Following a recent legal threat I will leave this forum.


Does anyone want to be moderator of the spiritual thread.

Be warned, you are now officially muzzled and cannot say a thing that anyone else may find offensive or face a HUGE legal bill.


Freedom of Speech is gone

thanks for closing down this site, my opponent to freedom

Just ignore the threats Sprintcyclist - as FD mentioned in another thread.  Most of us older regulars are used to each other and our different views on difficult subjects - Malik isn't yet and no doubt his threat was made in the heat of the moment and is only temporary.

Ozpolitics is one of the better forums and you are a great contributor - in fact most of the time your posts are very humorous and you give me a good laugh - one of the few who do.

You've dealt with a lot of controversy on this forum and been very strong so far.  Legal threats are used usually when someone can't deal with another poster's opinion for various reasons and eventually are always forgotten.

Ozpolitics would lose a lot of its' character if you left.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:13pm:

Following a recent legal threat I will leave this forum. Does anyone want to be moderator of the spiritual thread. Be warned, you are now officially muzzled and cannot say a thing that anyone else may find offensive or face a HUGE legal bill. Freedom of Speech is gone thanks for closing down this site, my opponent to freedom

Haven't been posting here for a while. Where did this happen?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498

Uh oh..... someone has declared jihad on ozpolitic...

I agree with Mantra, Sprint.

Or at least you can sneak back under a new pseudonym.

;)

See, this is how these people work. If you say something they don't like, they muzzle you, threaten you with legal action (or kill you). It's unbelievable. This is what we need to take a stand against. I think we've been bent over for far too long.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 7:49am:

See, this is how these people work. If you say something they don't like, they muzzle you, threaten you with legal action (or kill you). It's unbelievable. This is what we need to take a stand against. I think we've been bent over for far too long.

how about not breaking the law in the first place.. that'd be a great stand to make..

How about letting others believe what they want, say what they want and having a teaspoon of cement if it "offends" you? No? You need to force your beliefs on everyone else. I don't respect what you believe, why should I say otherwise? Rhetorical.

Welcome to OzPolitic Jordan. Thanks for your support.

Thanks.

And, you're welcome.

Sprint does get a bit wound up sometimes but I think its ridiculous for anyone to take it as far as to threat legal action..this is an internet forum for Gods sake- lighten up..

If Malik.Shakur doesnt like it he could just ignore or not post or find an another forum...easy fixed.

Im not defending Sprint but I find it a bit offensive Malik would come in here and throw his weight around and make threats..You have also said you would sue Freediver Malik?

You have a bloody hide dont you??? Still hanging in here I notice..hypocrite.

Sprint is a regular and longtime member- those who know him knows he has a good heart. ..

Sprint should stay.

Keep your name.Don't hide.

That's the problem with people like malik, they want to spread their agenda...they are not content to stay in one spot that meets their needs, they push into areas where they are not wanted, not needed and ultimately not welcome. Then they play the "victim" role saying life isn't fair and everyone is against them! Hypocrites in the extreme.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 4:50pm:

....they push into areas where they are not wanted, not needed and ultimately not welcome. Then they play the "victim" role saying life isn't fair and everyone is against them!

I wouldn't say that he wasn't welcomed. He (and Abu) has contributed some very valuable insights into Islam.

However, the course of action he chose was definitely not cricket and not appreciated. He devalued many people's opinion of him as a result. There are better and more diplomatic ways to deal with these kind of issues. Legal threats is not one of them. He may be technically and legally correct (I'm no law expert), but it's the wrong way to solve this. He openly admitted that he should've ignored Sprint's vitriol but couldn't walk away. In a way, they whipped themselves and each other into a frenzy.

I hope Malik retracts his threat and Sprint returns soon.

He may be technically and legally correct

Not a chance.

I couldn't care less what people here think of me. I have a right to be here and I also have the right not to have my religion or myself vilified by bigots like Sprint..

I never said that I would sue FD at all. But I did threaten to take him to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I have the right to do that as Sprint's comments were vilification and inciting hatred and clearly broke the law and even after requests to stop Sprint from doing so and to exercise more control over his forums he refused. So therefore he is a party to it.

There is legal basis and I wont hesitate in taking it further if FD doesn't prevent it from happening in the future, that also means by other members on the forum.. This country is a country of free speech, but that free speech doesn't mean you can take the rights away from others by vilifying them, their race or their religion.

Oh blah blah, malik. Free speech is not in your agenda, grow some stones and admit it, at least then I may give you an ounce of respect. You have I right to be here? Sure, and so do I and so does sprint and everyone else.  We all have differing opinions on what is the truth and just because someone offends what YOU believe is the truth doesn't mean you can cry foul and start bullcrap legal stuff. It's pathetic. You're pathetic. The whole idea is pathetic. If I want to say something about Islam, I will. You have no moral grounds to deny me that right. All you do is stifle free speech and that is something I will fight you for.

Jordan,

Say whatever you like, many people here criticise Islam, there is a difference however between criticizing Islam and directly vilifying, insulting and inciting hatred in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Muslims..

Once it crosses over into that category of vilification and inciting hatred it becomes against the law.. So you choose what you want to do.. But you're just as accountable to the law as I am.

boo hoo, malik.  P*ss off out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 7:48pm:

Jordan, Say whatever you like, many people here criticise Islam, there is a difference however between criticizing Islam and directly vilifying, insulting and inciting hatred in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Muslims.. Once it crosses over into that category of vilification and inciting hatred it becomes against the law.. So you choose what you want to do.. But you're just as accountable to the law as I am.

I don't incite hatred, I tell it like I see it, if your opinion of your so called prophet differs from mine, you have no right to stifle my free speech. If what I say insults you, then so be it, but you have no right to make me respect the same things you do. Get over yourself, buddy.

RecFisher wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 7:50pm:

boo hoo, malik.  P*ss off out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

Yep.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 7:54pm:

I don't incite hatred, I tell it like I see it, if your opinion of your so called prophet differs from mine, you have no right to stifle my free speech. If what I say insults you, then so be it, but you have no right to make me respect the same things you do. Get over yourself, buddy.

Obviously you don't understand what I mean.

I have no problem with criticism of Islam or our Prophet, but in any form of dialogue, criticism should be done with respect.. Not respect for one's beliefs, you can have your opinion about it. But respect for those you are having dialogue with so that you can continue to have fruitful dialogue. Because without such respect for those you are having discussions with it ceases to be dialogue and then becomes something much worse.

Sprints behaviour reflected that.. I was very patient initially and clarified for him many times about issues which he kept bringing up, even after knowing the truth on the issues in an attempt to incite hatred and spread misinformation about Islam. It was obvious to everyone in the forums about that. I also asked that if he seriously and sincerely had the intention to have dialogue to do so with respect for those who he has dialogue with, otherwise it becomes impossible. He refused and kept heaping on the insults about our prophet and trying to incite hatred in Islam..

As mentioned many times, I was happy to have fruitful and meaningful dialogue with Sprint, but that requires an appropriate level of respect by both parties to achieve dialogue.. Sprint wasn't prepared to do that and it was obvious that instead his only intention was to incite hate of Islam and Muslims.

Had his intentions had been sincere and had he been more respectful in his dialogue then we could have had great dialogue with him. But he refused to.

If diplomats between nations behaved the way he did then there would be far more wars.

Malik, you don't have the right to be here. This is a privately owned and operated website, and everything here is up to the discretion of the owner.

If freediver wanted to, he could ban you from his website, and even though you previously said if he did that you would add it to your list of grievances with the whatsies and the whosies, it doesn't matter.

