusaders later recounted that the blood of the innocents murdered inside was flowing up to the knees of the horses.  

It was MUSLIMS who fought and died to protect the Jews who fled the rest of Europe to the Islamic State in Spain to live under the protection of Muslims and be treated like citizens because they were persecuted all everywhere else by Christians.  

When the Christians did take back Spain, they forcibly converted all of the Jews in Spain, and those who didn't convert were brutally murdered. Those were the inquisitions.

The fact of the matter is that Christians have far more blood of Jews on their hands than Muslims do.

You know all of these facts, I've stated them before but you keep saying the same things over and over. You WANT to believe these barbaric things about Islam because you are delusional and full of hate. Certainly Jesus pbuh would never have acted like you do with your dishonesty.

I have also mentioned to you many times that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State. They are Wahabi extremists.

this is what mohammad did.
After the war of the trenches he lined up 100's of jews to be beheaded.
(Sound like terrorist behaviour ?)
he had trenches dug in the sdand for the blood.

He "offered" to spare them if they became muslims.
As far as I am aware, none did. They all preferred beheading.
As far as I am aware that is compelling people to a religion (btw, his one).
Something he said should not happen in his own book, the koran.


Sure saudi is not muslims. the very country that has mecca in it and is entirely comprised of muslims.
What about yemin ?


Another question, who wrote the koran?
mohammad was illiterate so could not write.
Who wrote it down on paper?
Who took a pencil and put it to paper ?
Who wrote it ?



.

Sprint, are they the same group who committed treason?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

this is what mohammad did. After the war of the trenches he lined up 100's of jews to be beheaded. (Sound like terrorist behaviour ?) he had trenches dug in the sdand for the blood. He "offered" to spare them if they became muslims. As far as I am aware, none did. They all preferred beheading. As far as I am aware that is compelling people to a religion (btw, his one). Something he said should not happen in his own book, the koran.

Those Jews broke the agreemenst that they came to that created the Constitution of Medina and conspired with the Pagans against the State. That is treason, their doing so was a crime punishable by death. It is the right of any nation to punish treason with the death penalty and history attests to the fact that this tribe committed the treason.

Yes they would have been given the option to convert and be forgiven, simply because in Islam we believe if someone accepts Islam and repents that their previous sins are forgiven and we have no legal right on the battlefield to kill them.

In a previous war the Muslims were fighting the Pagans, and a Muslim was about to kill a pagan soldier in battle when the pagan seeing that he had no way out made a declaration of faith that there is no God but God gbtH and Muhammad pbuh is His messenger. The Muslim soldier killed him anyway. The prophet heard of this and was displeased.. He asked why the soldier killed the pagan and the soldier replied that the Pagan accepted Islam to escape death and so he killed him anyway. The prophet pbuh then said that it is not for us to judge the hearts and intentions of others in this situation, the law states they are forgiven for their sins and their intentions are between them and God.

Thus it would have been inappropriate according to Islamic law to execute the traitors without first giving them the option of accepting Islam first. There is certainly no compulsion there to become Muslim because they weren't executed for being Jewish. They were executed as a punishment for the crime of treason.

If they were executed for being Jewish the Muslims would have done the same with all of the other Jewish tribes in the area, which they didn't.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

Sure saudi is not muslims. the very country that has mecca in it and is entirely comprised of muslims. What about yemin ?

I said Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State, of course it is full of Muslims.. but it certainly isn't following the laws of Islam when it comes to the criteria to be an Islamic State

What about yemen?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

Another question, who wrote the koran? mohammad was illiterate so could not write. Who wrote it down on paper? Who took a pencil and put it to paper ? Who wrote it ?

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh didn't write the Qur'an down. You see the word 'Qur'an' is translated into English to mean 'Recitation'. Muhammad pbuh received the revelation from God and recited those words directly to the people around him. thus we do not hold the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad pbuh, but the words of God told to Muhammad and recited back to us. In many verses of the Qur'an you will see that it starts with the word 'say' where God was telling Muhammad pbuh 'say such and such' etc.

Muhammad pbuh recited the Qur'an to the people and they memorized it and wrote it down which was checked and rechecked. It has not changed since then and even the orientalist's admit that. Even if we were to throw all of the Qur'an's in the sea we could reproduce it because around the world there are millions of people who know the Qur'an off by heart.. They are called Hafiz ul Qur'an.

malik - the details on a peace treaty are beside the point.
We disagree entirely on that anyway.
Just answer the question please
did mohammad offer them to not be beheaded and their blood not gush into the full trenches in return for them becoming muslims?
yes or no.

what difference did it make on their (suposed ) crime or treason

one question at a time, as you are hesitant to answer directly.

YES or NO ?

stay a jew and be beheaded --------> NO
become a muslim and live ----> YES

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

malik - the details on a peace treaty are beside the point. We disagree entirely on that anyway. Just answer the question please did mohammad offer them to not be beheaded and their blood not gush into the full trenches in return for them becoming muslims? yes or no. what difference did it make on their (suposed ) crime or treason one question at a time, as you are hesitant to answer directly. YES or NO ? stay a jew and be beheaded --------> NO become a muslim and live ----> YES

First of all. It was not simply a treaty, it was the Constitution of Medina. It was an agreement between all of the tribes and religions in Medina on the expectations of each other. The tribes all agreed on these laws, even the Jewish ones.

The funny thing is that before Medina was an Islamic State, the Banu Qurayza which were the Jewish tribe that committed treason were treated like dirt by the other Jewish tribes in the area, Muhammad pbuh granted them a higher status and made it law that they are given the same full rights that the other Jewish tribes were. And the repayment the State got for their trying to bring this tribe to a better position was treason.

Treason has everything to do with it, because no matter what the religion of the Banu Qurayza was, they still committed treason which was punishable by death. It is only because of our duty to God as Muslims to allow mercy in case someone accepts Islam that obligates us to ask first if they want to accept Islam or not.

The Banu Qurayza conspired with the pagans against the Muslims, it almost cost the Muslims and other inhabitants of Medina the entire city. It is called the Battle of The Trench because the Muslims dug a giant trench around the city to prevent the Pagans from gaining entry. It was the final stand of the Pagan forces and they brought an army of more than 10,000 to raid Medina.

Forcing people to accept religion is what the Christians did to hundreds of millions of non Christians all over the world. The only difference was that in many cases, they made the people Christian and then still massacred them on top of it. They forced them to become Christian even though the people had committed no offence. Whereas the Muslims allowed the Jews to practice their religion and be protected with full rights of a citizen without being treated like dirt as Christians have historically treated them.

You say you disagree on the "treaty", but you haven't provided any facts to back up your position.. I have given you historical evidence.. You have continuously posted up the same garbage every time even though I have explained it. So I am now wondering considering that I have explained it correctly and in detail, you either are intentionally ignoring the facts on the issue to get your agenda across, or your logic and reasoning abilities have been compromised with all the hate you carry and can only see your argument.. Either way you are making yourself look like a fool because at the end of the day it is clear I have clarified these issues for you.

Yes or No  ?

my records are significantly different to yours, so I won't let you divert the topic here


yes or no ?
mohammad said, "become muslims or get beheaded?" to imprisoned jews.

and this is the guy you say phub after ??

I say gfyc

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 1:25am:

Yes or No  ? my records are significantly different to yours, so I won't let you divert the topic here yes or no ? mohammad said, "become muslims or get beheaded?" to imprisoned jews.

paste your records mate.. it sounds to me you've got your sources from websites that are anti islam and you are simply believing them without checking your facts, that truly shows your character very clearly. Are you disputing any of the facts I've given you? if so tell me which ones and provide evidence so that I can clarify.

The fact is that the Banu Qurayza committed treason (proper western history books will attest to this), thus were sentenced to death . That is the judicial process of the State. It was only through the mercy of God that they were offered such a reprieve, truly their actions in conspiring with the Pagans could have cost the cities inhabitants both Jewish and Muslim their lives.

They were not executed for being Jews but for breaking the laws of the State. Thus they were not compelled to accept Islam, their death sentence was separate from their religion and would have applied to any religious group including Muslims. Although had it applied to a Muslim they'd not be able to reaccept Islam and instead would just be put to death.

yes or no ?

mohammad said, become a muslim or die now ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 1:58am:

yes or no ? mohammad said, become a muslim or die now ?

No, First they were judged guilty by the Chief of the Banu Aws, who was previously a JEWISH judge. His appointment to judge on the matter was accepted by the Banu Qurayza and other Jewish tribes and also accepted by the Muslims, the judge ruled that according to JEWISH law these men should be put to death for their treason.

After that the men of the Banu Qurayza were brought out and executed. Before doing so the Prophet pbuh interceded to first give them some chance to keep their lives, as was his obligation and offered that if they accepted Islam, then they would not be bound by Jewish law any longer and as any other religion, once accepting Islam would be considered reborn when it comes to one's sin and would start off on a fresh slate.

In Islam the Christians and Jews were judged according to their own laws and not according to Islamic Shariah. Thus was the demise of the Banu Qurayza. By their own hands, their act of treason was punished.

Stop trying to make it look like that Muhammad had them killed for no reason and that he forced them to become Muslim, the fact lies that they committed the crimes thus deserve the punishment. Any reprieve offered by Muhammad was a blessing of which they refused. They were NOT killed for being Jewish, That has been what Christians have done to Jews in the past, not what Muslims have done.

As far as I am aware that is compelling people to a religion

No it isn't sprint. The had they option to remain jewish and if they chose it, which they did, they would not have been worse off. The beheading was for treason, not for being jewish. Attaching conditions to clemency is not the same thing as compelling people to take up a religion.

You cannot expect Malik to take your question seriously when to do so requires him to accept an assumption he does not share. The real issue is whether the punishment for treason was just, not whether a conditional pardon is unfair.

By taking what was said out of context, you are changing it's meaning.

Well if you are not guilty by association, which country do you come from Mr Malik, what little gem of a democracy do you come from.

malik - my records of that war are vastly different ot yours, obviously.
The winner writes the records.

lets stick to the point.
if they stayed jews, it was beheading by muslims.
If they became muslims, they lived.

Certainy makes no difference on their ALLEGED treason.
whether they be jews, muslims or pirates.

lapaz62 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 8:46pm:

Well if you are not guilty by association, which country do you come from Mr Malik, what little gem of a democracy do you come from.

I was born and raised in Australia and still am here..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 8:55pm:

malik - my records of that war are vastly different ot yours, obviously. The winner writes the records. lets stick to the point. if they stayed jews, it was beheading by muslims. If they became muslims, they lived. Certainy makes no difference on their ALLEGED treason. whether they be jews, muslims or pirates.

so show me your 'records' sprint.. i've asked for it before and you refuse to show me.. that is a bit suss..

freediver made it completely clear to you and you know thats the case, the problem is you don't like islam so you try and portray islam another way..

I'm interested in these records also. It's absurd to simply 'agree to disagree' on a question of historical fact. Do you have records, or are you just assuming the Muslims did something wrong?

I

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:52pm:

this is what mohammad did. After the war of the trenches he lined up 100's of jews to be beheaded. (Sound like terrorist behaviour ?)

It sounds like common practice for the era. The Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne ordered 4500 Saxon rebels to be executed in one morning for refusing to convert to Christianity. That was around 782 from memory, about 150 years after this deed.

Then there were the Crusades. In one battle alone - the Battle of Askalon, 200,000 were slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ".

Nicetas Choniates: "Even the Saracens are merciful and kind compared to these men who bear the cross of Christ on their shoulders".

That was only the beginning. Add to that about the 2 million who died  as a result of the Spanish Inquisition, nearly 9 million witches that were executed through the ages... So much for freedom of religion.

Do you really want to 'cast the first stone" Sprint?

Its 2008, I would hope people are a lttle more educated, in the west, anyway.

feel free to answer the quetion malik.

if the jews became muslims, they would not be beheaded and their blood fill the trenches ?
But none did.
Is that a compulsion to a religion ?
That which mohammad said did not exist ?

or is this where abrogation comes in?

feel free anyone to open a thread about queries re christians.
I'm happy to honestly answer.
malik is unwilling to answer this question repeatedly put to him.

AND ALL MARRIED WOMAN ARE FORBIDDEN UNTO YOU, EXPCEPT THOSE CAPTIVES THAT YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESES. IN REFERENCE TO THE JEWISH WOMAN HELD CAPTIVES AS SLAVES IN MEDINA, WHERE MOHAMMAD MURDERED THE JEWS WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD HELPED HIM.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2008 at 11:08pm:

AND ALL MARRIED WOMAN ARE FORBIDDEN UNTO YOU, EXPCEPT THOSE CAPTIVES THAT YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESES. IN REFERENCE TO THE JEWISH WOMAN HELD CAPTIVES AS SLAVES IN MEDINA, WHERE MOHAMMAD MURDERED THE JEWS WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD HELPED HIM.

They were treated according to their own laws. Let's examine Jewish law in this situation. The Banu Qurayza conspired against the Islamic State with the Pagans and fought against the state. They committed treason and engaged in battle against the Muslims. Jewish Law dictates the following:

Deutronomy 20:10-15

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Those Jews were dealt with according to their own laws. The difference is that Muhammad pbuh offered to spare the lives of any people who converted because by accepting Islam they would be free from sin and not liable to Jewish law.

Say what you want about that, but they were certainly not compelled to become Muslim. They committed a crime and were punished for it.

PS.

SNAP! CHECKMATE!

Thats fantastic, that means that Israel and America can do as they please with Palistine, Iraq and Afghanistan, great news.

Oh! and Cambden

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 12:29am:

Thats fantastic, that means that Israel and America can do as they please with Palistine, Iraq and Afghanistan, great news.

Yeah and for some time you will.. but your lack of honour and nobility will mean that just like during the crusades a leader will come and unite us again and we will send the hordes of your savages back to their lands with their tales between their legs inshaALLAH..

Still no answer from malik.

Is this the 4th time I have asked ??

jfk knows the history of the trenches that I also know.
if you want to discuss it malik, open another thread.
On this one I want an answer.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 8:11am:

Still no answer from malik. Is this the 4th time I have asked ?? jfk knows the history of the trenches that I also know. if you want to discuss it malik, open another thread. On this one I want an answer.

JFK knows the same history? is that the same history you refuse to put up on the forum? you're so willing to put anything up normally that you think might help you but in this case you refuse too.. thats not normal and leads me to believe that you're either full of crap and you have nothing.. or that you have gotten your information from a source which is an anti islam site which no doubt cannot be trusted..

i've answered your question several times, they weren't compelled as the offer of amnesty should they accept islam came after the fact that they were judged guilty according their own laws of treason and given the penalty of all of the men being executed and the women being taken captive..

you either don't understand that and are really not intelligent enough to be on this forum or you DO understand that and your intentionally trying to make it look like i havent answered the question.

either way you are really looking like a troll

thanks for an insult on my intelligence.

no, you have not answered my query directly.
As i said before, feel free to start a thread on the trench treachery.
I prefer to keep threads to one topic, for claritys sake.


How come they were not compelled to a religion when you agree the deal was "become a muslim or be beheaded." ?
Sounds quite compelling to me.

has got nothing at all to do with their alleged actions.

have a good weekend malik

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 10:21am:

thanks for an insult on my intelligence. no, you have not answered my query directly. As i said before, feel free to start a thread on the trench treachery. I prefer to keep threads to one topic, for claritys sake. How come they were not compelled to a religion when you agree the deal was "become a muslim or be beheaded." ? Sounds quite compelling to me. has got nothing at all to do with their alleged actions. have a good weekend malik

you're the one who's brought the subject off topic.. i proved u wrong by showing you JEWISH law where the punishment given to the banu qurayza was appropriate and now your saying start another thread? lol..

you insult your own intelligence by asking the same question over and over again when i have provided a completely appropriate explanation. they were not compelled to accept islam or receive the death penalty because before their treachery they lived peacefully in the islamic state with no pressure to convert whatsoever. thus the death penalty applied to their crimes.. the offer of amnesty if they accepted islam is something which they were lucky to have.. otherwise they would all have just been put to the sword like their law states.. if you have a problem with that, then go blame the jewish law itself..

the fact remains that had they not committed the crime, they wouldnt be executed.. thus it is very clear that islam doesnt compel people to become muslims or give them death as without the crime theyd have survived and still been jews..

if it was compulsion then surely they'd have been put in that position when the muslims first came.

if you want to compare that to the christians behaviour over time where they have forcibly converted jews to christianity and if they refused killed them simply because they were jews.. that is compulsion..

No, you have not proved me wrong.
yes, I have repeated my query as you have not answered it.
No, I  have not personally insulted you.  
Indeed the calls would be deafening if I had.

Of course they were compelled to be muslims.
That was the deal. "be a muslim or be beheaded."
mohammad did not follow the rules he invented.
That is what you are avoiding.

start a new thread on the trench treachery if you want.
it'ld be nice if you answered my questions.

wow, did this get off topic.

i clicked on this topic thinking i'm going to read about the camden school, but instead i find this argument over compulsion in religion and the jews and muslims. it's an interesting read.

but here's my take on it.

there's an easy way to settle this, and whether malik or sprintcyclist is right. and that's finding out when the execution of the jews took place.

was it immediately when the muslims came into power? or was it after the jews committed the treason?

if it occured when the muslims first came into power, then it would be compulsion in religion.

but if it occurred after the treason, then it would be a case of the treason being the reason for the execution, not for them being jewish. so if they were executed for being jews, then why did the jews and muslims live together for a period of time with no problems?

Off Topic alright.
We seem to have our own little version of the crusades going on in here.

Trust religion to spread the love. ::)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 11:33am:

No, you have not proved me wrong. yes, I have repeated my query as you have not answered it. No, I  have not personally insulted you.   Indeed the calls would be deafening if I had. Of course they were compelled to be muslims. That was the deal. "be a muslim or be beheaded." mohammad did not follow the rules he invented. That is what you are avoiding. start a new thread on the trench treachery if you want. it'ld be nice if you answered my questions.

they were given that option. i agree.. but that is not compelling someone to become muslim because they were free to practice their religion under the protection of the islamic state and if they had not committed the crime theyd have been able to continue on life as jews with no harm coming to them.

the quranic ayat your referring to regarding compulsion of religion being forbidden was not broken because it refers to going to a people of another religion and forcing them to accept islam and not accepting their right to live safely and freely practicing their own religion. this was not the case with the banu qurayza because they were able to practice their religion safely under the islamic state. they were sentenced to death for treason and not for being jewish.

if they were sentenced to death for being jewish and given the option of accepting islam to save themselves that would be compelling them according to the ayat you are referring to. i believe that was the 'christian' way of conversion throughout history.

thus the answer is no, according to the verse revealed they were not compelled as if they had not committed the crime of treason they'd have lived on happily being jews.

i don't know how much clearer i can make that for you..

hahahah - they were given the option of being beheded or being a muslim.
But that is not compelling ???????
What IS compelling then ????????



there was no islamic state when mohammad was alive.
Remember, he invented it.
So he was the new boy on the block amongst tribes of jews who had lived together for 100's of years.


too scared to start a trench treachery thread ??

It does seem pretty disingenuous of people to pretend not to understand that people react badly, when a vastly alien culture, namely Islamic, wishes to come to their area, and they are then expected to place the needs of that culture, above their own culture.

We see it over and over, and I really wish that we had better planning so that people from different cultures would be encouraged to mix more, rather than set up what turn out to be isolated enclaves, where they can promote a culture transposed from a different society, above ours, and what should be, their own.

With other cultures we saw a generational change between the new migrants, and their kids, who went to the same schools as everyone else, who played sport together, worked and played, and adopted the australian culture, while maintaining a respect and affection for the culture their parents came from..

What we are seeing with muslim communities all over the world, is that they are coming to countries and promoting an isolated, Islamic sub-culture, within the host nation. Most often they are highly derogatory about this culture, of the country which has given them the opportunity to live in it.

To further promote this isolationist stance by sending their kids to Islamic schools will only deepen the divide, and delay the possibility of harmonious integration with the broader community.

Go Malik,

I just think it's great that you turned up on this forum. You're showing a lot of guts and determination in defending your religion, and you're demonstrating that yeah - some Muslims were actually born here. For some it actually goes back a couple of generations. So any talk about a homogeneous Australian culture is pure rot.

You're as Australian as the rest of us, mate. Don't let anyone tell you different.

In my best shonky Latin :

Illegitimi non carborundum

By the way forget the way you were taught about the crusades in History in school. It was a bit like the invasion of Rome by the Goths.

Substitute the Goths for the Crusaders and you get the picture. It was blatant destruction of a great civilisation by a bunch of marauding uncivilized dark age savages.  

The body of knowledge that the Arabs then possessed included astronomy, navigation, metallurgy (they produced the best steel of the era) and chemistry (ever wonder where terms like 'alkali' come from?) . We also owe it to arab civilisation that the works of Ancient Greece survived this period.

Then when we consider the little matter of the burning of the Great Library in Alexandria in the ealier period of Christianity in Europe, we can see only too clearly what a civilizing influence Christianity has been through the ages (not).  

muso wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 2:09pm:

Go Malik, I just think it's great that you turned up on this forum. You're showing a lot of guts and determination in defending your religion, and you're demonstrating that yeah - some Muslims were actually born here. For some it actually goes back a couple of generations. So any talk about a homogeneous Australian culture is pure rot. You're as Australian as the rest of us, mate. Don't let anyone tell you different. In my best shonky Latin : Illegitimi non carborundum By the way forget the way you were taught about the crusades in History in school. It was a bit like the invasion of Rome by the Goths. Substitute the Goths for the Crusaders and you get the picture. It was blatant destruction of a great civilisation by a bunch of marauding uncivilized dark age savages.   The body of knowledge that the Arabs then possessed included astronomy, navigation, metallurgy (they produced the best steel of the era) and chemistry (ever wonder where terms like 'alkali' come from?) . We also owe it to arab civilisation that the works of Ancient Greece survived this period. Then when we consider the little matter of the burning of the Great Library in Alexandria in the ealier period of Christianity in Europe, we can see only too clearly what a civilizing influence Christianity has been through the ages (not).

Fair enough muso, but to make the point about the barbarity of crusading christians, while being totally valid, it does not address the current issue of barbaric Islamist Jihadists, whose behaviour would mimic that of earlier religious barbarians.
The barbarians are at the gate, shall we make them a cup of tea?


Pretending that the muslim population does not get affected by the continual propaganda from these extremists is naive, if not seriously deluded.
When the twin towers fell, thousands, if not, millions of muslims danced in the streets, even those that displayed no overt joy at the massacre, still held a respectful understanding for the jihadists who perpetrated the atrocity.
Unfortunately, Islamism, is a part of Islam, and until they put their foot down and wipe it out, they should not expect to be openly accepted anywhere that is populated by "western scum", whom Islamists wish to murder.

and until they put their foot down and wipe it out, they should not expect to be openly accepted anywhere

So it's guilt by association? You think we should discriminate against all Muslim people until they solve the problem?

Yes.

Expanded to mean on a cultural level, not an individual level.

Why would you wish to create a special place for training people to hate and despise us?

I hear muslims in australia complain about their lack of rights, and I say to them, go to Islamic countries and test out your rights there.
Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, even sexual freedoms, are pretty hard to come by over there, with a state of continual insecurity about what someone may say about you to get you stoned(and not 'stoned' in a good way!

How did the Middle East fair after the Crusades, not much has progressed has it and by the way, how old was Mohammads wife, liked em young did he.

muso wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 2:09pm:

Go Malik, I just think it's great that you turned up on this forum. You're showing a lot of guts and determination in defending your religion, and you're demonstrating that yeah - some Muslims were actually born here. For some it actually goes back a couple of generations. So any talk about a homogeneous Australian culture is pure rot. You're as Australian as the rest of us, mate. Don't let anyone tell you different.

I agree. Onya Malik!

:)

Why is it that everytime I go away I miss out on the great debates? I have to agree with a lot of Mailk's historical reference re: the Medinah Constitution and his version of the Battle of the Trenches. There are plaenty of historical records (Western documents included) that testify to that event.

And now.... on to the trench treachery thread that FD created.....

;)

Expanded to mean on a cultural level, not an individual level.

But what does that actually mean? You cannot attack a person's culture without attacking a person. You cannot hold a a culture to account. You might as well blame it on the rain.

I hear muslims in australia complain about their lack of rights, and I say to them, go to Islamic countries and test out your rights there.

Why is a Muslim Australian somehow less deserving of rights? That sort of thing is what people came to Australia to escape. It sounds like the Muslims you complain about have a better concept of what it means to be Australian than you do.

Refugees came to escape, not everyone has a sad story to tell. Money is a big drawcard, you think that word hasnt got back about all the government support you get here, of course it has. Europe is a stones through away and so is Asia, there are a lot of choices and a lot of Muslim countries. Why here. Why Camden.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 8:16pm:

Expanded to mean on a cultural level, not an individual level. But what does that actually mean? You cannot attack a person's culture without attacking a person. You cannot hold a a culture to account. You might as well blame it on the rain. I hear muslims in australia complain about their lack of rights, and I say to them, go to Islamic countries and test out your rights there. Why is a Muslim Australian somehow less deserving of rights? That sort of thing is what people came to Australia to escape. It sounds like the Muslims you complain about have a better concept of what it means to be Australian than you do.

What that means is that I always respect all people, unless they give me a reason not to.
I do not confuse individuals and their philosophies, but neither do I separate and apologise for totally unacceptable behaviour.
Islam is an ideology running amok.
Youths decapitating strangers, because they can then
cry out, "I have slaughtered a jew, my place in paradise is assured"

This is not a few miscreants displaying aberrant behaviour, this is a culture tending itself to promoting violent and offensive behaviour toward non-muslims, and it is a significant proportion, who share a common religion with others who have not displayed violence, but by maintaining their silence against it, deliver support and tacit approval.

Islamism, is a real problem, and pretending that people who recognise that are wrong, or racist, or divisive is blaming those who do not believe that wishing for a happy ending, is enough to make it so.

Why here. Why Camden.

Because that's where they choose. It's their choice. It's a free country, remember. Trying to get your new neighbours booted out of the area because you don't like them is pretty unaustralian.

Islam is an ideology running amok.

this is a culture tending itself to promoting violent and offensive behaviour toward non-muslims, and it is a significant proportion, who share a common religion

So which is it? Islamic ideology or a culture among people who just happen to to share the same religion? You seem very keen to find reasons to disrespect people. The actions of people they have nothing at all to do with is hardly a valid reason. You do seem to be doing exactly what you claim not to - confusing individuals and their philosophies.

What that means is that I always respect all people, unless they give me a reason not to.

That's nice. Sort of like saying you're a nice person, unless someone crosses you.

They are idividuals up to a point but the peer pressure is strong, it is impossible to think out side the box when you may end up in one. How also can you not be aware of the massive number of Muslims willing to murder, its not just a few bad apples, its a huge number and Islam is well know to be a religion of the poor and uneducated, you do not see many successful Muslim countries do you.