There is nothing wrong with calling Mohammed a pedophile. It's a definition. If a man today who was beyond middle age married a 6 or 9 year old, he would be called a pedophile. If he just wanted to look after the girl, why not adopt her, instead of marrying her, which as far as I can see, gives permission for a sexual relationship.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:45pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30th, 2008 at 7:54pm: I don't incite hatred, I tell it like I see it, if your opinion of your so called prophet differs from mine, you have no right to stifle my free speech. If what I say insults you, then so be it, but you have no right to make me respect the same things you do. Get over yourself, buddy. Obviously you don't understand what I mean.

You are such an arrogant dick head, and so ignorant as well. I didn't think that was possible, so bravo.

easel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:46pm:

There is nothing wrong with calling Mohammed a pedophile. It's a definition.

Well, he was a paedophile, in todays definition. Plain and simple.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 5:52pm:

He may be technically and legally correct Not a chance.

Like I said... I couldn't say for sure so I'll take your word at face value.

easel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:46pm:

This is a privately owned and operated website, and everything here is up to the discretion of the owner.

This is interesting. Is it a privately owned and operated website or a public forum? If FD operates it as a public forum which I think he does(ie: it is accessible and unrestricted to the open public without membership or subscription) then Malik has a right to be here. Guest are allowed to enter amd read all posts on the forum without membership.

Any thoughts?

:)

Not sure, but I have no problem with malik being here, I do have a problem with him telling me what I should and shouldn't respect, what I should and shouldn't believe in, and what I can and can't say without fear of retribution.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

easel wrote on Jul 30th, 2008 at 8:46pm: This is a privately owned and operated website, and everything here is up to the discretion of the owner. This is interesting. Is it a privately owned and operated website or a public forum? If FD operates it as a public forum which I think he does(ie: it is accessible and unrestricted to the open public without membership or subscription) then Malik has a right to be here. Guest are allowed to enter amd read all posts on the forum without membership. Any thoughts? :)

Hmmmmm.

Look at Scruffy Murphy's pub in Sydney. It is privately owned and operated, open to the public with no entry fees, yet, the staff can eject anyone they like, and the owner even took the steps of banning people of Middle Eastern appearance and Pacific Island appearance from entry.

What he FD ^^^^^ said.

I enjoyed Malik's opening remarks here, but his Second Act stinks.  Fear not Sprint (FD already knows).  If he actually sues, he will lose and face a massive legal bill.

I also state that some of what Sprint posts, I do not agree with, and, as I said elsewhere, Malik, IMHO, was ahead on points, but then he blew it with this crap.

I'm tempted to say, "Bugger off, Malik, this is Australia," but I won't.

easel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 9:15pm:

Look at Scruffy Murphy's pub in Sydney. It is privately owned and operated, open to the public with no entry fees, yet, the staff can eject anyone they like, and the owner even took the steps of banning people of Middle Eastern appearance and Pacific Island appearance from entry.

Scruffy Murphy's? Lol. Sounds like an interesting pub. Is it Irish? I love a pint of Guiness on a warm Saturday afternoon.

I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance. There are reasonable conditions of entry which patrons must adhere to. As long as they are within the conditions then they have every right to be. Of course, reality isn't like that. That bouncers act in contravention to equality laws does not take away the fact that they have their rights. The pub is a private enterprise - true. However, their business is public and therefore subject to laws and rules that are in the public interest ie: racial and gender discrimination, public liability laws, public health laws, social responsibility rules etc.

"I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance."

Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked. I'm guessing this still occurs, I speak to the "young ones" today and they say the same thing.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

"I believe that it is against the law to eject people purely based on their appearance." Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked. I'm guessing this still occurs, I speak to the "young ones" today and they say the same thing.

Sure. However, by appearance I meant racial appearance in response to easel's comment.

The reasonable conditions of entry will cover other superfical appearances like the type of shoes, clothes, accessories etc and are subject to proprietor discretion.

I suppose I was trying to say access to this website is a privilege and not a right, and someone who owns an institution, such as a pub or a website, should be allowed to prevent access to anyone for any reason.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:45pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30th, 2008 at 7:54pm: I don't incite hatred, I tell it like I see it, if your opinion of your so called prophet differs from mine, you have no right to stifle my free speech. If what I say insults you, then so be it, but you have no right to make me respect the same things you do. Get over yourself, buddy. Obviously you don't understand what I mean. I have no problem with criticism of Islam or our Prophet, but in any form of dialogue, criticism should be done with respect.. Not respect for one's beliefs, you can have your opinion about it. But respect for those you are having dialogue with so that you can continue to have fruitful dialogue. Because without such respect for those you are having discussions with it ceases to be dialogue and then becomes something much worse. Sprints behaviour reflected that.. I was very patient initially and clarified for him many times about issues which he kept bringing up, even after knowing the truth on the issues in an attempt to incite hatred and spread misinformation about Islam. It was obvious to everyone in the forums about that. I also asked that if he seriously and sincerely had the intention to have dialogue to do so with respect for those who he has dialogue with, otherwise it becomes impossible. He refused and kept heaping on the insults about our prophet and trying to incite hatred in Islam.. As mentioned many times, I was happy to have fruitful and meaningful dialogue with Sprint, but that requires an appropriate level of respect by both parties to achieve dialogue.. Sprint wasn't prepared to do that and it was obvious that instead his only intention was to incite hate of Islam and Muslims. Had his intentions had been sincere and had he been more respectful in his dialogue then we could have had great dialogue with him. But he refused to. If diplomats between nations behaved the way he did then there would be far more wars.

Look Malik. You need to go back to mecca/jeruseleum/disneyland or wherever the hell it is you are from..if you dont like our pple ,laws and country.

If we were in your country I could understand your indignant behaviour, we may even be beheaded for it..but here it is our laws and our proticols you that  must observe...

Its seems you now have offended or our pple and protocols..you have gone to far-

With the wars brewing in the Middle East for so long now and the resulting effects on every countrys economy..there are bound to be pple who are sick to death of words like JIHAD-MOH-fu cking- HAMMAD and ISLAM- enough is enough.

Your welcome here if you are prepared to act like a regular member of this forum. You have to roll with the punches matey..thats a fact.

Harden up grow a backbone or you will be shown the door.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

easel wrote on Jul 30th, 2008 at 8:46pm: There is nothing wrong with calling Mohammed a pedophile. It's a definition. Well, he was a paedophile, in todays definition. Plain and simple.

maybe it's offensive to muslims because ur using today's definition of a paedophile, and applying it to someone who lived 1400 years ago. rather than using the definition of paedophila that existed at the time.

similiarily if we use today's definition of a paedophile, and applied it to European royalty who lived a few hundred years ago, then we would also call them paedophile's as well.

pretty sure, European monarchists would find that offensive as well.

Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:06pm:

Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant.

yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today.

but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context.

i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything.

GSS wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 12:13pm:

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 12:06pm: Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant. yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today. but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context. i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything.

It strikes me as rather strange that, if he was who he claims, he could not have predicted how his behaviour would have been interpreted in years to come, if his teachings were to cross many ages and be relevant years from his time, then his behaviour should also have reflected this insight. One would have expected so much better from the spiritual leader he claims to have been.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 1:15pm:

GSS wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 12:13pm: jordan484 wrote on Jul 31st, 2008 at 12:06pm: Pretty sure I don't care if they did. Not going to sugar coat anything because a group of people believe something. It happens to be today, so that's the terminology that's relevant. yeah, use today's terminology if ur referring to people that exist today. but when referring to historical people, it would be better to look at the historical context. i'm not saying to sugar-coat anything. It strikes me as rather strange that, if he was who he claims, he could not have predicted how his behaviour would have been interpreted in years to come, if his teachings were to cross many ages and be relevant years from his time, then his behaviour should also have reflected this insight. One would have expected so much better from the spiritual leader he claims to have been.

but did he ever claim to know the future?

if not, then he wouldn't have been able to predict how his actions would be interpreted 1400 years later.....and he would only go with what was considered normal (or not unusual) at the time he lived.