As Malik stated, Islam is not exactly Monolithic. It's even less so than Christianity. I have met Muslims in Turkey who were very different from your stereotypical views. I won't elaborate, but the women in some parts of Turkey are very liberated (the Adriatic coast). I was younger and more reckless then (and not married).

In Africa, I had a long conversation with a Taxi driver in Conakry (in French). He was Muslim, and his wife was Roman Catholic.  "There isn't much difference between Muslims and Christians" he said. "So were you married by the priest or the Imam? I asked.

His reply - "Only rich people can afford such things"

His marriage, like most in Sub-Saharan Africa was defacto.

If it wasn't for the mosqué schools, most of the people there would be illiterate. It was interesting to see French written in Arabic script :)

No, Islam is not monolithic by any means.

Everyone knows most Turks are very moderate and their not Arabs. Arabs consider Turks to be lesser Muslims.

Back to basics, but first I will reply to FD's statement.


What that means is that I always respect all people, unless they give me a reason not to.(me)

That's nice. Sort of like saying you're a nice person, unless someone crosses you.(FD)

Yes FD, that is exactly what that means.
We, of western cultures, are being crossed by influential elements that are not insignificant in the Islamic culture, to merely hope that if we are nice, and just put up with it, then that will may make them stop plotting and killing, is not a course of action which I give credence to.

I would prefer that they self regulated, I would prefer to not have to worry about where I wish to go, in case my mere presence as a white face would inspire some deluded zealot to kill me. There barbarity has brought us to this point, where people as moderate as myself, say;

"THIS MUST STOP"

To counter, that dialogue around the campfire, and a good old sing song will fix it, ignores the fact that we are dealing with religious fanatics, who are by definition, the most deluded amongst the delusional, reason is not a part of their cognitive process.

People fear what will ensue if separatist Islamic schools pop up in their communities.
They saw how Bashir turned confused adolescents into murdering automatons in his Islamic school, they know that they do not want that in their community, and that is not an irrational fear.

What scares me much more than Islam is the growth of the Happy Clapper evangelicals in Australia. They entice people to join by lavish advertising campaigns funded by 'Good ol Suthn Baptists'' who donate to the worthy cause of ministering to those 'pore gadless Australians' and sometimes have giveaways, such as white goods to donate to the poor gullible repentants.

The problem with Evangelicals is that they usually have no tolerance even for other Christians. They often regard Catholics as servants of Satan.

They have an insidious toehold in Australia, and they already think they own the place. For example, they think it's ok to put up signs saying "God doesn't believe in Atheists" and similar. They obviously have no worthwhile message themselves if all they can do is criticise and vilify those who don't share their extremist beliefs.

At least the Muslims generally keep to themselves. You don't see them going out trying to influence our young people to waste their lives in the pursuit of religion.  

OK I'll accept that the Evangelicals don't actually kill people. Their end result is the living dead (brain dead).

I have to disagree Muso, whilst I share in, or even more probably, exceed, your disdain for the 'born again' lot, I do not see them as a greater threat than Islam.

Mostly they are just delusional enough to have their wallets syphoned off by these religious shysters.

The mind boggling hypocrisy, so transparently fueled by personal greed, is often very humourous entertainment.

"I will HEAL YOU, in the name of GEEEESUSS", never fails to crack me up, as they push some old lady over, it is better than Monty Python.

Mozz, you may have some valid concerns, but it has nothing to do with Australian citizens 'invading' Cambden. You say they are individuals up to a point, but you seem to shift that point around arbitrarily as an excuse to discriminate against fellow citizens.

You seem to miss the point, a Muslim is a Muslim first, above all else, then he has a strong link to his birth country, then he is Australian. Australia is number 3 and always will be. I know Lebonese kids who have never been there and still say they are Lebs, not aussies, unless you change that sort of attitude there will always be a difference between us.

Thank you for your kind words to the members who have expressed support. I really appreciate it and am glad that there are people here who unlike some, are not guided by their hate for Islam but have a true wish to understand what Islam is first.

May God reward you all.

Adz

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

You seem to miss the point, a Muslim is a Muslim first, above all else, then he has a strong link to his birth country, then he is Australian. Australia is number 3 and always will be. I know Lebonese kids who have never been there and still say they are Lebs, not aussies, unless you change that sort of attitude there will always be a difference between us.

This I have to say is not simply a Muslim thing im afraid. It happens with the majority of non Anglo migrants that come to Australia. They face some some initial racism or feel very insecure when they come here and then retract back into ghettos of people from their own ethnic groups and go by their identities of being arab, indian, african etc and not being Australian. It's a very tribalistic attitude and is actually forbidden in Islam. I am proudly Australian, even though my father is from Greece and mother from Turkey and I am of their descent, I certainly am an Australian.

I think the fault here lies with the way people bring up their children and I also have to lay some blame on us in Australian community in general because sadly we are quite racist to groups of people who migrate here. My grandparents got it in the 50's when they arrived from Greece and they are white Christians. Perhaps if we were less racist and more welcoming to migrants they would not retract back into their own community groups and would instead integrate into Australian society more.

In addition to that, you said that we are Muslim first. No doubt that I am Muslim first, but do you know what that means? It means that I hold my religious beliefs being the guiding factor in my life as to how I should act. Those very same beliefs dictate that I should follow the law of the land I reside in and contribute to society in a way beneficial to all. It means that if my government told me to do something wrong, such as kill an innocent person I would not do it as my religion forbids such behaviour and teaches me that it is wrong, so if the law of the land grossly contradicts my religion I would not follow it as a Christian or Jew would also not follow such a law as their religion prevents them from doing so. But instead I would vote for another government and work to the best of my ability to change such a law.

I don't see how that is a bad thing.

You seem to miss the point, a Muslim is a Muslim first, above all else, then he has a strong link to his birth country, then he is Australian.

This is not true to any greater extent than for other religions. Also, Muslim immigrants will have children born in Australia, just like other immigrants. If they had a stronger link to their birth country, they wouldn't have left it. Everyone is an individual with their own priorities. To suggest that all Muslims have the same set of priorities is absurd.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 2:33pm:

You seem to miss the point, a Muslim is a Muslim first, above all else, then he has a strong link to his birth country, then he is Australian. This is not true to any greater extent than for other religions. Also, Muslim immigrants will have children born in Australia, just like other immigrants. If they had a stronger link to their birth country, they wouldn't have left it. Everyone is an individual with their own priorities. To suggest that all Muslims have the same set of priorities is absurd.

Talk about absurd.
To deny their are cultural traits is not being honest at all.
If their were no cultural traits, there would be no recognisable culture.
As I have said before, Muslims choose, at and for their own convenience, whether they wish to be regarded as a culture, a race, or a religion.

Now I will tell you a story.
Back when Iran was not ruled by mad mullahs, many westerners lived, worked and holidayed there.
When the Ayatollah came to power, he whipped up so much hatred towards the west, that good decent people, who had lived amongst muslims peacefully, and amicably for years, were butchered in the frenzied hatred filled mania of religious fervour.
These were not extremists, these were everyday muslims, friends and neighbours only weeks before, now became irrational monsters.

This was not 1400 years ago, this was in my lifetime.
So to deny the palpable hatred for the west that is bubbling just beneath the surface of what would be considered, normal, conservative muslim people, is to deny the realities of what we have witnessed in our own lifetime.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 5:12pm:

Talk about absurd. To deny their are cultural traits is not being honest at all. If their were no cultural traits, there would be no recognisable culture. As I have said before, Muslims choose, at and for their own convenience, whether they wish to be regarded as a culture, a race, or a religion. Now I will tell you a story. Back when Iran was not ruled by mad mullahs, many westerners lived, worked and holidayed there. When the Ayatollah came to power, he whipped up so much hatred towards the west, that good decent people, who had lived amongst muslims peacefully, and amicably for years, were butchered in the frenzied hatred filled mania of religious fervour. These were not extremists, these were everyday muslims, friends and neighbours only weeks before, now became irrational monsters. This was not 1400 years ago, this was in my lifetime. So to deny the palpable hatred for the west that is bubbling just beneath the surface of what would be considered, normal, conservative muslim people, is to deny the realities of what we have witnessed in our own lifetime.

Wow, you know for someone who remembers something in their lifetime you really do have a selective memory.

How did Khomeni manage to get everyone not to like the west? Iran HAD a democratically elected government in the 1950's when the Iranian people elected Mohammed Mossadeq, a western educated man to be president. Mossadeq, on seeing the unfair exploitation of Iran's resources that British Petroleum was conducting nationalised Iran's oil supply so that the people of Iran could benefit out of the sale of their oil instead of the British. In response to that, the MI6 and CIA at the wish of their respective governments supported, instigated and took part in subversive actions in Iran including overthrowing Mossadeq in what was called Operation Ajax. They then installed the Shah of Iran who was certainly not democratic and who's SAVAK forces would brutally repress any opposition to themselves.. Westerners did work and holiday there, they earned huge sums of money and exploited the poor Iranians.

It was then that the Islamic Revolution in Iran took place, it was a popular movement supported by the majority of Iranians and to go further and prove that, a referendum was made as to see whether Iran should be an Islamic State or not and it was chosen by the people that it should indeed be an Islamic State (although not a proper Islamic state in my opinion).

Again, the West interfered in Iran and tried to cause trouble for the Iranian government with more subversive actions and even went as far as to give Saddam Hussein their full military and economic support to attack the Iranians. The Iranians lost hundreds of thousands of young men who fought against the brutal and well equipped Iraqi army which even used chemical weapons against Iranian cities. Iranian students, acting independently from the Iranian government raided the US embassy and took whoever was at the embassy in Tehran hostage and when the Iranian government saw the support of the people for this action they sanctioned it and kept those hostages for 444 days and repelled any American attack to get them out. Eventually the Iranians only released those hostages when the US government  made a promise which was recorded in the Algiers Agreement that: "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." in addition to providing compensation to the Iranians but still have the Iranians under sanctions and they have been under it since 1979.

THAT is why the Iranians grew a distaste for the West and while I don't support the Iranian government's actions in everything they do I completely understand why they wouldn't be happy with the West because even after all of the things the West has done in Iran.

Perhaps if the West didn't interfere as much as they did by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran he Ayatollahs wouldn't have gained so much support and Iran would be a different place now supporting the West (although most Iranians do like the US, they don't like the US government).

I am not here to apologise for US foreign policy, which I would most likely fully agree with you on, in most cases they have behaved deplorably.

The point was that the so called 'normal', meaning not radical or extremist, muslims, were so easily whipped up into a frenzy of extreme violence, and chose to attack all westerners, or anyone perceived as even possibly being less virulent in their hatred of the west, than the extremist mullahs who were stirring them up.

That is the trouble with people whose lives are so deeply rooted in religious fantasy, they surrender their will and reason to their religious masters.

To deny their are cultural traits is not being honest at all.

Strawman. Also, you are confusing culture and religion now. There's no reason why someone cannot be Austraslian by culture and Muslim by religion.

As I have said before, Muslims choose, at and for their own convenience, whether they wish to be regarded as a culture, a race, or a religion.

A person is none of those. Islam is a religion. People choose a religion, are born into a race, and can adopt any culture they want. Likewise a white Australian Christian can describe himself in either way. I'm not sure why you think this is a problem. Christianity does not describe everything about a person, nor does being white, nor does being Australian.

So to deny the palpable hatred for the west that is bubbling just beneath the surface of what would be considered, normal, conservative muslim people.

It bubbles just below the surface of all people, hence the reference to the irrational fear of Muslims 'invading' Cambden. The same principle is behind what is happening here. The fact that you have a half arsed justification does not make it unique. There is always a half arsed justification. It happened in Germany less than a lifetime ago. It has nothing to do with Cambden. It's just a piss poor excuse for discrimination.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

I am not here to apologise for US foreign policy, which I would most likely fully agree with you on, in most cases they have behaved deplorably. The point was that the so called 'normal', meaning not radical or extremist, muslims, were so easily whipped up into a frenzy of extreme violence, and chose to attack all westerners, or anyone perceived as even possibly being less virulent in their hatred of the west, than the extremist mullahs who were stirring them up. That is the trouble with people whose lives are so deeply rooted in religious fantasy, they surrender their will and reason to their religious masters.

oh please.. Iranians are among the nicest people I've ever met they don't hate Westerners, they just don't like the Western governments and intelligence agencies that try and interfere in the internal affairs their country.

Iran has only refused to deal with two countries in the past, Israel because of their occupation of the Palestinians land and oppression of the Palestinians and South Africa during the apartheid because of their racist policies, they have asked for and encouraged having great relations with the US but the US doesn't like the Iranian government because it is independent in it's policy and doesn't take orders from anyone. Iran could have been so helpful to the West against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan because the Iranians don't like the Wahabis, they could also have been very helpful in legitimizing any intervention in Iraq as they can easily influence the Shia population which is 65% of Iraq but the US Government wants what is best for the stooges who are in it and their cronies who support them from the Military Industrial Complex and they don't want to help the people of Iraq or Afghanistan at all but instead want to rape the resources and keep the people in these places oppressed.

If the US sincerely wanted peace in the region and to get rid of terrorism, they would enlist Iran's help and work with the Iranians towards creating some fairness in the Middle East, instead of supporting dictatorships and tyrants like those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc.

Talk about whoosh!
The whole point flew straight through to the keeper.

Malik, when you state;
"oh please.. Iranians are among the nicest people I've ever met they don't hate Westerners....."

That IS THE POINT.
These seemingly normal, moderate, friendly people, turned like snakes onto any westerner in Iraq. Families abandoning everything and fleeing for their lives, lest they be torn apart, limb from limb, by a crazed fanatical mob of these, "normal, friendly" people.
These were not strangers, or extremists, these were their friends and neighbours, whose kids played together only weeks before.
This  uncharacteristic display of violence was  all at the behest of their religious leaders.

Also I notice you did not comment on the post Shah regime's record on human rights abuses.
I am not trying to absolve western countries for their injustices, but neither do I ignore the huge injustices perpetrated in the name of Allah.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 9:50am:

Talk about whoosh! The whole point flew straight through to the keeper. Malik, when you state; "oh please.. Iranians are among the nicest people I've ever met they don't hate Westerners....." That IS THE POINT. These seemingly normal, moderate, friendly people, turned like snakes onto any westerner in Iraq. Families abandoning everything and fleeing for their lives, lest they be torn apart, limb from limb, by a crazed fanatical mob of these, "normal, friendly" people. These were not strangers, or extremists, these were their friends and neighbours, whose kids played together only weeks before. This  uncharacteristic display of violence was  all at the behest of their religious leaders.

I'm sorry, are we talking about Iran or Iraq? Can you please clarify..



mozzaok wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 9:50am:

Also I notice you did not comment on the post Shah regime's record on human rights abuses. I am not trying to absolve western countries for their injustices, but neither do I ignore the huge injustices perpetrated in the name of Allah.

I also said i don't agree with everything the Iranian government does. Iran needs democratic and human rights reform, but it's far better now than it was under the unelected Shah, at least now people vote in their presidents and during the time of the Shah women were expected to stay home and be housewives, uneducated. Women took part in the revolution and were given many more rights, most Iranian women get university educations, many own businesses and have a political voice.. Iran needs more work but it's certainly on it's way.. From 1997-2005 Sayed Khatami was the president of Iran. He is somewhat of a reformist and was popular with 70% of the vote. But Iran has to be free from interference from the Western governments and intelligence agencies, because the Iranians only vote in more hardline presidents when there is Western interference. If we just left Iran alone for some time we would see that soon enough the people would relax more and vote for change.

Iran!!

Here is a letter/petition, to heads of states from Iranians who have fled from the extremist Islamic regime.


View Current Signatures    -   Sign the Petition

   To:  President George W. Bush

   The White House
   1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
   Washington, DC 20500
   Tuesday July 8th, 2003

   Honorable President George W. Bush

   CC: Heads of the world’s democratic states, U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, UN Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

   It is the irony of history that in the land of Cyrus The Great, the birthplace of the first charter of the “Rights of Nations” and the “Declaration of Human Rights” over 2500 years ago, there is today no respect for human and civil rights by the Islamic regime. Cyrus, who was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs and against slavery, is famous for freeing the 42,000 Jewish captives and allowing them to return to their homeland. His name appears twenty two times in the Bible. Were it not for Cyrus, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have become extinct in the fifth century BC and we would have never received their great contributions to mankind. Unfortunately, present day Iran is ruled by a small group of Islamic Mafia Clerics who are the embodiment of evil and have no respect for Human Rights in this land which is the birthplace of Darius The Great, Babak, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Hafaz, Saadi and Rumi. We need the help and full support from the leaders of the free world to change this regime with no / minimum bloodshed.

   Today Iranian people are demanding civil and political freedoms, separation of religion and government, equality and justice (especially for the Iranian women), the immediate liberation of all political prisoners and Free Referendum.

   With regard to the above, we the undersigned request your urgent help so that another human tragedy can be prevented before the Islamic Republic’s regime causes another massacre in Iran. It is a regime that has executed over 120,000 political prisoners and freedom-loving Iranians in less than 2 decades. An Iran that is free from the current regime's rule will have countless benefits such as undercutting much of the funding for terrorist groups, paving the way for a more peaceful Middle East, and creating a region in which all inhabitants can participate in a system that is for the people and by the people. Protests and demonstrations are a democratic right of the Iranian people, and it is the duty of all freedom-loving people around the world to defend this right. Since there are over 1,000,000 Iranian-American and Iranian citizens in the United States we ask you as a responsible authority to defend the rights of not only our family members and fellow countrymen but of all people who demand freedom throughout the world. In this we ask that you respond to the following appeal:

   1) In honor and memory of all the Iranian contributions to world history and mankind, please consider to proclaim 18Tir July 9 As “Iran’s Human Rights and Freedom Day” in the USA in an effort to attract peace-loving Americans in the struggle to support a free Iran and a more peaceful world.
   2) Please condemn the inhumane crimes of the Islamic Regime of Iran and demand that it stop the suppression and use of violence against the demonstrators. Please give an ultimatum to the regime, urging it to step down peacefully because they have lost all legitimacy.
   3) Please ask the international community to immediately send a team to observe the situation in Iran.
   4) Please support the general demand of the Iranian people for a referendum and free elections observed by international organizations.

   Since the September 11th tragedy, one of the most tragic human rights violations of recent times, the world community must deliver a strong condemnation to such violators, and we should not tolerate any human rights violations in any part of this planet by any group. Please consider the above requests from freedom and peace-loving Americans, Iranian-Americans, and the Iranian people who are great friends of all Americans and freedom-loving people of the world.

   All human beings are in truth akin;
   All in creation share one origin.
   When fate allots a member pangs and pains,
   No ease for other members then remains.
   If, unperturbed, another's grief canst scan,
   Thou are not worthy of the name of man.
   Sa'adi (1215?-1292) Famous Persian Poet

mozzaok wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 11:00am:

Iran!! Here is a letter/petition, to heads of states from Iranians who have fled from the extremist Islamic regime.

Ok so lets address your comments in the other post. Westerners were not torn apart limb from limb nor did they have to flee Iran to avoid it.

Secondly, I agree the Iranian government needs change, but if you think you can achieve such change through international pressure or intervention by the USA you are mistaken. The Iranian people need to do it and reform their own government without the West's support because any interference or 'help' the West gives to any reformist takes away their credibility and make it look like the USA is again trying to do what they did in the 50's. The West will only act in it's own interest, and not in the interest of the Iranian people. That is why I say the West must leave Iran alone and allow the people to make those changes, it may take awhile but the US interference gives legitimacy to the arguments of the extremists thus getting them votes necessary to stay in power. I would like to see Iran become more democratic and reform it's human rights. I would like to see Iran become a proper Islamic State that would have peace and good relations with it's neighbours and with the West.. but the West needs to butt out of Iran to allow that to happen. Change doesn't happen instantly, but you will see that it will indeed take place. We just need patience.

If you spoke to some(as I have) who were there, and only just managed to escape, then you may realise how mistrust for Islam grows, through behaviour like I described.

These people loved Iran, and Iranians, but were attacked, for no reason other than that they were westerners.

I appreciate how many behave appallingly and ignorantly when confronted with things they do not understand, and I do not wish to unfairly vilify muslims, but I do think the time has come, where they need to stand up and be counted.
The decent muslims need to openly oppose extremism, and Islamic Imperialism, but I suggest that they fear these extremists just as much as many "ignorant" westerners, and would rather sit back and hope they do not get caught up in the trouble.

I also suggest that any mulsims who would openly criticise the Islamists, would be targeted with volence, as the extremists can accept no view outside of their myopic, distorted, perception.

That is a fact that I doubt even you would challenge, yet you wish westerners to just sit back and hope it goes away.
Unfortunately, more and more are coming to the conclusion that such an outcome is very highly unlikely.
Hence the fear grows.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

If you spoke to some(as I have) who were there, and only just managed to escape, then you may realise how mistrust for Islam grows, through behaviour like I described.

I have mentioned already, that I am part Turkish, I am VERY aware of the mistrust that leaders who ignore human rights and claim to be Islamic can bring for Islam. We had the same problem in Turkey in the later years of the Ottoman empire and when we look at the result it is clear that such behaviour results in the complete opposite attitude from the public, they are now so staunchly secular that they will go to the extent of infringing on peoples rights to practice their religion to ensure it never happens again.

I am very aware of that and it is the last thing I want to see. But if you think for a moment that the USA or the West interfering in Iran is helping the Iranians you are mistaken, it has the opposite effect in Iran because the West is seen only to act in its own interests and not the interests of Iranians, thus the radicals will gain more support to stop the US's interference.


mozzaok wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

I appreciate how many behave appallingly and ignorantly when confronted with things they do not understand, and I do not wish to unfairly vilify muslims, but I do think the time has come, where they need to stand up and be counted. The decent muslims need to openly oppose extremism, and Islamic Imperialism, but I suggest that they fear these extremists just as much as many "ignorant" westerners, and would rather sit back and hope they do not get caught up in the trouble. I also suggest that any mulsims who would openly criticise the Islamists, would be targeted with volence, as the extremists can accept no view outside of their myopic, distorted, perception. That is a fact that I doubt even you would challenge, yet you wish westerners to just sit back and hope it goes away. Unfortunately, more and more are coming to the conclusion that such an outcome is very highly unlikely. Hence the fear grows.

WE DO STAND UP AGAINST THESE LEADERS, but when we try to make change the US backs these leaders up.

Regarding violence against us, that I do not disagree with at all. Those who do stand up are targetted with violence. But that doesn't mean we need the West's help to stop it. You will see, free from the interference from the West, the Muslims would sort themselves out and get rid of these terrorists, extremists and tyrants. All we require is for the West to STOP supporting the dictatorships and tyrannical rulers in the middle east that are pro-US and who brutally repress any opposition to them.

I can assure you that should the West withdraw support for these governments, they would crumble very quickly and the Muslims would create a TRUE Islamic state in the Middle East, one which respects human rights and freedoms. It wouldn't be exactly like the West, and it would have Shariah law applicable to Muslims, but certainly not the type that is being used in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Shariah goes far deeper than that and isn't so black and white.

The reason why the US and West doesn't want a proper Islamic State in the middle east is because if there was one, it would not accept the imperialism and exploitation of the people in the region by the West and would fight to liberate those people which are oppressed and downtrodden. The Islamic State would never accept the current line of US foreign policy and would fight to ensure that people  are given their due rights.

Here is an interesting report of the growing Heavy Metal movement in Tehran (in Farsi with subtitles)

You see see by the commentary that the reporter doesn't exactly approve:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BiL4HuFv-5g&feature=related

You switch on a TV set in a typical Turkish Hotel in say Izmir, and you'd be totally amazed by the variety of stations. Those guys are more depraved than us !

I've met families in Kuwait where the woman of the house rules the house with an iron fist.

Then there's Indonesia.....  but let's not go there.

So a lot of people have a totally stereotypical view of Islam that is unjustified.

muso wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 2:34pm:

Then there's Indonesia.....  but let's not go there.

What's wrong with Indonesians? I have a few Indonesians friends and have been there many times (no, not just in Bali).  :)

My best overseas trips were in Java experiencing the people and culture in the kampungs around Yogykarta, Bandung and Suraybaya? I can tell you that they're not Western hating fundamentalist JI supporters as alluded by the media regularly. They are normal friendly people with normal aspirations like you and I.

You're right; a lot of views on Islam and Muslims are stereotypical and unjusitified, fueled by sensationalist media and ignorant people.

Well said Acid,      "They are normal friendly people with normal aspirations like you and I."

This is a point I have made myself, numerous times, and heartily believe.

This brings us full circle, back to the Islamic school issue.

Take these "normal friendly people", put them under an extremist believing teacher, and we have the next generation of home grown fundies, willing to spread fear and carnage in the name of Jihad.

Unfortunately they do not wear badges saying; "Please be careful of me, I am an extreme religious bigot, willing to promote hatred and violence in the name of Allah".
They just blend in with the crowd until they find people they can rope into their insane beliefs.

Acid Monkey,

I also have a lot of Indonesian friends. I worked there for a few years, mainly on Java and Sulawesi. They are mostly very laid back people and they are not generally constrained by fundamentalist views. I'd agree with what you said.

What I meant by "Let's not go there" was that I didn't want to even think about some of the crazy antics that some of my Indonesian friends had gotten up to in the past. Poor choice of words.

They have quite a liberated society, and it's common for women to be in positions of authority as most people know.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2008 at 9:03am:

Take these "normal friendly people", put them under an extremist believing teacher, and we have the next generation of home grown fundies, willing to spread fear and carnage in the name of Jihad. Unfortunately they do not wear badges saying; "Please be careful of me, I am an extreme religious bigot, willing to promote hatred and violence in the name of Allah". They just blend in with the crowd until they find people they can rope into their insane beliefs.

I have to agree with you, but that's not something that's unique to Islam. Kids in their teenage years are quite receptive to idealistic teachings, and idealistic role models especially if the teacher is seen as a bit of a rebel.

Che Guevara was a role model that many kids aspired to in Europe back in the 60's and 70's. His ideas were not exactly benign either.

I think they should legislate against all 'one true religion' teaching in Australia. I have no real problem with multi faith teaching, which is the most common form of religious teaching in schools nowadays.

- and as for Sharia Law, Malik. I totally disagree with you. It would be a disaster.  

Mozz, do you believe that all Muslims should be punished for the actions of a few? That's rpetty much what you are saying here - that because you can't pick out the bad ones we should discriminate against the lot. It's just plain hypocritical, and a weak excuse for discrimination. It's the same argument that has always been used to discrimiante against minority groups. You take a legitimate problem and make it worse by blowing it out of all proportion. You are the one who claimed to not confuse individuals an ideologies, but that is exactly what you do and you shy away from clarifying the distinction.

It all depends on how you define discriminate FD, does it not?

Also, to define the problems that Islamism pose for the future as being blown out of proportion, then you need to get out more.
The exact opposite is what is actually happening.
Tensions and conflicts are downplayed in the hope of pacifying the more extreme, it does not, it merely emboldens them.
It is not an easy problem, but it is, clearly, a very real and present problem, and as I said to Malik, just hoping it will go away is very unrealistic.