If he didn't know how people would interpret his behaviour in the future, then why would he have thought any of his teachings would be relevant in the future?

As mentioned many times, I was happy to have fruitful and meaningful dialogue with Sprint, but that requires an appropriate level of respect by both parties to achieve dialogue..

Malik the most disrespectful thing anyone has done here is threatening frivolous lawsuits against people for speaking their mind. You went straight to the bottom. Say what you will about sprint, but he was willing to engage in dialogue and he created a lot of what you see here. You are destroying the dialogue.

If FD operates it as a public forum which I think he does(ie: it is accessible and unrestricted to the open public without membership or subscription) then Malik has a right to be here.

Not exactly. Just because it is accessible to the public does not mean everyone has a right to post here.

Well, I don't know about now as I don't visit nightclubs anymore, but back in "my day" we were quite often ejected or not allowed to enter based purely on how we looked.

Your dress, but not your race. Right?

but did he ever claim to know the future?

This is implicit in a religious 'prophet'. Otherwise, followers would just say that his teaching only applied to the time in question, and all the teachings would go out the window. According to Islam, marrying a prepubescent child is still acceptable today, as is slavery, under the appropriate conditions.

I've always understood the prophet Muhammad to be "The Messenger from God". Islam recognises many prophets, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus etc. Many cannot divine the future.

My understanding of a prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered the divine and serves as an intermediary with humanity.

Or, they could be non-corporeal beings that inhabit a Bajoran worm hole in the Alpha Quadrant.

Christ Acid, if you start posting star trek stereotypes we could see the ferengi and klingons going at it big time, old gene was big on racial stereotyping, and it is pretty humourous when you watch it with that in mind.

being a prophet doesn't necessarily mean u would know everything about the future........like knowing how people in Australia in the year 2008 would judge his actions.

knowing everything about the future, would be too much information for any human to bear.

rather, a prophet's knowledge of the future would only be limited to what God tells them about it......they wouldn't know more than that.

So God, being all knowing, neglected to tell his prophet that his behaviour would be interpreted as paedophilia a thousand years later if he married a child. Interesting.

jordan484 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:58pm:

So God, being all knowing, neglected to tell his prophet that his behaviour would be interpreted as paedophilia a thousand years later if he married a child. Interesting.

or it could be assumed that people would be smart enough to apply the standards that existed at the time........rather than applying 2008 standards to a person that lived in the year 600.

....or, it could be assumed that God had nothing at all to do with it and humans were smart enough to work out that those very old ideals were incredibly stupid, insidiously wrong and blatantly inhumane, and are now calling them what they truly are.

or it could be assumed that people would be smart enough to apply the standards that existed at the time........rather than applying 2008 standards to a person that lived in the year 600.

Couldn't you say the same thing about all Islamic law?

Yes.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 3:17pm:

Christ Acid, if you start posting star trek stereotypes we could see the ferengi and klingons going at it big time, old gene was big on racial stereotyping, and it is pretty humourous when you watch it with that in mind.

Lol.

I actually know a couple of Klingon insults.

bIjatlh 'e' yImev.
Hab SoSlI' Quch!

;)

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 4:13pm:

or it could be assumed that people would be smart enough to apply the standards that existed at the time........rather than applying 2008 standards to a person that lived in the year 600. Couldn't you say the same thing about all Islamic law?

Islamic law isn't retrospective and things which became illegal but were practiced before it were not punishable because that would have been unreasonable.. Something which you fail to see..

Don't forget that today in some states of the USA you can still marry being as young as 13 years old if you have the permission of your parents and the court.

So the hypocrisy is very apparent here.

Plus, as mentioned previously in another thread, Aisha's age cannot be verified accurately even through the hadith mentioned because there are hadiths that contradict it.

Nevertheless, I am also prepared not to take this to the HR EEO Commission and withdraw my complaint.

Give it up Malik, you are talking crap, just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Stop trying to legitimise what is universally condemned as wrong by modern standards, just accept that historically many powerful men indulged in sexual perversions because they could do so with impunity.
That is fortunately no longer the case.
The fact remains that by todays standards the actions of Mohammed would be considered as sexually deviant, you have already pointed out that he was not the only one to display abherrant sexual behaviour in olden times, but you do your cause no good by trying to say it was not wrong, when it obviously was.

Your attempt to somehow deify his memory in asserting he could do no wrong, is misplaced.

Islamic law isn't retrospective and things which became illegal but were practiced before it were not punishable because that would have been unreasonable.. Something which you fail to see..

I think you missed my Point Malik. To be fair, it was a bit ambiguous. If Muslims can appreciate that marrying a 12 year old girl or getting betrothed to a 6 year old girl was acceptable in the past but isn't any more, then surely they can also accept that stoning people to death for being gay, slavery etc are also unacceptable, even in an Islamic state, and that we should fight against any such regression rather than encourage it.

Precisely.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 10:47am:

I think you missed my Point Malik. To be fair, it was a bit ambiguous. If Muslims can appreciate that marrying a 12 year old girl or getting betrothed to a 6 year old girl was acceptable in the past but isn't any more, then surely they can also accept that stoning people to death for being gay, slavery etc are also unacceptable, even in an Islamic state, and that we should fight against any such regression rather than encourage it.

FD we don't stone people for being gay actually, in fact I made it very clear that the punishment of stoning applies to one who commits adultery and cheats on their wife/husband, if a person commits homosexual acts and there can be four witnesses for it and they are not married then they get the same punishment as someone does for fornication and that is 100 lashes thus the punishment is for adultery or fornication and not for partaking in the homosexual act. I'm sure you know that's the case because we've already discussed it so please don't go around saying otherwise.

Secondly I never said that marrying a 12 year old is unacceptable, instead I said that society has changed somewhat, especially here in the West where people take a great deal longer to develop mentally and be ready for marriage due to society's concept that adolesence is something where youth have no right to be considered able to make adult decisions that impact their lives, nor are they given the tools by today's society to make such decisions and their development is stunted. So instead they rebel and do all of those things anyway but this way they aren't given a helping and guiding hand by those around them, and have to learn all the lessons for themselves the hard way at a greater cost to them and society..

As mentioned before, in some states of the USA one can marry as young as 13 years old with the permission of the parents and the permission of the courts. If the court finds a safe environment awaits the person in addition to maturity in them then they'll get the permission and good luck to them.

So it is unwise in most cases for 12 year olds to marry if they aren't prepared for it. I think it depends on the person.

Next, regarding slavery. I have also made it clear regarding this issue. Slavery by the Western usage was forbidden in Islam 1400 years ago, the Islamic definition of slavery is closer to servitude because one can get out of it if they request to and they get to eat, sleep and be clothed the same as their master, they are afforded human rights. It is a means to make sure those who lose their possessions due to being beaten in war have a means to rebuild their position in society, one could easily look at the Mamluke Empire who were all slaves previously but after being freed became the rulers of the nation.

The West's brutal and oppressive form of slavery which continued this barbaric tradition long after Islam forbid it more than 1400 years ago still has not been resolved and no reparations have been paid to those who are the decendents of slaves and in addition to that, even today when one looks at the treatment of poor Indonesians and others by economic superpowers one could easily define that as slavery, as well as the US government's ignoring the multitudes of illegal aliens in their country who do menial jobs for incredibly low wages. They get treated far worse than the Muslim version does.