Their is a large, well organised, well sponsored, network of Islamist extremists, whose goal is world domination by Islam.
That is not theory, it is fact.

Now to ignore that, and the influence that these groups have, especially amongst younger muslims, in the hope that if we are just nice to them, and let them do whatever they want, they may change their mind, is just ridiculous.

I do not know the answer to this problem.
What I do know is that allowing muslims to take over whole communities, and set up their own little state within a state enclaves, as we see throughout europe, is producing disastrous consequences for the locals, who opened their homes and their hearts to help them.

Now they are reviled as western pigs, and have their freedoms challenged at every turn by nutty religious f'wits who think skin is a sin.

I make no secret of, and offer no apology for my stance against all religion, but Islam is by far the worst. Not because of it's teachings, but because of the actions of it's followers.

It all depends on how you define discriminate FD, does it not?

I wasn't aware there was any confusion.  Denying someone equal and fair rights because of their religion is discrimination.

The exact opposite is what is actually happening.

Wrong. A group of Australian citizens want to set up a school, and it is described as an invasion, because of something unrelated happening on the other side of the world. That is blowing a problem out of proportion.

Now to ignore that, and the influence that these groups have, especially amongst younger muslims, in the hope that if we are just nice to them, and let them do whatever they want, they may change their mind, is just ridiculous.

No-one is suggesting that. All we are suggesting is that you don't throw basic human rights out the window the first time you get a bit scared.

I do not know the answer to this problem.

You seem intent on making it worse - discriminating against people based on their relgion in the hope that that will drive them away from extremists. What on earth makes you think that will work?

Not because of it's teachings, but because of the actions of it's followers.

But the Cambden people have not done anything wrong. Again you are skirting around the issue of individual responsiblity. You cannot provide anything close to an objective reason for discarding this concept. In fact, you have avoided discussing it completely since you first brought it up.

Have you changed your mind? Do you now openly reject the idea that a person should not be punished for someone else's actions?

There are a LOT of muslims in the world. You would condemn them all for the actions of a small minority. That is no better than the extremists you complain about. If you punish someone for something they didn't do, how are you any better?

We are reasoning beings FD.
If we learn by experience, we may avoid repeating mistakes.
We need to apply some reasonable thought into protecting the rights and freedoms of non-muslims as well.

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country, when we see the violence and hatred coming out of similiar enclaves in europe.

When muslims respect our rights, then I will reconsider if I think I need to start worrying about theirs.

If we learn by experience, we may avoid repeating mistakes.

Like what happened to the Jews in WWII? Experience tells us that blaming minorities for problems and denying them basic human rights inevitably leads to great evil - the sort of evil you gladly blame on religion, but do not see in your own actions. Christians did not persecute the Jews throughout history because of their relgion. They did it because, just like you, they were scared and bought into any silly conspiracy theory about the Jews taking over the world.

When muslims respect our rights, then I will reconsider if I think I need to start worrying about theirs.

That's just plain hypocritical. You can't expect someone to respect your rights while you openly reject theirs.

There are two problems with your position. One is that you are blaming the Muslims for what is happening in France, simply because it is convenient. The other is that your solution - to deny people rights because of their religion - is the real cause of the problems.

Mozz, you keep avoiding this question. Should someone be punished for something they didn't do? It's a simple question.

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do? It's a simple question.

Only simple if you believe that religion should receive preferential treatment.
I, obviously, do not.

If you consider an established community  not wishing to see it's whole social dynamic changed, by the introduction of a religious school, as being punishment of the muslim community, that is your right, I do not.
I see it very much as a reasonable precaution by people who would like to stay in their homes, without fear of being engulfed in a wave of alien culture, which quite reasonably frightens them.

I see it as our local community refusing to allow the rights of muslims to supercede their own, to which I say, "Fair Enough!"

You think preserving the social dynamic is more important than human rights? Why are you so keen to do what you condemn religious people for doing? Now you're not even trying to give a valid excuse for discrimination. You are basically saying that a person should not be allowed to enter an area because the locals don't like them - nothing more than fear of change.

Only simple if you believe that religion should receive preferential treatment.

That doesn't even make sense. You cannot give a religion special treatment, only people. People should recieve equal treatment regardless of their religion. If anyone, it is you who is promoting special treatment of a religion. Giving people equal rights is not special treatment. They should be judged on their own actions, not someone else's.

It is a simple question, no matter how you try to avoid it.

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2008 at 9:03am:

Well said Acid,      "They are normal friendly people with normal aspirations like you and I." This is a point I have made myself, numerous times, and heartily believe. This brings us full circle, back to the Islamic school issue. Take these "normal friendly people", put them under an extremist believing teacher, and we have the next generation of home grown fundies, willing to spread fear and carnage in the name of Jihad. Unfortunately they do not wear badges saying; "Please be careful of me, I am an extreme religious bigot, willing to promote hatred and violence in the name of Allah". They just blend in with the crowd until they find people they can rope into their insane beliefs.

You know what Mozzaok, I COMPLETELY agree with you there. Putting an impressionable youth under the 'guidance' of an extremist teacher is a sure fire way to create more fundamentalists, no doubt. We try and prevent our youth being put through this and that is why in Melbourne we have things like Madrassa which is like a religious school taught by people who parents can trust and who aren't extremists, we also have proper Islamic schools and none of the ones I know in Melbourne promote any extreme ideas, in fact of the youth that I have met from them I have found them to be very open minded and wanting to really contribute have a cohesive society here in Australia.

There still are influences by extremists which can't be avoided, such as can be found on the internet and at certain mosques. We don't like this and try and show our youth how such behaviour is wrong. We really don't like Saudi money coming into the nation because it is not a gift, it comes with conditions to teach wahabi style extremist teachings which we don't want here.

We also at one stage had a problem in Melbourne with extremists trying to go into prisons as chaplains and influence Muslim prisoners and radicalise them. But we have stopped that and the Islamic Council of Victoria and the Department of Corrections both work together to ensure such crazy people aren't allowed to go anywhere near the prisoners.

All of the above reasons are why we should stop supporting extremist governments in the Middle East. They are not good for Islam and will only promote terrorism and hate.

Who is being punished FD?

"Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?"

You keep asking, but unless I know to whom you refer, and what the punishment is, and what they did or didn't do, then it really is moot.

What you seem to be calling punishment, I would call social responsibility.

Taking away someone's freedom to choose where they live is punishment. You would give some people fewer rights than other members of society because of something they did not do.

What you see as the problems caused by religion are not actually caused by religion. They are caused by religious discrimination. As you demonstrate, atheists are just as capable of this.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2008 at 2:34pm:

Taking away someone's freedom to choose where they live is punishment. You would give some people fewer rights than other members of society because of something they did not do. What you see as the problems caused by religion are not actually caused by religion. They are caused by religious discrimination. As you demonstrate, atheists are just as capable of this.

iWhat the hell are you talking about FD
Who has taken away whose rights to live where?
I do not recall that even being mentioned.
The subject was about a communities right to choose if they want an Islamic school in their community, not whether muslims may or may not live in their suburbs.

The problems are not caused by religion???????
Excuse me while I call someone to wipe the bulldust off your chin.
Religion is, as it always has been, a bastion for ignorance, superstition, and prejudice, all based on delusional beliefs in unkown, and unknowable entities, that "move in mysterious ways".

These irrational beliefs then require that even those who find them totally preposterous, defer undue respect to them.

As I used to tell my kids, "Respect is not something which can be demanded, only earned"

No religion has ever earned mine, and I refuse to offer it just because I will be falsely described as bigoted, if I do not.

Who has taken away whose rights to live where?

Luckily no-one has, but that is what you are promoting. For example:

If you consider an established community  not wishing to see it's whole social dynamic changed, by the introduction of a religious school, as being punishment of the muslim community, that is your right, I do not.

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

Religion is, as it always has been, a bastion for ignorance, superstition, and prejudice, all based on delusional beliefs in unkown, and unknowable entities, that "move in mysterious ways".

Yet athiests are no better, are they?

No religion has ever earned mine, and I refuse to offer it just because I will be falsely described as bigoted, if I do not.

You are described as bigoted not because you refuse to respect religion, but because you promote religious discrimination and collective punishment - both of which are violations of fundamental human rights.

What society wants to create cultural ghettoes?

Do we see any benefit for the community as a whole?

Does it help foster greater understanding and acceptance?

If human rights are an issue for you, perhaps you should consider the human rights abuse, perpetrated on a massive scale, by Islamic regimes, then get back to me and tell me how good religion is again.

Human rights are an issue for everyone. Just because Islamic regimes undermine human rights does not mean we should do the same here. in fact we should do the opposite.

What society wants to create cultural ghettoes?

Again, you do not make sense. A society as a whole cannot qwant something. It is the individuals within it that want things. Enclaves tend to reflect discrimination. The greater the discrimination a minority group feels, the more they will feel pressured to live with their own kind. It happens with every immigrant group and it does not seem to undermine society - it merely eases the transition.

You cannot destroy fundamental human rights by projecting your own fears onto the rest of society and using the desires of that society (assumed to be your own) to justify discrimination and collective punishment.

Australians are free to choose where they live and no amount of ranting from bigots will convince Australians we should intervene and prevent citizens from exercising that right. No amount of ranting will convince Australians that locals need to be punished for the actions of unrelated people on the other side of the world.

FD, it seems you have been on your full of crap pills, you are the only one talking about controlling where people live, so don't pretend otherwise.

Islam has no-one but itself to blame for it's appalling PR.

Like I said, many times, let them clean up their act, and then people may be more willing to give them a go.

At the moment, all who have given them a go receive is hate and violence, and I do not want to see that happening here.
So do not try and pretend that requiring people to behave decently and peacefully is an erosion of their rights.

you are the only one talking about controlling where people live, so don't pretend otherwise

These are your words, not mine:

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

It's odd that you think they need permission to choose where to live and that some kind of change is necessary before they would be allowed to form an enclave. You do live in Australia, right?

I am getting a little tired of this Islam forbids us crap, they kill without question, if you cant see that by know,where have you been.

'They' do not kill without question. A very small minority do, but even for them you cannot separate the political from the religious causes. You cannot judge millions of people by the actions of a few.

"You cannot judge millions of people by the actions of a few."

You may have heard the famous quote;
"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it"

Now we have seen clearly what has happened with muslim communities in europe, violence and communities divided.
We can judge the possible outcomes from that.

If muslims want to come here, but only on the condition that they can create their own insular communities, and demand we alter our sensibilities, so as not to offend theirs, then I say they want too much.

If they want to come here and be part of our community, then I say "No worries".

How many do you call a few. Last time I looked Hammas, El Queada, Hezbollah, The Taliban and Jamaar Islamiah consisted of many thousands, not to mention the whole of Iran and Pakistan.

Now how mant Christian groups can you name.

JFK, not everyone in Iran and Pakistan does the same thing and thinks the same way. To suggest they do is absurd and is founded in complete ignorance of the situation over there.

"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it"

The lesson from history is that when you start punishing innocent people as scapegoats for something they didn't do, you become a bigger problem than whatever it is you are afraid of. Scaremongering based on a few very recent isolated events in Europe that barely register in a historical context is not learning the lessons of history, it is ignoring them.

Why are you unable to answer such a simple question mozz?

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

Who is the someone?
What didn't they do?

Fill in those and I will answer your silly question.
Do not try and pretend that the problem the west is facing from growing Islamist fundamentalism will just go away if we let them do whatever they want, wherever they want, and subjugate our own interests in favour of theirs.

That is the the crux of the problem, the fundamentalists have a very real desire to make the whole world Islamic, and the majority of muslims would not have a problem with that, the rest of us however, have very real resistance to religious imperialism.

So stop talking crap as if this issue is the fault of host nations not bending over to take a good stuffing from Islamists who hold us in complete contempt.

Just as an exercise in even handedness, attempt to tell me how you think we would go if we wanted to have a few hundred thousand aussies migrate to Iran, or Saudi, and build a few large Christian schools, and all move into the surrounding area, and build a couple of pubs,
and demanded that we should be allowed to wear what we want, wherever we want, including women, and to drink alcohol when and where we want, and eat what we want when we want?

If you think as everyone else does, that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening, tell me again what intolerant bastards we in the west are.

So we dont blame the Germans for 2 world wars FD, because of a few bad eggs, yet blaming America for all the worlds failings is OK. When Iran bombs Israel, what will you say, its Israels fault no doubt.

Mozz, this is the 'someone' In was referring to:

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

As for what they did, they didn't do anything. You seem to want to take away their rights based on all the stuff you whinge about that happens on the other side of the world.

Do not try and pretend that the problem the west is facing from growing Islamist fundamentalism will just go away if we let them do whatever they want, wherever they want, and subjugate our own interests in favour of theirs.

I'm not pretending that. We are doing plenty. But we are not punishing innocent Australian citzens. We do not engage in collective punishment and discrimination. Islamic terrorism and a school in Cambden are not the same thing. By deliberately trying to equate the two, you are causing more problems than you solve.

If you let a cancer grow, you die, get to it early and you might survive. If you keep turning a blind eye it will be too late. Take a look at Paris and the African riots in Belgium.

Discrimination is the cancer. You cannot undermine someone else's human rights without undermining your own.

Perhaps you don't know what enclave means FD?

An enclave is insular, it is contained within a community, but is separate from it, that is what we do not want.

We have Little Italies, and Chinatowns, in all our major cities,and have no dramas, because we can freely go into these areas, without needing to alter our behaviour to suit them.
Britain, Holland, France Belgium, etc. have muslim enclaves, where locals would not dare go.
Do you think it would be unlikely that an ausiie girl could walk through a muslim enclave in summertime, in a bikini top, or halter, and not be, at least  be made very uncomfortable, if not worse, and actually accosted?
That is the problem, when they create these enclaves, they take a proprietary position, and aim to impose their values onto the broader community.

So the distinction between an enclave and a 'chinatown' is basically arbitrary? You say you wouldn't 'allow' it, but it is perfectly legal. Do you think we should have some laws that allow the government to forcibly evict residents when a 'chinatown' becomes to 'enclavy'?

The only real difference between the two is the extent to which other citizens drive minorities into enclaves. Australia doesn't have them because we embrace multiculturalism and don't make attempts to drive muslims from suburbs like Cambden.

You are getting the solution and the problem totally mixed up. What you see as the problem is actually the solution. What you see as the solution is actually the problem.

I think you are very biast, having Miss Muslima staring at me everytime I log on, I think you should declare your bias in all matters Muslim.

To be honest, I am biased against Islam. I'm not very fond of it.

It's just that I am even more opposed to people who want to discard basic human rights every time they get a bit scared of something they don't understand. The locals who think we have just cause to discriminate against Australian muslims have me far more worried than Osama bin Laden.

Thats OK FD but we too have rights as to who we choose to live or not live with, I should have a choice too. There has been a lot of work put into Australia over many  years and it does irk some of us that people want to take advantage of what has been created. Why because someone or something is successful that it should be shared with anyone that wants a piece of the pie. Should a rich man help me because I have not had the same opportunities, I dont believe so. My feeling is that if you live in a bad country, you should try to change it, not run away from it. And if you do run away, be greatful to the person helping you, not disrespect them, Jews and Arabs have one thing in common, they both play the victim brilliantly.

You really are missing it FD, and it is obviously intentional, obtuseness on your part, Chinatown is not an enclave in the true sense of the word, as I was trying to illustrate, because it is still a part of the broader community.

The insularity is what differentiates Muslim communities, and instead of blaming that on racism or intolerance of the local culture, be it european or aussie, the reality lies with the Islamic intolerance, which stems from their fanatical observance of their religion. Their beliefs are repressive, they are not compatible with those of a liberal western society, and that is where the conflict flows from.

Our normal behaviour is repulsive to their religious sensibilities, and I do not want to trade the liberal freedoms that generations have struggled to attain, in some mealy mouthed tokenistic gesture towards appeasing religious zealots.

It stems from religious zealotry, take christians, and be honest, if any christian wanted to really follow the bible, we would have millions of nutjobs like the guy who wanted to protest at Heath Ledgers funeral, trying to curtail our rights and freedoms as well. Fortunately the vast majority of christians have adapted their beliefs to be compatible with our society, I do not think Muslims should be excluded from doing so too.

Thats OK FD but we too have rights as to who we choose to live or not live with, I should have a choice too.

That right does not extend to telling others they cannot live near you. In all practical senses, you have very little choice or control over who your neighbours are.

My feeling is that if you live in a bad country, you should try to change it, not run away from it.

LOL, are you an aborigine? Or do you have some convoluted logic whereby European immigration doesn't 'count'?

The insularity is what differentiates Muslim communities

It also used to differentiate jewish and gypsie communities in Europe. You are wrong that it is 'their' fault. As Europe became more tolerant, the insularity disappeared. You are also missing the point that it is totally up to these people how they want to live their life.

Our normal behaviour is repulsive to their religious sensibilities

Again, they are not all clones. Plenty of Europeans probably find you behaviour objectionable.

Fortunately the vast majority of christians have adapted their beliefs to be compatible with our society, I do not think Muslims should be excluded from doing so too.

Should they be compelled to do so? Should their rights be taken away until they do so? Is this just a pointless whinge?

If we apply your logic we should also extend the same freedom to satanists and human sacrifice, if it is a religion, it must be respected, irrespective of how far it transgresses against social norms, perhaps you are a satanist? You certainly love playing devil's advocate.

Yes, satanists should be allowed to live wherever they please. Human sacrifice is not a fundamental human right. You keep confusing this issue with religion, but it's not. It's about basic human rights, irrespective of religion.

No FD, you keep saying religion is not the issue, it is the issue because muslims cannot secularise their life.
Religion is the state, the state is the religion, that is why they are a problem.
God damn all religions. ;)

mozzaok - hahahhha - that's excellent.
And I agree too.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 10^th, 2008 at 6:28pm:

"You cannot judge millions of people by the actions of a few." You may have heard the famous quote; "Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it" Now we have seen clearly what has happened with muslim communities in europe, violence and communities divided. We can judge the possible outcomes from that. If muslims want to come here, but only on the condition that they can create their own insular communities, and demand we alter our sensibilities, so as not to offend theirs, then I say they want too much. If they want to come here and be part of our community, then I say "No worries".

You mentioned the Paris riots earlier (I think). Just to clarify - that was not  due to race or religion.  The rioters were from a number of backgrounds - many of them Eastern Europeans.  The only thing that united them was the fact that they were poor.  That doesn't justify the riots of course, but I just wanted to correct a misconception.  I have ties with Paris, so I know the facts on that one.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 9:12am:

No FD, you keep saying religion is not the issue, it is the issue because muslims cannot secularise their life. Religion is the state, the state is the religion, that is why they are a problem. God damn all religions. ;)

I'm not sure if Malik is aware of it (actually I'm sure he is), but there are movements among Islam that are targetting the extremists. They are only too aware of their bad PR and they are doing something about it. They'll take care of it in their own way. They have already had some success I believe.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 9:12am:

No FD, you keep saying religion is not the issue, it is the issue because muslims cannot secularise their life. Religion is the state, the state is the religion, that is why they are a problem. God damn all religions. ;)

Secularism does not mean discrimination against religion. Separation of church and state is an issue, but Muslims moving to Cambden is not. Discrimination against religion and the erosion of human rights does not aid the cause of secularism in any way. Just because you abuse people in the name of atheism does not make it any less abusive.

The issue is human rights. These people are humans, and you are trying to take away their rights. Whatever dodgy justification you dream up is only secondary to the human rights issue.

That is why you cannot answer the simple question:

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

Not allowing an Islamic school, is not banning muslims from Camden, you know that.

If you think Religious schools are great, then I suggest you go to one.

Why do you keep asking an irrelevant question, which is as vacuous as the position you are taking on this.
I like mums, and apple pies too.
Context, everything in context FD.

If muslims did not have such a negative context to begin with, people would not be so wary of them.

Not allowing an Islamic school, is not banning muslims from Camden, you know that.

Well then what did you mean by this? You seem to change the subject quickly every time I bring it up:

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

If you think Religious schools are great, then I suggest you go to one.

Liking or supporting an action, and supporting people's right to do something, are not the same thing. You don't have to like Islamic schools to like the fact that people are free to choose their religion and not be discrimianted against.

Why do you keep asking an irrelevant question, which is as vacuous as the position you are taking on this.

It is not irrelevant. You are the one who suggested Muslims not be allowed to choose where to live. You are the one who tried to justify this with references to something they didn't do. It's a simple (and relevant) question Mozz. You can't keep ducking and weaving on it forever.

Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

It would be interesting to know how many hours that religion is taught in an Islamic school as opposed to a public school. You are there to read and write, not do religious study.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2008 at 12:35pm:

Not allowing an Islamic school, is not banning muslims from Camden, you know that. If you think Religious schools are great, then I suggest you go to one. Why do you keep asking an irrelevant question, which is as vacuous as the position you are taking on this. It is not irrelevant. You are the one who suggested Muslims not be allowed to choose where to live. You are the one who tried to justify this with references to something they didn't do. It's a simple (and relevant) question Mozz. You can't keep ducking and weaving on it forever. Should someone be punished for something they didn't do?

Woof! My bone!

Well then what did you mean by this? You seem to change the subject quickly every time I bring it up:

I will not be cowed into believing that we must allow muslims to create new enclaves in our country

I meant, I am in opposition to muslim enclaves, within non-muslim communities. Is that clear enough?

Liking or supporting an action, and supporting people's right to do something, are not the same thing. You don't have to like Islamic schools to like the fact that people are free to choose their religion and not be discrimianted against.

I am opposed to 'ALL' religious schools, and only think that they should be allowed NOWHERE, EVER.
School should be school, church should be church, if you want to brainwash kids with your crazy rat arsed religious mumbo jumbo, then do it on the weekend, on your own time, with your own money.

As for stating that not getting support for your school through council is a punishment?, I disagree, hence your question is based on what I consider to be a false premise, and therefore there is no point replying to it.

I meant, I am in opposition to muslim enclaves, within non-muslim communities. Is that clear enough?

So you support the government intervening in where and how people choose to live?

I am opposed to 'ALL' religious schools, and only think that they should be allowed NOWHERE, EVER.

So you are against freedom of religion? How is this any different to a Muslim country that forces religious education onto children? Secularism and state supported atheism are not the same thing. You are trying to use the law to force your views onto others.

As for stating that not getting support for your school through council is a punishment?

Who said anything about that? You made the comment about what living situations should be 'allowed' for Muslims. That's what I was asking about. What kind of oppressive nanny state would try to tell people how to live?

How far would you have the government go in forcing your views onto other people? How much would you have banned?

I agree, do what you want at home to your own kids but get them an education and let them have room to think for themselves. I went to a Catholic school, 1 perion a week of religious studies, not catholic studies, religious studies, more a history lesson than bashing you on the head with a bible.

Faith based teaching is indoctrination, not education.
There is a huge difference between tolerating peoples' delusions, and promoting them.

If someone started the tooth fairy society, and taught kids that the tooth fairy is real, and demanded we sponsor a school for the teaching of his beliefs, would you go for that?

Thats what I am saying, it wasnt all that religious and a lot of the teachers were there to teach a subject, not a faith.

yes, religion sucks bigtime.

And I can give you many quotes from the Bible to support that comment !!!!


But you don't need those, you know it already, in your Spirit.

;D ;D ;D
God love you sprint, you are always one of the good guys, I hope I find you in the throes of connubial bliss.

Look, I don't take any offence at FD's arguments, theoretically I mostly agree with him, but I am talking the harsh and ugly realities, he is talking principles, and I certainly do not wish to see ordinary muslims vilified.
Islamism is however a different kettle of fish, and is deserving of nothing but vilification.
The step between Islam and Islamism, is deceptively small, and often very easy for even the seemingly decent and moderate to take.
A great many will, go over to the dark side, if doing so suits their interests at the time.
That is why Islam cannot fairly demand or receive the same considerations as other religions, not until they put Islamism well and truly behind them.
It is like they are asking for what they want with open arms, but making sure we see the gun in their belt at the same time.
To pretend Islamists do not receive support from the wider Islamic community is also highly questionable.

mozzaok - thanks.
it is not the undereducated poor that do the terrorist attacks.
it is the educated wealthy. doctors etc

does not need many to become terrorists to make a BIG difference.
Ask the survivors or families of the bali victims.

for muslims the world over to NOT stop the islamics shows the "legitimacy" of their desires.
Anyway, I have posted plenty of quotes directly from the koran encouraging violence against nonmuslims.

just as well many people now are waking up and seeing the reality.

for muslims the world over to NOT stop the islamics shows the "legitimacy" of their desires

No it doesn't. You are not personally responsible for every nutcase Christian on the loose and you are not expected to chase every one of them down merely because they claim the same religion as you. It's no different for Muslims. You can't hold someone accountable for soemthing they didn't do. By and large, Muslims do stop the nutcases themselves.

OK, name some groups or people who have tried and are still alive. If the majority of Muslims were against terrorism, then why are so few caught and stopped, Osama is still out there, he must have huge support to remain free.

JFK, it's like you are from an alternative reality. The majority of Muslims do oppose terrorism. For example close to home, the Indonesian government is working hard to stamp out local extremists. They are still alive. Just think about what you are saying. If the majority of Muslims supported terrorist actions, it would not be terrorism. It would be war. Terrorism is by definition an act carried out by a minority group without a mandate. The majority of Islamic terrorism at the moment is directed at fellow Muslims. If you think terrorism is a problem for our society, it is a disaster for the middle east. Western governments are cautious to frame their aggression in the middle east as a war on terrorism, precisely because they don't want to drive more people to the terrorist groups. Islamic countries and the west are working together to stamp out terrorism.

Is that the same Indonesian government that gave most of the Bali bombers a lesser sentence than Shapelle Corby and set the Jamal Islamiah leader free after 2 years. What happened in Pakistan to Benazir Bhutto, a threat to extremists, dead in a couple of days after her return. Syria murdering Lebonese polititions who try to stop Hezzbollah, Muslims killing Muslims for power. I have been to the middle east and the only place I felt safe was Dubai.

The presence of extremists is not evidence that they have broad support or that the majority is not working against them. If they had support, they would be running the country, not in jail or hiding from the law.

Hezzbollah, is running the country, they have just selected their token President. Palestine, although not really a country, has Hammas running things. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have only pockets of government control, your arguement is flawed Im afraid.

This is about whether the majority of Muslims support terrorism. They clearly don't, or there would be far more of it. Your position flies in the face of reality. I feel no need to prove the bleeding obvious. Your argument - that the majority do support terrorism - is flawed. It is illogical. No-one is going to bother disproving it because no-one is going to take it seriously enough to bother. Your inability to back it up in any meaningful way is evidence enough that you are wrong.

It is a matter of degree FD, support comes in varied, and many forms.