You are one sick fvcker if you think you will convince any person who is not a sexual deviate, or a religious nutcase, that marrying 12 year olds is OK.

It is the year 2008, not 648, for christ's sake catch up.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 8:33pm:

You are one sick fvcker if you think you will convince any person who is not a sexual deviate, or a religious nutcase, that marrying 12 year olds is OK. It is the year 2008, not 648, for christ's sake catch up.

Yes, in 2008, in some states of the US you can marry when your as young as 13 years old with your parent's and court's permission.

In the secular West..

You really haven't gone that far in that time actually have you mate?

Quote:

New Hampshire: http://www.weddingvendors.com/marriage-license-laws/united-states/new-hampshire/#age-requirement What if one or both of us is younger than 18? If either partner is under 18, parents or legal guardians must be present. If a parent can not be present, due to death, separation, divorce or other circumstances, proper evidence must be presented for verification. You will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. If you are under 16 you can not marry without a court order. Males under the age of 14 and females under the age of 13 can not marry without a court order.

So men can marry 13 year olds as long as they have their parents permission?

jordan484 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 9:41pm:

So men can marry 13 year olds as long as they have their parents permission?

yes and the court has to approve it too.

Malik Shakur wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 9:43pm:

jordan484 wrote on Aug 1st, 2008 at 9:41pm: So men can marry 13 year olds as long as they have their parents permission? yes and the court has to approve it too.

Proof?

Just because it can happen doesn't mean it will.

In theory, an Australian can get a permit to carry a concealed pistol.

Unless you are John Laws, I don't think it is going to happen.

Aussie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 11:52pm:

yes and the court has to approve it too.

Proof?[/quote]

Here is their State law.
   
Quote:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xliii/457/457-mrg.htm TITLE XLIII DOMESTIC RELATIONS CHAPTER 457 MARRIAGES Relationship Section 457:4 457:4 Marriageable. – No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. Source. 1907, 80:1. PL 286:4. RL 338:4.

Quote:

So men can marry 13 year olds as long as they have their parents permission? yes and the court has to approve it too.

Australia hasn't quite reached the depths of depravity that some states of the US indulge in.  It may be legal but it isn't morally right and most developed countries have laws to protect children and 99.9% of 12 & 13 year olds are still little girls.

I have no issue with Muslims generally until they begin to impose the fundamentalist side of their religion on others and accept no other opinion as valid.  

At present there are less than half a million Muslims in Australia and already there are rumblings of Sharia Law being introduced here, but you are still a minority and the average Australian isn't prepared to embrace Islam and many of its regressive laws.

Australians want to move forward, not back to the dark ages and this is why it's necessary for Muslims to adapt to our culture and not hang onto their old ideology, which most of us believe is unacceptable.  

Quote:

It may be legal but it isn't morally right and most developed countries have laws to protect children and 99.9% of 12 & 13 year olds are still little girls.

Actually I saw in another thread someone posted statistics about STD's amongst US teenagers, and 1 in 4 girls between 14 and 19 have already contracted an STD. Seems they're not as little as you might like to think.

Quote:

Actually I saw in another thread someone posted statistics about STD's amongst US teenagers, and 1 in 4 girls between 14 and 19 have already contracted an STD. Seems they're not as little as you might like to think

That is probably true Abu, but not a good enough reason to justify the marriage of a 13 year old to a middle aged man.  I say middle age, because as many men get older they seem to prefer younger and younger women and to marry an immature girl of 13 is just an excuse to exercise their perversions.

At 13 perhaps a girl's body might appear able to have sex with a peer, but her mind is still undeveloped and she wouldn't have the emotional ability to cope with the ramifications of marriage to an old man.

Islam has a major PR issue if it really believes it will ever convince any decent human that sex with kids is OK.
Little girls at EIGHT YEARS OLD, are supposed to start covering up with the costume which supposedly stops men lusting after them, that in itself says a lot about a cultures belief in the moral abilities of it's males to control their deviate sexual urges.

We have some pretty sad instances of western businesses promoting and selling 'SEXY' clothes for kids, and that sucks, but the kids do not understand that these clothes are other than trendy, sexuality is a concept they have not even assimilated at that age.

So like all normal people I would prefer that people just allowed kids to be kids, the burkah and the hotpants outfit are opposite extremes from sick people who want to rob kids of their childhood.

Quote:

That is probably true Abu, but not a good enough reason to justify the marriage of a 13 year old to a middle aged man.

Well, what it does suggest is that human beings are enquiring into being sexually active by this age. Now in the West it might be fine to frolick around fornicating with your fellow teens, but in Islam we consider the only permissable institution for sexual activity to occur in to be marriage. So the age that marriage can take place is obviously set at the point at which human beings become sexually mature.


Quote:

but her mind is still undeveloped and she wouldn't have the emotional ability to cope with the ramifications of marriage to an old man.

Well it didn't really cause any problems for 1300 years of Islamic civilisation. Women like Aishah (God be pleased with her) grew into fine adults that even helped shape the world we know today, dramatically. She was one of the greatest scholars of Islam and in fact large amounts of Islam were transferred through her hadith narrations.

Also it isn't all old men marrying young girls as you seem to imply. I have a friend for instance, and his grandparents (who were married not long after the end of the Ottoman period) were 13 and 29 when they were married, his grandfather being the younger one. Do you also have a problem with that?

I personally think it's just a matter of you trying to superimpose your own cultural standards and understanding of the deviancies of old men from the Western perspective.

Quote:

but in Islam we consider the only permissable institution for sexual activity to occur in to be marriage.

But, also in Islam, you can 'marry' as often as you wish, yes?

Ipso facto........a veritable smorgasbord of young girls to whisk off to the altar.

No, 4 times only :)

That's irrelevant though, I'm merely pointing out that Islam permits marriage at the point of sexual maturity to prevent the very evils that are engulfing countries like America.

Abu, so if I was a Moslem, I can have four wives, yes.

...and the minimum age per wife is, what?

Yes, if you can support 4 wives, then you can marry 4, if you were a Muslim.


Quote:

Islam permits marriage at the point of sexual maturity

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 12:25pm:

Islam has a major PR issue if it really believes it will ever convince any decent human that sex with kids is OK. Little girls at EIGHT YEARS OLD, are supposed to start covering up with the costume which supposedly stops men lusting after them, that in itself says a lot about a cultures belief in the moral abilities of it's males to control their deviate sexual urges.

First of all Mozza, I don't believe that either Abu_Rashid nor myself have ever said that simply being 8 years old is the criteria for a girl to cover.

The criteria for a woman covering is that she has reached puberty and as I'm sure you're aware, there is no specific age that is attached to that.

Furthermore, I don't quite understand why you feel the need to see more than the face and hands of a girl who's just hit puberty or who is older? How is it any of your business what she looks like other than her face and her hands?

You see it's your precious, holier than thou secular West that has the greatest perversions, Western secular society sexually objectifies women by putting them as objects for our lusts to sell various products on billboards and many other ways.

Muslim women however cover everything except their hands and face in front of all males that are not closely related to them. In front of their close family and other females they are not required to cover everything but the face and hands. Because we DON'T see them simply as objects for our own gratification.


mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 12:25pm:

We have some pretty sad instances of western businesses promoting and selling 'SEXY' clothes for kids, and that sucks, but the kids do not understand that these clothes are other than trendy, sexuality is a concept they have not even assimilated at that age.

That's not quite true at all, statistics show that about 20% teenagers have had sexual intercourse by the age of 15. That's sexual intercourse, other sexual experiences begin earlier and are at higher percentages.


mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 12:25pm:

So like all normal people I would prefer that people just allowed kids to be kids, the burkah and the hotpants outfit are opposite extremes from sick people who want to rob kids of their childhood.