I cannot help but think of the old joke where the guy asks a girl if she would have sex with him for a million dollars?
She says, "Yes".
He then says, "Here is twenty bucks, let's do it"
To which she replies, "What do you think I am?"
He answers, "We have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price." ::)

The majority of Muslims oppose terrorism and do not support it either explicitly or implicitly. It's a stupid suggestion.

Quote:

This is about whether the majority of Muslims support terrorism. They clearly don't, or there would be far more of it.

Apply this to Ireland.

The vast majority of Irish people have sympathies (read: non implicit support) for the IRA, even though the vast majority of Irish people would not join or fight with the IRA.

I honestly feel a very significant percentage of Muslims support terrorism and are anti Western.

You can feel sympathy for someone without supporting terrorism. This is just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation they are in, not support for their solution. People don't just turn to terrorism because of religion or because they like violence. They always have a political grievance, which they share with a large number of people.

easel wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 5:20pm:

Quote: This is about whether the majority of Muslims support terrorism. They clearly don't, or there would be far more of it. Apply this to Ireland. The vast majority of Irish people have sympathies (read: non implicit support) for the IRA, even though the vast majority of Irish people would not join or fight with the IRA. I honestly feel a very significant percentage of Muslims support terrorism and are anti Western.

Another example exactly similar would be the Maquis in France during the Second World War.

They used very similar tactics to the IRA during this period.

Not really. Resistance fighting during hostile occupation during war is a lot different to terrorism and what the IRA do and did.

The IRA might have classified British occupation of Northern Ireland as hostile.

How do you define terrorist activity as opposed to guerrilla warfare or freedom fighters? Does it depend on who writes the history?

Don't get me wrong here - I'm against violence of all kinds.

On September 11th 2001 I was on a flight between London Heathrow and Dakar Senegal. There was an amazing sense of celebration in the air the next day. The anti-American feeling in Africa runs deep, and the horrific events of the day before were seen as some kind of twisted victory. I deliberately refused to acknowledge some of the taunts on the streets. People automatically associated Caucasians with Americans. I stopped responding in English and put on my best French Gitan/Midi accent, and they stopped bothering me.

Two days later I was in a market in Bamako Mali, and the biggest selling items there were Osama Bin Laden teeshirts.

It wasn't about sponsoring terrorism. It was about the fact that the US, the World Police, suddenly looked vulnerable. It was an ideological victory, but it had nothing to do with religion.  

In largely Christian Ghana, I sensed a similar feeling a week later, although it was not quite so blatant.

Just a slight correction. The flight was between Paris and Dakar. I returned via Heathrow.

Yeah, they all hate America, yet their the first ones they call for help and aide, they love American money though.

A lot of the poverty in third world countries is caused by American farm subsidies. Australian farmers have every right to be pissed off at America for undermining their income. For an African, it means they cannot send their children to school, or afford shoes, or condoms. The Africans would much rpefer America cut their subsidies. Handouts come a distant second.

The biggest seller in many of these countries is second hand clothes from the US. Many US teenagers just wear their clothes once, and the second hand versions on sale in Ghana, Guinea and Senegal are as good as new.

Of course they try to sell the same items to Caucasians for more than the new price.

Is that where donated clothes end up? My experience with poor countries is that they are selling cheap knockoffs, but they are new. Or if there is a genuine factory there, you can usually get the real thing, without the 'rich westerner' markup and import duties you get back home.

Its usually corrupt governments, army and police that make these countries poor, not to mention civil war every five minutes. Its a big world, there are other countries to trade with. Free trade is not free, its for the rich to get richer quicker, even the poor dont benefit from it.

US farm subsidies reduce food prices and farmers income over the entire world, not just in the US. It affects Australian farmers also.

JFK, while your points about a new government every five minutes, and endemic corruption are usually valid, the fact is that the US have given most of the Third World very good reason to feel aggrieved, their foreign policy and corporate thuggery since world war 2 has been truly appalling, and directly and indirectly responsible for unimaginable suffering.

So while none of us like to see violence, it is naive to think it is without at least some provocation on the part of the west.
Hopefully times are a changing, when we get redneck texans out of the whitehouse we may see some fence mending.

True America has stuck its nose in where it wasnt wanted but its not Robinson Crusoe either. There are not too many countries that at one time or another have been where they shouldnt be. I dont think the yanks are responsible for a lot of the things they are blamed for, I think the World Bank courses more trouble than them.

I find it deeply insulting to accuse USA of other countries jealousies.
(does that mean you can't use you freedom of speech anymore?).

hahhahaha

Wherever the free world has "won", that country has benefitted.
Germany, USA, South Korea.

Wherever the free world has "lost", the people have lost badly.
North Korea, Russia.

Look at the results.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 10:28pm:

Is that the same Indonesian government that gave most of the Bali bombers a lesser sentence than Shapelle Corby and set the Jamal Islamiah leader free after 2 years. What happened in Pakistan to Benazir Bhutto, a threat to extremists, dead in a couple of days after her return. Syria murdering Lebonese polititions who try to stop Hezzbollah, Muslims killing Muslims for power. I have been to the middle east and the only place I felt safe was Dubai.

Which Bali bombers are you talking about - the 2003 or the 2005 bombing? And what is your point? 2003 bombing - 3 were sentenced to death, 1 for life and 17 for 2 - 16 years. The 2005 bombing, 1 suspect was killed during a raid, another sentence to death, 1 is yet to be apprehended, and 3 senetence to 25 years. Less than Corby? The 17 others were mostly not directly involved with the bombing itself. They supplied material support such as buying the fertiliser, hiring the truck, hiding the suspects when they were on the run etc. Their sentence reflected their crimes. You cannot cry injustice when even our laws and legal system will apply the same or similar jail terms. You also have to appreciate that Indonesia did not have an anti-terroism law at the time. When they drew it up they applied it retrospectively (something which the Australian legal system would NEVER do, and yet we sat by quietly when Indonesia did). Corby is a convicted drug smuggler. She is serving her time - 20 years is about right even by Australian standards.

Which part of the Middle East did you go (besides Dubai)? Even a peaceful country can be unsafe.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 10:55pm:

I dont think the yanks are responsible for a lot of the things they are blamed for, I think the World Bank courses more trouble than them.

The World Bank IS the US.

Critics believe that the World Bank was not created to reduce poverty but to support United States' business interests. It was suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for the promotion of US and 'Western' interests in certain regions of the world. Many claims (as do you) that the bank has actually increased poverty and been detrimental to the environment, public health, and cultural diversity.

The decision-making structure is undemocratic;  the US has a veto on some constitutional decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank.

The President of the Bank is always an American, nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the approval of the other member countries).

Yes, the world bank has failed badly those it was supposed to help.

Those that are conversant with economics can readily predict that was to occur.
And that the increased debts would be unrepayable anyway.

Really, a failure all round for decades.

The World Banks biggest shareholders are, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US. there are supposedly 185 countries as members but I guess most owe them money. The President is an American and of course worked for the WTO as well, surprise, surprise.

jfk - without checking your figures I accept them as being reasonably ok.

So, why do a crowd of representatives of democratic capitalist countries want to help 3rd world ones ?

See, it was never going to work.
That was always the ecomonics/capitalists point of view.

It was not capitalism. You can't make any money from poor people, they don't have it !!!
They can't repay an deby, so are happy to borrow.
It was a populist thoery, to make the voters feel good.
Both sides lost.

I agree Sprint, its more about cheap labour and bigger profit margins than anything else. There was a push a few years ago to have the Bank cancel all its debt but they said their bylaws didnt allow them to do so, this would have freed up around 2.5 trillion dollars to the poorer nations that owed them and the IMF.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 8:39pm:

Its usually corrupt governments, army and police that make these countries poor, not to mention civil war every five minutes. Its a big world, there are other countries to trade with. Free trade is not free, its for the rich to get richer quicker, even the poor dont benefit from it.

There is a lot more to it than that. If you go back to the days before slavery and colonialisation, Africa in general was in a much better state.  Take Ghana for instance. They had a civilisation (Ashanti) that went back to medieval times. Mali was a cultural and trading centre and the site of the biggest university in Subsaharan Africa (Timbuktou).

The colonials basically raped African countries, ripped their hearts out  and left them for dead, making a half-hearted attempt to instal weak governments before they left. Some experimented with Marxism and have never fully recovered - for example Guinea.

Gabon is one of the few examples of a relatively stable African country.

US farm subsidies is one factor, but Africa has largely been excluded from the global market for one reason or another.

The real kiss of death for Africa has been well-meaning Europeans who think they are helping, but haven't really taken the opportunity of asking the locals what help they really need.

Here - have a  few surplus pesticides that are banned at home, as a donation from the people of the United States of America. Don't thank us - we know you're grateful. What are you complaining about? - have a few thousand vaccines on us - and don't forget to buy a new syringe for each person, or you'll have an epidemic on your hands!

There has been Billions of dollars in aide pumped into Africa and it goes straight in the pockets of government officials. Dont blame the west for Idi Amin, Robert Mugabi and every other tin pot ruler in Africa. Some people just cant keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
Thats why Democracy will fail in many of these countries, because if your the Government, its an endless cash cow, any wonder they rig elections and will not leave when voted out.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 6:50pm:

Dont blame the west for Idi Amin, Robert Mugabi and every other tin pot ruler in Africa.

While the West may not have spawned these despots directly, they certainly had a large hand in the descimation of the African nation. At the very least they created the environment for which enabled the popular rise of these dictators. Don't forget that Mugabe rose to power on the back of anti-Western sentiment - he confiscate all land owned by white minorities with the support of the african majority.

Also, there's the militarisation of African nations through the sale of arms. Although it is a Hollywood movie and largely fictionalised, the Lord of War (Nicholas Cage) is a story based on the real life of an arms dealer secretly in the employ of the US govt. The background setting of the movie is real.

US trained military - Angola, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo Core d'Ivoirie, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Madgascar, Malawi, Mali, Maurutania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South africa,, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Half of the listed are currently engage in conflict with each other and 4 are commiting genocide within their own borders.

(Source: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm#usrole)

Europe has been ruled by different groups over its lifetime and you still see disputes there as well, the Balkins for example and Russia. Many rulers over many years but basically, they got over it and tried to improve. Two world wars did not destroy Europe or even Germany, infact its stronger than ever.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 6:50pm:

Dont blame the west for Idi Amin, Robert Mugabi and every other tin pot ruler in Africa.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in Foreign policy. It's not ok for Robert Mugabe to rig elections and get rid of his political opponents, but it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a despotic regime with no elections.

What's the difference? Oil? Not rocking the boat?

Don't for one moment think I support Mugabe, but he's typical of many African rulers.

muso - there are a few significant differences between mugabe and saudi.

mugabe pretends to run a free election but murders anyone who opposes him.
he has destroyed the country and unjustly dealt with many people.

Saudi do not pretend to run a fee society. At least they are honest !!
For the muslims within saudi, it's not too bad really.
Within saudi, there are no gross infractions of .......... mass sections of the society.

Not that i support either society.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:30pm:

muso - there are a few significant differences between mugabe and saudi. mugabe pretends to run a free election but murders anyone who opposes him. he has destroyed the country and unjustly dealt with many people. Saudi do not pretend to run a fee society. At least they are honest !! For the muslims within saudi, it's not too bad really. Within saudi, there are no gross infractions of .......... mass sections of the society. Not that i support either society.

Try telling the Shi'ites that.

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

hhhmmm.

point taken.

muso wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 4:44pm:

Try telling the Shi'ites that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Countless Shites pilgrims have been on the Hajj for many years and countless more will in the future without problem. You took 1 line from a website (where there weren't any background reference or source) as fact. Who knows what they did. Perhaps (hypothetically) they commited a crime or an infraction and in the process of being arrested by the authorities were called "infidels". Don't forget the Wahhabis religious police are very strict (to the extreme).

Never believe unverified information!

Sprint, I'm surprised that you took his point at face value without further investigation. Perhaps you were blinded (once again) by the locale which happens to be one of your pet hate countries.

I'm beginning to get a picture of how you conduct your "research". It's little wonder that you've failed to convince anyone with reasonable intelligence to your anti-Islam "logic".

Furthermore, it's funny that people would cite Wiki as an unreliable source and yet still quote from it.

acid - I had a flick through that link. Have seen much of that stuff before.

thing is, I did say saudi is a better situation than mugabe, and cited my reasons.
I believe the reasons are still valid, but saudi is not particularily good in free western world views.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 11:12pm:

Sprint, I'm surprised that you took his point at face value without further investigation. Perhaps you were blinded (once again) by the locale which happens to be one of your pet hate countries. I'm beginning to get a picture of how you conduct your "research". It's little wonder that you've failed to convince anyone with reasonable intelligence to your anti-Islam "logic". Furthermore, it's funny that people would cite Wiki as an unreliable source and yet still quote from it.

I generally look through the references that go with a Wikipedia article before quoting it. I have read a great deal about the persecution of the minority Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia, and their concerns that if there was a war against Iran, they would be at even more risk.

Sometimes Wikipedia provides a concise summary that you don't find anywhere else, although I would never reference it for professional purposes.

A factory in the long run would be a blessing!
First a small muslim school next a mosque and before you know it thousands have moved in and white flight starts up!
It's a pattern learned over a thousand year history, it's for a reason Europeans call them cuckoos.
Now the world has 57 muslim nations, all were initially various Christian sects.
When the OIC decide that Australians are a little too cocky toward muslims then be prepared for blackmail.
Rudd will bow Fabians always will in the face of islam!
Neivety will be played like a violin when you wake up it will be too late!
Australia would come under this UN law, the Arabs are in the majority as they often remind everyone.