I hope you know that neither the burkha nor the niqaab are considered mandatory in Islam and wearing them are very much a cultural practice. In fact the Niqaab is great for being in the deserts of Arabia because of the protection it gives from the harsh elements. However it has no religious value.

Malik Shakur wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 8:24pm:

FD we don't stone people for being gay actually, in fact I made it very clear that the punishment of stoning applies to one who commits adultery and cheats on their wife/husband, if a person commits homosexual acts and there can be four witnesses for it and they are not married then they get the same punishment as someone does for fornication and that is 100 lashes thus the punishment is for adultery or fornication and not for partaking in the homosexual act. I'm sure you know that's the case because we've already discussed it so please don't go around saying otherwise.

- and you think that 100 lashes is acceptable for just having sex with another married person?

I too have no problem with Muslims practising their religion, but there are certain human rights that need to be observed. Personally I have problems with both capital and corporal punishment, and I think that society in Australia has the same issues. My issue is that in practice these laws may be applied to non-Muslims who might be visiting a Muslim country. Ok, as far as Muslims as concerned, if a person is not silly enough to renounce their faith and ends up being stoned to death as a result, maybe that's their problem. It's just evolution taking its course.


Quote:

As mentioned before, in some states of the USA one can marry as young as 13 years old with the permission of the parents and the permission of the courts. If the court finds a safe environment awaits the person in addition to maturity in them then they'll get the permission and good luck to them.

Yeah, but it isn't practised there. There would be widespread condemnation if that law was actually put into place. It's an anachronism, like the law that permitted husbands to beat their wives for justified reasons (in Queensland?) until it was repealed.  - A fossil law from the barbaric past (just like Shariah Law)

If you want an example of where pedophilia is practised, you just need to look at most Sub-Saharan African countries, whether Muslim or Christian. A large proportion of African men are pedophiles, and unfortunately a number of European men take advantage of it too.

Fixed unchangeable laws that derive from 1400 year old texts lead to injustice, because society values have changed for the better.  

Quote:

Fixed unchangeable laws that derive from 1400 year old texts lead to injustice, because society values have changed for the better.

The human condition remains pretty much the same, and will remain pretty much the same. If the law was valid then, it's valid now.

It's not valid for you,  in your society, that's a different issue, that's your society changing it's views, in Islamic society it's still just as valid. We also find many things in your society to be wrong, doesn't mean we claim you have no right to do it within the confines of your society.

You have to remember not all 6 billion of us are the same as you and share your views. I know that sicne the West is the politically/militarily dominant culture at present, they want to push their might around and proclaim that their way is the universal way, but it's simply not.

Quote:

The human condition remains pretty much the same, and will remain pretty much the same. If the law was valid then, it's valid now.

Human condition? What are you talking about? And saying if the law was valid then, it is now, is stating everything that's wrong with religion....Islam in particular.

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 6:29am:

- and you think that 100 lashes is acceptable for just having sex with another married person? I too have no problem with Muslims practising their religion, but there are certain human rights that need to be observed. Personally I have problems with both capital and corporal punishment, and I think that society in Australia has the same issues. My issue is that in practice these laws may be applied to non-Muslims who might be visiting a Muslim country. Ok, as far as Muslims as concerned, if a person is not silly enough to renounce their faith and ends up being stoned to death as a result, maybe that's their problem. It's just evolution taking its course.

Yes, fornicating is against Islamic Law.. But the real question is, how on earth would you get caught doing it by four witnesses at the same time if you did it in your own household? Obviously if you do it in public then your not just fornicating, you're imposing your own sins on other people who should not have to see it.

You seem to have a problem with following the laws of a country that you are visiting? I'm sure you know that any country you visit will require you to follow their laws and should you break them you would be subject to their punishments right? So if you don't think you can do so I suggest that you just don't go there.


muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 6:29am:

Yeah, but it isn't practised there. There would be widespread condemnation if that law was actually put into place. It's an anachronism, like the law that permitted husbands to beat their wives for justified reasons (in Queensland?) until it was repealed.  - A fossil law from the barbaric past (just like Shariah Law)

I'm sorry, but it's still the law.. The law hasn't been changed so obviously it's still considered acceptable, even if as you mention it isn't practiced (which you have not provided evidence of nor have I seen) it's still obviously considered acceptable or else it wouldn't be the law and would have been changed.

That's such silly logic, malik, and you know it. There are heaps of laws that still exist in the world that are never enforced and not believed in anymore, and the reason the laws have never been changed is not because people still find them acceptable, it's because people find them so stupid that everyone ignores them.

jordan484 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 1:31pm:

That's such silly logic, malik, and you know it. There are heaps of laws that still exist in the world that are never enforced and not believed in anymore, and the reason the laws have never been changed is not because people still find them acceptable, it's because people find them so stupid that everyone ignores them.

No, it's not silly logic at all. Having it law means that if you wish, you can practice it. In this case if someone so wished they would be able to do so.

Righto, just ignore what I am saying. You are either a moron (doubt it) or someone who refuses to understand the points people make. (highly likely) either way it's makes for ridiculous debates. Although, this is not surprising considering your belief system in general.

Abu said:

Quote:

I have a friend for instance, and his grandparents (who were married not long after the end of the Ottoman period) were 13 and 29 when they were married, his grandfather being the younger one. Do you also have a problem with that

No doubt there would have been a good reason at the time, although the grandmother would probably have preferred a "man".  Is this still being practised today where older women can marry little boys?   Morality doesn't appear to be an issue, but procreation certainly is.

If it isn't being practised today - then why did it stop and if so why are only Muslim males allowed to commit to underage marriages?

As far as having a problem with a child and an adult marrying - it is obviously worse if a woman commits this abuse as it would be a rare deviation from the norm.

Quote:

although the grandmother would probably have preferred a "man"

He would've been considered a man in his time by his society, otherwise he wouldn't really have been able to marry. He most likely would've been working and supporting himself and his new wife.


Quote:

Is this still being practised today where older women can marry little boys?

The economic situation in most Muslim countries is now not the best, as I'm sure you're aware, the social situation has also been severely damaged by the past century of mismanagement. Most Muslim males cannot afford to marry until they're well into their 30's, and that's probably why you see today a higher occurence of older men marrying younger girls, as opposed to in times past, when it would've been a lot more distributed, the variance in ages for males and females marrying.

Muhammad's (pbuh) first wife was also quite his senior. Something very rarely mentioned today, we only hear about his younger wife.


Quote:

if so why are only Muslim males allowed to commit to underage marriages?

It probably still occurs, just not as often, most likely due to the economic situation, and the fact that most children today are schooled beyond that age, and therefore not really able to support a family.

What I'm pointing out though, is that there's no social taboo against it in Islamic culture. There is no ageism when it comes to marriage, so long as both parties are sexually mature.


Quote:

As far as having a problem with a child and an adult marrying - it is obviously worse if a woman commits this abuse as it would be a rare deviation from the norm.

They are a child according to your own cultural definition. For most of the history of human society, most societies didn't consider 13 yo's to be children. Certainly not Islamic society. As I've mentioned before, when Muhammad Bin Qasim (May God have mercy on him), the distinguished Muslim General who conquered most of the Indian Sub-Continent made his greatest conquests, he was only 16 or 17 years old. Today, in your society, he'd be considered a child, but his actions show he was very much a man, and I doubt he'd have been considered a man for less than 3 years...

Also it's a known fact amongst those who study the social sciences that the "awkward years" between reaching sexual maturity and being considered an adult by society is associated with a lot of the anti-social behaviour that exists in societies who view teenagers in this way. In societies where people are considered adults when they reach sexual maturity and are given rights and responsibilities befitting of their maturity, those people in general fit into society much more smoothly. So perhaps it's the West who need to re-evaluate the way they view teenagers, not Islam.

Quote:

The economic situation in most Muslim countries is now not the best, as I'm sure you're aware, the social situation has also been severely damaged by the past century of mismanagement. Most Muslim males cannot afford to marry until they're well into their 30's, and that's probably why you see today a higher occurence of older men marrying younger girls, as opposed to in times past, when it would've been a lot more distributed, the variance in ages for males and females marrying.

Sounds like a reasonable excuse Abu but not entirely believable.  Seriously though - could a rich older Muslim woman marry a mature 13 year old boy today?  


Quote:

In societies where people are considered adults when they reach sexual maturity and are given rights and responsibilities befitting of their maturity, those people in general fit into society much more smoothly. So perhaps it's the West who need to re-evaluate the way they view teenagers, not Islam.

Perhaps you're right - but one thing is obvious is that these young girls who marry older men and have a dozen children by the time they're 25 - usually look twice their age and probably have half the life span of a Western woman.

Islam doesn't offer much of a life for the females, particularly in Muslim dominated countries - but pleasant enough for the males who can please themselves with the support of the Koran.

Quote:

Islam doesn't offer much of a life for the females, particularly in Muslim dominated countries - but pleasant enough for the males who can please themselves with the support of the Koran.

Quite mantra..How convenient to have the "good book" to justify human rights abuses such as this..these poor children, and at 13 that is indeed what they are, have no choice, no voice, no rights.

The abuse and degredation of women in Arab countries is well known..treatment of women in many parts  of the world is not good..but for these women seems to be worse.

Abu- you are not an Aussie Muslim if you try to justify the Koran in this practice..true Aussies reject it.

Quote:

Perhaps you're right - but one thing is obvious is that these young girls who marry older men and have a dozen children by the time they're 25 - usually look twice their age and probably have half the life span of a Western woman.

Is this based on any kind of scientific study? Or just what you assume it should be? Please be factual in your claims, or realise they've going to taken with a grain of salt.


Quote:

Islam doesn't offer much of a life for the females, particularly in Muslim dominated countries - but pleasant enough for the males who can please themselves with the support of the Koran.

This is just nonsense. Islam does not permit oppression of women whatsoever.

Since Islamic rule ceased in the Islamic countries over 80 years ago, I very much doubt you're basing this on anything factual.

oceanz wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 8:03pm:

Quite mantra..How convenient to have the "good book" to justify human rights abuses such as this..these poor children, and at 13 that is indeed what they are, have no choice, no voice, no rights.

Well as mentioned previously, with one's parents and a court's approval you can get married at 13 years of age.

And that is the Law in some states of the USA.. Which 'good book' was used to justify that?



oceanz wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 8:03pm:

The abuse and degredation of women in Arab countries is well known..treatment of women in many parts  of the world is not good..but for these women seems to be worse.

Yes but you see the thing is, these arab countries aren't Islamic states, so what do you expect? The Arabs rule their nations according to their tribalistic and culturalistic practices rather than Islamic law.


oceanz wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 8:03pm:

Abu- you are not an Aussie Muslim if you try to justify the Koran in this practice..true Aussies reject it.

Who are you to say what a true aussie can and can't do? Or don't you believe in the freedom of choice and beliefs that we have here in this country? How very unaustralian of you, perhaps a place like china would be better for you?

Quote:

Is this based on any kind of scientific study? Or just what you assume it should be? Please be factual in your claims, or realise they've going to taken with a grain of salt.

Going by Australian statistics:


Quote:

The higher fertility among women born in Middle Eastern countries was also reflected in the fertility pattern associated with religious affiliation. The 10,900 women nominating Islam as their religion in the 2006 Census had higher fertility in all age groups than did women of all other religions or no religion. On average, Islamic women aged 40-44 years had 2.9 babies each, compared with 2.0 for all women in Australia. These Islamic women tended to have a somewhat lower level of educational attainment and lower incomes than did Australian women overall. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter3202008

This indicates that the minority of Muslim women in Australia are having more babies than the rest of Australian women put together - so no doubt Muslims will eventually outnumber non-Muslims.

It's obvious that many young Muslim women you see look old and worn out before their time and add lack of education to the mix and a dozen children and you can see that the goal of expanding the Muslim empire is quantity not quality.


Quote:

Extremely low birth rates in most of Europe have fueled concerns about population decline, yet one segment of the continent's population—Muslims—continues to grow. The increasing number and visibility of Muslims in Western Europe, juxtaposed with the low fertility among non-Muslims, has led some Europeans to worry that the region will eventually have a Muslim majority, fundamentally changing Western European society. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx

Quote:

According to the Office for National Statistics, around 33% of British Muslims of working age have no qualifications -- the highest proportion for any religious group in this country -- and Muslims are also the least likely to have degrees or equivalent qualifications http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mortarboard/2008/04/why_do_too_many_muslims_leave.html

Quote:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday. Catholics accounted for 17.4% of the world population — a stable percentage — while Muslims were at 19.2%. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-03-30-muslims-catholics_N.htm

It doesn't matter whether Muslims outnumber Catholics or breed more prolifically than any other group of people - the gripe is that while your women are breeding like rabbits, in general the children aren't educated to the same level as their peers.  Lack of education is one of the biggest problems in our society and this combined with overbreeding and a strict adherence to an outdated and violent doctrine puts fear into those who promote pacifism.

mantra wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 7:44am:

[quote]The higher fertility among women born in Middle Eastern countries was also reflected in the fertility pattern associated with religious affiliation. The 10,900 women nominating Islam as their religion in the 2006 Census had higher fertility in all age groups than did women of all other religions or no religion. On average, Islamic women aged 40-44 years had 2.9 babies each, compared with 2.0 for all women in Australia. These Islamic women tended to have a somewhat lower level of educational attainment and lower incomes than did Australian women overall.

That's really not anywhere close to a dozen children. It's not our fault that most Australians don't want to have kids.

That's of Muslim women ages 40-44...It's funny however though, most Muslim women I know which are my own age are in university or have a university degree. That's because their parents worked so hard to give them what they didn't have.

Most Muslim women I know

I don't quite understand why you feel the need to see more than the face and hands of a girl who's just hit puberty or who is older?

We don't. It's nothing to do with that. It's about freedom. Women should be free to choose what to wear. You feel the need to cover women them up. We don't. That's the difference.

mantra,


Quote:

Going by Australian statistics:

I was specifically referring to the "look twice their age and probably have half the lifespan" part of your comment. There's no doubting Muslims have more children, this is due to strong family values, something the west is increasingly moving away from.


Quote:

This indicates that the minority of Muslim women in Australia are having more babies than the rest of Australian women put together

It doesn't indicate that at all. Muslims are around 2% of the population, the statistics you quoted say non-Muslims have on average 2 babies each, whilst Muslims have on average 2.9. At that rate, Muslims would need to be more than 40% of the population to even match the number of children non-Muslims are having.


Quote:

so no doubt Muslims will eventually outnumber non-Muslims.

As we say, Insha'Allah :)


Quote:

It's obvious that many young Muslim women you see look old and worn out before their time

No this isn't obvious at all. Again I am asking are you basing this on facts or is it just a "gut feeling"?

Firstly just basing this on "muslim women you see" is not a very empirical method of determining such things, secondly how on earth do you know their actual ages to judge if they look old or not for their age?


Quote:

add lack of education to the mix and a dozen children and you can see that the goal of expanding the Muslim empire is quantity not quality.