July 31, 2008
Fjordman: The Organization of the Islamic Conference and Eurabia
The European essayist Fjordman elucidates recent Islamic initiatives to end free speech in the West, and shows what's at stake:

Dr. Andrew Bostom, editor of the excellent book The Legacy of Jihad and the recent book about Islamic anti-Semitism, warns that the 57 Muslim nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are trying to impose Islamic blasphemy law -- which includes the death penalty for those who "blaspheme" the Muslim prophet Muhammad -- as the universal standard across the world.
These sentiments of the OIC were reiterated more brazenly by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. During a sermon in response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons which aired February 3, 2006, Qaradawi demanded action from the United Nations in accordance with sharia-based conceptions of blasphemy: "…the governments [of the world] must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets—to the prophets of the Lord and his Messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places."

The muslim brotherhood try searching BANNA NAZI!!! >:(

WIKIPEDEA..LOL! Try reading The Project by the Muslim Brotherhood-while you still are allowed!  Tariq Ramadans Nazi friends.  ::)

Islamophobia- is intelligent-aids self preservation

Quote:

Now the world has 57 muslim nations, all were initially various Christian sects.

The vast majority of Muslim land was not originally Christian. They were Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. The bulk of Muslim population is concentrated in Indian sub-Continent and Indonesia, and neither of these areas were Christian, Please go take a history lesson.

Also, even the lands which were Christian, they'd been Christian for less than 500 years, they've been Muslim for 1400 years now, and prior to being Christian, what were they? Which people did the Christians wipe off the map to make them Christian nations? At least we let the Christians remain, you wiped any trace of pre-existing religions out of existence.

"But, Miss, they only had it for 500 years WE"VE had longer....waa waa waa"..."Oh but Miss, when we took over their land we let them stay, they didn't, they're big fat meanies!!"

Can you see why religion is so vile, see what it does to your psyche? You sound like a child who has been kicked out of the sandpit. "Ours", "theirs", "us" and "them" are divisive terms and you just can't help but segregate constantly.

Religion is the worst thing humans have ever invented, and the carry on continues because of attitudes like abu's.

Quote:

The vast majority of Muslim land was not originally Christian. They were Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. The bulk of Muslim population is concentrated in Indian sub-Continent and Indonesia, and neither of these areas were Christian, Please go take a history lesson. Also, even the lands which were Christian, they'd been Christian for less than 500 years, they've been Muslim for 1400 years now, and prior to being Christian, what were they? Which people did the Christians wipe off the map to make them Christian nations? At least we let the Christians remain, you wiped any trace of pre-existing religions out of existence.

People have been stealing land off others since time began.  If we all had to give back what we originally stole - even going back 2,000 years - everyone would be displaced.

So even if the land belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago - who did it belong to before then.

What would happen to us if we had to give back Australia to the aborigines?

mantra wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 9:13am:

Quote: The vast majority of Muslim land was not originally Christian. They were Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. The bulk of Muslim population is concentrated in Indian sub-Continent and Indonesia, and neither of these areas were Christian, Please go take a history lesson. Also, even the lands which were Christian, they'd been Christian for less than 500 years, they've been Muslim for 1400 years now, and prior to being Christian, what were they? Which people did the Christians wipe off the map to make them Christian nations? At least we let the Christians remain, you wiped any trace of pre-existing religions out of existence. People have been stealing land off others since time began.  If we all had to give back what we originally stole - even going back 2,000 years - everyone would be displaced. So even if the land belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago - who did it belong to before then. What would happen to us if we had to give back Australia to the aborigines?

Good point mantra, whites have only been here 200 years whilst the aboriginals were here for  thousands of years before us.
Although the Indonesians seem to think they have some sort of historical claim as well,maybe  they think Australia already is a muslim nation waiting to be reunited again, the'd better think again.

mantra,


Quote:

So even if the land belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago - who did it belong to before then.

I think you're a little confused, and probably should re-read the posts you're responding to. It belonged to the Christians 1400 years ago (that was Centurean2's point) and then us big bad mean Muslims took it off them.

Quote:

If we all had to give back what we originally stole - even going back 2,000 years

This is exactly what the world made the Palestinians do, give their homes to the Jews who's ancestors had apparently lived there 2000 years ago. Seems it's become quite a legitimate activity for the international community to engage in.

wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 9:39am:

mantra wrote on Aug 26th, 2008 at 9:13am: Quote: The vast majority of Muslim land was not originally Christian. They were Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. The bulk of Muslim population is concentrated in Indian sub-Continent and Indonesia, and neither of these areas were Christian, Please go take a history lesson. Also, even the lands which were Christian, they'd been Christian for less than 500 years, they've been Muslim for 1400 years now, and prior to being Christian, what were they? Which people did the Christians wipe off the map to make them Christian nations? At least we let the Christians remain, you wiped any trace of pre-existing religions out of existence. People have been stealing land off others since time began.  If we all had to give back what we originally stole - even going back 2,000 years - everyone would be displaced. So even if the land belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago - who did it belong to before then. What would happen to us if we had to give back Australia to the aborigines? Good point mantra, whites have only been here 200 years whilst the aboriginals were here for  thousands of years before us. Although the Indonesians seem to think they have some sort of historical claim as well,maybe  they think Australia already is a muslim nation waiting to be reunited again, the'd better think again.

Bump for abu, do you think the Indonesians have a claim on South Irian Jaya ( Indonesian name for Australia)

It would be getting pretty damned crowded if we all had to move back to africa, where we all had our beginnings.
The human trait of colonisation and conquest is a progression where backwards steps are impossible.'

Land has been won and lost through acts of violence since tribe A liked the view from tribe B's cave better.

Maybe for your next thesis you can work on extracting whole eggs from omelettes Abu.

Quote:

Maybe for your next thesis you can work on extracting whole eggs from omelettes Abu.

If they can be unscrambled after 2000 years, why not after only 60 years?

You are being selective in what lands you believe should be returned to prior owners on the basis of your religious beliefs Abu.

All everyone else is trying to point out is that once a land is lost, it is rarely given back.

Two choices, declare war, or get over it.

When you lose the war, then you can inflict decades of misery and bloodshed on everyone in your region by refusing to accept the fact that you lost.

Or you could get over it.

Quote:

I think you're a little confused, and probably should re-read the posts you're responding to. It belonged to the Christians 1400 years ago (that was Centurean2's point) and then us big bad mean Muslims took it off them.

Yes Abu - I am confused.  You said:


Quote:

The vast majority of Muslim land was not originally Christian. They were Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. The bulk of Muslim population is concentrated in Indian sub-Continent and Indonesia, and neither of these areas were Christian, Please go take a history lesson. Also, even the lands which were Christian, they'd been Christian for less than 500 years, they've been Muslim for 1400 years now, and prior to being Christian, what were they? Which people did the Christians wipe off the map to make them Christian nations? At least we let the Christians remain, you wiped any trace of pre-existing religions out of existence

There appears to be some contradiction and I am far from being a history or religion expert - can you explain it for the simple minded please?

Quote:

You are being selective in what lands you believe should be returned to prior owners on the basis of your religious beliefs Abu.

Actually that'd be you. When it comes to giving a land to a people 2000 years removed from it, no problem, come on in, sit down, it's all yours.

Yet the people who are still half there, and only 60 years under occupation... sorry eggs can't be unscrambled.

SO, we're back to the "me first", NO ME first", I had it BEFORE you", no you didn't, I had a zillion years ago!"...etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

mantra,


Quote:

There appears to be some contradiction and I am far from being a history or religion expert - can you explain it for the simple minded please?

You said:


Quote:

So even if the land belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago - who did it belong to before then.

Which I took to mean that you were under the impression it belonged to the Muslims 1400 years ago, yet not now. Most of the lands (that were formerly Christian) now inhabited by Muslims became Muslims lands around 1400 years ago, and have been Muslim lands ever since. So 1400 years ago they belonged to the Christians, who briefly ruled them for about 400-500 years.

Briefly.....400-500 years! That made me laugh.

I know, I know, in the whole scheme of things it's not that long, but it still made me laugh.

Quote:

SO, we're back to the "me first", NO ME first", I had it BEFORE you"

It's quite ironic you say this regarding this situation, because if you knew the history of the land, you'd know that's the Jews only claim to  it. "Our ancestors used to live there over 2000 years ago, so you should kick out the 98% majority who are there and give it to us".

Quote:

Briefly.....400-500 years! That made me laugh.

Well considering it's less than 1/3 of the time Muslims have lived/ruled there, and less than 1/2 the time Jews were there... yes it was quite brief.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:32pm:

Quote: SO, we're back to the "me first", NO ME first", I had it BEFORE you" It's quite ironic you say this regarding this situation, because if you knew the history of the land, you'd know that's the Jews only claim to  it. "Our ancestors used to live there over 2000 years ago, so you should kick out the 98% majority who are there and give it to us".

Why ironic? I've never stated I think the Jews were right or wrong. All I've ever said is this tit for tat, who was there first bull will go on and on and on forever, and it's stupid.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

Quote: Briefly.....400-500 years! That made me laugh. Well considering it's less than 1/3 of the time Muslims have lived/ruled there, and less than 1/2 the time Jews were there... yes it was quite brief.

Yes, that's why I clearly stated "in the whole scheme of things"....but thanks for bringing that to my attention........

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:24pm:

Quote: You are being selective in what lands you believe should be returned to prior owners on the basis of your religious beliefs Abu. Actually that'd be you. When it comes to giving a land to a people 2000 years removed from it, no problem, come on in, sit down, it's all yours. Yet the people who are still half there, and only 60 years under occupation... sorry eggs can't be unscrambled.

palestinians never ruled or had sovereignty in Palestine. Turks did but the turks conceded the land to britian. The english then let it go to whoever wanted it. Both Jews and Palestinians wanted it, they had a fight, Jews won, story over, go home.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 10:40am:

Quote: If we all had to give back what we originally stole - even going back 2,000 years This is exactly what the world made the Palestinians do, give their homes to the Jews who's ancestors had apparently lived there 2000 years ago. Seems it's become quite a legitimate activity for the international community to engage in.

oh and the alot of the land jews took off palestinians they bought and paid for form the palestinain land owners. The rest was empty due to palestinian evacuation in the war, you should expect that when you declare war and then lose.

Quote:

palestinians never ruled or had sovereignty in Palestine. Turks did but the turks conceded the land to britian.

The Ottoman Caliphate was not a "Turkish" state, it was an Islamic state. Turks didn't rule Palestine, Muslims did. As was the case for the last 1200 or so years. The attempt to make it appear as though Muslim Arabs were just one of many competing peoples who lived there under some foreign Turkish occupation is just nonsensical. It demonstrates that you clearly don't have an understanding of the history of the region, nor of the dynamics that made up the Ottoman state.


Quote:

oh and the alot of the land jews took off palestinians they bought and paid for form the palestinain land owners.

More nonsensical claims.

"When the Zionist movement started its ethnic cleansing operations in Palestine, in early December 1947, the country had a 'mixed' population of Palestinians and Jews. The indigenous Palestinians made up the two-third majority, down from nintey per cent  at the start of the Mandate. One third were Jewish newcomers, i.e., Zionist setllers and refugees from war torn Europe, most of whom had arrived in Palestine since the 1920s. As of the late nineteenth century, the indigenous Palestinians had been seeking the right of self-determination, at first within a pan-Arab identity, but then, soon after the First World War, through the Mandate system that promised to lead the new nation-states it had created in the Middle East to independance and towards a future based on principles of democracy. But Britain's Mandate charter for Palestine also incorporated, wholesale, the 1917 Balfour Declaration and, with it, Britain's promise to the Zionist movement to secure a 'homeland' for the Jews in Palestine.

Despite Britain's pro-Zionist policies and the presence of a growing Jewish minority, Palestine was still very much an Arab country by the end of the Mandate. Almost all of the cultivated land in Palestine was held by the indigenous population - only 5.8% was in Jewish ownership in 1947 - which makes the use of the adjective 'mixed' somewhat misleading, to say the least." (Ilan Pappe, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, 2006).

What this means is that when the UN partition plan was drawn up, under which the Zionists were to receive almost 50% of the land, they owned only 5.8% of it. This meant that Palestinians were going to have to forfeit about 45% of their lands to a foreign people who were arriving en masse. The lies about massive Palestinian land sales to Jews were concoted after the Israeli militias had ethnically cleansed most of the Palestinians from their villages. The rest were reckoned to have just "got up and walked off, after being promised victory from their Arab brothers".


Quote:

The rest was empty due to palestinian evacuation in the war

Actually, I've just had the pleasure of spending the last two nights speaking to many senior Palestinians who all remember quite vividly the Nakbah (The great disaster). They were forced out of their villages and their homes at gunpoint, by militias, many of them prior to the war. In fact the war was largely a response to the brutal actions of Zionist militias against the civilian population, or so the Arab regimes claimed, most were in it for a land grab themselves, but it was still a reaction to the massacres and expulsions of civilians all over Palestine.


Quote:

you should expect that when you declare war and then lose.

From December 1947 till March 1948, over 2,000 Palestinians were killed and 4,000 wounded by attacks of Zionist militia and terrorist groups on Palestinians villages. In March 1948, Plan Dalet was put into action, this is part of the description of that plan:

Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

** Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

** Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state

Benny Morris, an Israeli historian commented about the aims of Paln Dalet:

The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State's borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. The Haganah regarded almost all the villages as actively or potentially hostile[1]
   [Plan Dalet] constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions [from villages that resisted or might threaten the Yishuv] by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions.

Benny Morris also stated that: "the 700,000 Palestinians who fled their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli military attacks"