The statistics said Muslim women have a "somewheat lower level of educational attainment overall", I wonder why they chose to steer clear of words like 'substantial'? Yes Muslim women are generally more focused on family and therefore less on self-education, but this doesn't really mean that overall the Muslim community is uneducated. In fact, growing up as an Aussie, I knew of no fellow Aussie who had attended university, and I was the first member from my family to attend university, Yet since becoming a Muslim I've barely met a Muslim family where the [relevant-aged] children do not attend university. Look around at Australian universities, they're full of Muslims, barely a single university exists in the capital cities that doesn't have a huge MSA (Muslim Students Association).


Quote:

the gripe is that while your women are breeding like rabbits, in general the children aren't educated to the same level as their peers. Lack of education is one of the biggest problems in our society

All the statistics you showed about education were nothing to do with Australia, and therefore are not really relevant to this discussion. The only statistics that mentioned education at all in Australia referred to women in the 40-44 age group, who were most likely born/raised overseas, and therefore is irrelevant when discussing the children.


Quote:

combined with overbreeding and a strict adherence to an outdated and violent doctrine

Islam is not a violent doctrine, this is just nonsense. Verses from the Bible are far more violent than those mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an in fact implores Muslims not to go beyond the limits when it comes to aggression, and makes it clear that God dislikes the transgressors who go beyond limits. Compare this to the Bible where people are ordered supposedly by God to ravage entire cities, killing the men, women, children and old folk and even rip unborn babies from their mothers wombs. And when we look at the reality, we find the Australian government, whose doctrines I assume you support, is engaged in three wars in different Muslim countries, and then you have the hide to claim we're the violent ones? Get a grip on reality.

Quote:

That's of Muslim women ages 40-44...It's funny however though, most Muslim women I know which are my own age are in university or have a university degree. That's because their parents worked so hard to give them what they didn't have. Most Muslim women I know

Fair enough Malik and that's very positive news.  Those statistics were Australian and only taken amongst a certain age group - so perhaps aren't as accurate as they could be.

If many young Muslim women in Australia are now well educated and progressive - perhaps they will have a positive influence over Muslim males and eventually demand equality.

According to international media reports - obviously the same level of education isn't being applied to young Muslims in general.  It just goes to show what wonderful opportunities Australia can offer to those who were once suppressed.

That's why it's difficult to understand why Muslims want to introduce Sharia Law here and have multiple wives.  If a country is giving you progressive opportunities - why change it and wish for a regressive regime many have been forced to flee from?

Quote:

You feel the need to cover women them up

Why do you frame this as "we cover them up". If Christian women cover their breasts because they think it's immoral not to, would you accuse Christian men of covering them up? This logic is very skewed, and it's quite obvious you don't have a decent argument to present on that topic.

Jewish women also cover their hair and legs and so forth, to a similar level as Muslim women, do you think Jewish men are "covering them up"?

Quote:

Islam is not a violent doctrine, this is just nonsense. Verses from the Bible are far more violent than those mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an in fact implores Muslims not to go beyond the limits when it comes to aggression, and makes it clear that God dislikes the transgressors who go beyond limits. Compare this to the Bible where people are ordered supposedly by God to ravage entire cities, killing the men, women, children and old folk and even rip unborn babies from their mothers wombs. And when we look at the reality, we find the Australian government, whose doctrines I assume you support, is engaged in three wars in different Muslim countries, and then you have the hide to claim we're the violent ones? Get a grip on reality

Of course the bible is as violent as the Koran - and possibly more and I question any religious fundamentalist who declares their religion has the only God who is benign.  As far as many Australians are concerned religion is full of contradictions no matter how much Muslims and Christians deny it.

In regard to war - that is a whole different issue.  War in any form is abhorrent and many Australians did not support the government and it's allies in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and their continual support of Israel and feel fury towards the US for it's warmongering, greed and arrogance.

Top Iranian cleric calls for death for all who do not respect the veil.

Once more we see the fruits of having a state run by religious nuts, these goons who confuse religion and politics, and represent the highest echelon of Islamic culture and learning, show the very ugly face of Islam without any hint of apology for their barbaric beliefs.

Here is his quote, made when expanding on how women who do not wear the full veil, should be dealt with.
I copied from an article posted on "Live,Leak"

"These women and their husbands and their fathers must die," said Hassani, who is the representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in eastern Azerbaijan.


These guys are representative of the "true" form of Islam that people like Abu, and Malik look to for example, and is the type of Islam they would like to see introduced in Australia.

When I suggest that a more moderate form of Islam is a better way to interpret their religion in a modern world, they reject that as unacceptable, but hideous, violent, misogynistic people like this crackpot cleric get their approval.
They wish to pursue these totally unacceptable practices, and expect us to give them the "Religious Freedom", to pursue their ideal of developing, and extending these practices in Australia, through a policy protecting their separatist agenda.

I don't think we non-muslims will let them do that, no matter how much they squeal about religious rights, or cultural identity, or racial vilification, some things are so obviously wrong that they will never be allowed to be legitimised by any who want to be included in our australian culture.

Let's hope so.

Quote:

I question any religious fundamentalist who declares their religion has the only God who is benign.

I think describing God as benign or not doesn't make a lot of sense. Believers in God obviously believe that God controls the entire universe, and therefore sometimes wipes out entire planets probably (with mere movement of a specific comet or asteroid into a slightly different path), it's therefore irrelevant as God is the overall controller of all matter in the physical universe, therefore all good as well as bad occurences are within his realm of control. Since you're most likely an atheist? that doesn't really have much significance for you, but it does render your point about no religions having a benign God completely irrelevant.


Quote:

As far as many Australians are concerned religion is full of contradictions no matter how much Muslims and Christians deny it.

What % of Australians are atheist? or signficantly secular enough to consider most of the teachings of religion irrelevant to their lives? I've always wondered this, as I've observed most Australians to be quite atheist and significantly secular enough to pretty much rule religion out of most aspects of their lives.


Quote:

In regard to war - that is a whole different issue.

Not as far as Islam is concerned it's not. The Qur'anic injunctions that refer to violence, refer to it only in the context of a state engaging in warfare, not in the context of individuals committing violent acts.


Quote:

War in any form is abhorrent

I have to agree with you on that one. But the fact is that it's been with us since time immemorial, and probably will be until the end. Conflict is a part of human nature, that I don't think we'll ever outgrow or progress beyond. Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war.


Quote:

many Australians did not support the government and it's allies in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and their continual support of Israel

Yes I know, I was one of those Australians who marched in earlier anti-iraq-war protests before I became a Muslim.

And if you hold those views, then I commend you for that, but the fact is, at the time, a lot of Australians did support it (as they sheepishly reacted to the propaganda) and that's when it was important. And in fact some of the views you've expressed here, almost border on that same kind of ignorant, ill-informed anti-Islamic propaganda that permitted the Australian government to assist in the invasion of those countries.

mozza,


Quote:

These guys are representative of the "true" form of Islam that people like Abu, and Malik look to for example, and is the type of Islam they would like to see introduced in Australia.

If what you quote is correct (got a source by the way??), then it's clearly not an Islamic ruling. Islam does not call for the death penalty for people not observing correct dress standards. And suggesting I would like to see this introduced into Australia is just pure fantasy.


Quote:

but hideous, violent, misogynistic people like this crackpot cleric get their approval.

Can you quote me giving any approval to this guy? Or to Iran? If you can, then we've got a discussion on our hands, if not, you can just admit that you look like a fool.

mozza, whilst you keep using lies and fabricated arguments to try and attack me, you just prove that your side of the argument has no basis. That's certainly no way to convince others of your points. And not only do you lose credibility amongst Muslims, but even your fellow non-Muslims will start doubting your credibility.

Quote:

And in fact some of the views you've expressed here, almost border on that same kind of ignorant, ill-informed anti-Islamic propaganda that permitted the Australian government to assist in the invasion of those countries

You could be right Abu, but you've got an arrogant attitude (common in Muslim men), and as you are a recent convert, it's obvious you will fit right in as a Muslim.  Show us some good examples of the sort of people Islam attracts?

My recollection may not be as great as when I was your age, but I am pretty confident of reading posts from Malik, and yourself, pointing to Iran as the closest model we have, to a "TRUE" Islamic society.
If you wish to deny you or Malik said that, I will go back through the posts and find them for you, otherwise stop being so deceitful in your portrayal of the extent of your agreement with Islamic views which western societies find unacceptable.

You deride my posts on the views of muslims who actually do want a modern, moderate form of Islam to evolve, as being unrepresentative of what real muslims want, yet when we show what these actual muslim leaders do, and say, and want, then you find yourself  faced with problem of defending the indefensible, your lack of moral argument to back your stance, becomes very apparent, and the evasion begins again.

You do not have the guts to really state clearly, what standards you wish for a muslim society, you do not have the guts to state that anyone who makes statements like that immoral iranian cleric are obscene insults to humanity, in short, you seem to lack much moral courage at all, to present your full and frank views on what Islam should be.

mantra,


Quote:

You could be right Abu, but..

A 'but' is not a good answer to something you recognise to be right.


Quote:

you've got an arrogant attitude (common in Muslim men)

How many Muslim men do you know? And to be fair I don't think I was really being arrogant, in fact I was merely countering attacks made against Islam. Arrogance is usually displayed by those in the attacking stance, not those on the defensive.


Quote:

and as you are a recent convert

Well I don't know about recent. 9 years ago isn't really all that recent.


Quote:

Show us some good examples of the sort of people Islam attracts?

Well since you're a pacifist, how about a chorus of 'Peace train' with Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam)?

MalcolmX (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz), perhaps not known for pacifism, but he was a very principled dedicated civil rights activist.

Michael Wolfe, American writer, famous for his ABC documentary about Hajj.

Margaret Marcus (Maryam Jameelah), American essayist, poet, journalist and author of several books. She converted from Judaism to Islam in 1962 and wrote a famous series of correspondances with the great Islamic Scholar of Pakistan Mawlah Abu'l Alaa al-Mawdudi.

Daniel Moore (Abdal-Hayy), American poet and essayist.

Yvonne Ridley, British journalist who was captured by the Talibaan and held prisoner, after her release converted to Islam and has lectured all over the world about Islam, I've had the pleasure of attending her lectures in Australia.

Leopold Weiss (Muhammad Asad), Austro-Hungarian Jew who converted to Islam and later served as one of the first Pakistani ambassadors to the United Nations.

Hedley Churchward (Mahmoud Mobarek), English set designer and painter, notable for converting to Islam and in 1910 being the first known British Muslim to make the Hajj.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Ph.D, Canadian professor and activist and the current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Knud Valdemar Gylding Holmboe (Ali Ahmad), Danish journalist and explorer, famous for his criticism of the Italian occupation of North Africa.

Not an exhaustive list, but some of the most well known and respected people who've become Muslims in the last century.

mozza,


Quote:

My recollection may not be as great as when I was your age, but I am pretty confident of reading posts from Malik, and yourself, pointing to Iran as the closest model we have, to a "TRUE" Islamic society.

I can't speak for Malik (you're debating an individual here, not a binary-being), but I've never said anything of the sort.


Quote:

If you wish to deny you or Malik said that

If you wish to discuss with me or accuse me of something, or slander me for having supported such and such a belief, stick with what I've said. But that's really irrelevant to you isn't it, you're already convinced that I approve of this, according to your initial post anyway.


Quote:

I will go back through the posts and find them for you,

Please do, If you can find a post by me claiming that 'Iran is the closest model we have to a true  Islamic society' then I will not only admit you are right in this discussion, I will proclaim you to be right in everything you've ever debated with me. Good luck :)


Quote:

yet when we show what these actual muslim leaders do

I'm sorry but the person you've quoted, I've got no idea who he is by the way, is certainly not my leader.


Quote:

You do not have the guts to really state clearly, what standards you wish for a muslim society

I can tell you this, it's certainly not the death penalty for not adhering to dress standards.

You've truly gone off your rocker mate.


Quote:

you do not have the guts to state that anyone who makes statements like that immoral iranian cleric are obscene insults to humanity

Anyone who claims that Islam demands the death penalty for not adhering to dress standards is a deluded nutcase. Whether it be you or an Iranian Cleric.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:

Yvonne Ridley, British journalist who was captured by the Talibaan and held prisoner, after her release converted to Islam and has lectured all over the world about Islam, I've had the pleasure of attending her lectures in Australia.

I reckon it went something like this.

Convert and say we are good, or we will track you down easily because you are famous and torture you to death.

Alright, maybe not.

If Christian women cover their breasts because they think it's immoral not to, would you accuse Christian men of covering them up?

I don't think I would differentiate between the sexes if there was no difference.

Jewish women also cover their hair and legs and so forth, to a similar level as Muslim women, do you think Jewish men are "covering them up"?

Not in Australia.

My recollection may not be as great as when I was your age, but I am pretty confident of reading posts from Malik, and yourself, pointing to Iran as the closest model we have, to a "TRUE" Islamic society.

They also acknowledged it had flaws.

Quote:

Not in Australia.

Hate to break it to you, but they do. I sometimes work in Jewish areas, and whenever I see orthodox women, they're always dressed almost exactly like Muslim women. I've also visited the homes of some orthodox Jews and their wives were always covered to a similar level as Muslim women. You probably don't notice as much for a few reasons, 1) Less Jews are practising than Muslims as a % of their relative communities. 2) They tend to live in much closer knit communities. I don't think I ever saw a Jew until I was about 25. 3) I think they're a smaller community than the Muslims.


Quote:

They also acknowledged it had flaws.

I never claimed it's an Islamic society at all, to acknowledge it had flaws.

Oh, you were talking about orthodox women, not Jews in general. I don't think I've ever seen such an orthodox jewish woman.

mozza,

Just to help you out a little, I did a search on all posts by me mentioning the word 'Iran'. Here's a few to get you started...


Quote:

I could be wrong but I was certain that I read Malik say that while it is not perfect Iran is the closest nation that may be considered to a Caliphate. abu_rashid: Malik is entitled to his opinion on that, but the majority of Muslims would probably disagree on that specific issue. If a state were going to be likened to a Caliphate, they'd want to at least be using the name Caliphate to describe their form of government, not that that would guarantee it was a legitimate Caliphate, but it would at least suggest they were attempting to approximate one.

Quote:

I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.

hmmm, nope nothing there either... Keep searching :)

Or perhaps you could just drop your pride, admit you were wrong, and apologise for falsely accusing me of believing such things?? Nah I doubt that'll happen, probably more chance of you finding a quote from me calling Iran an Islamic society  ;D

Abu


Quote:

A 'but' is not a good answer to something you recognise to be right.

It was the only answer I had time for and the statement you made was only your opinion, so I gave you the benefit of your assumptions.


Quote:

How many Muslim men do you know? And to be fair I don't think I was really being arrogant, in fact I was merely countering attacks made against Islam. Arrogance is usually displayed by those in the attacking stance, not those on the defensive.

I have only met a few Muslim men in person and on the net - so I was generalising.  You were too.  All your opponents are those who aren't Muslim - in your mind, and that's OK.  I can understand why you are so defensive, but using reason instead of derision to those who are skeptical increases your chance of shedding a good light on Islam.

What would be interesting is to see some humility from those representing your religion, but perhaps Allah found it unnecessary and therefore it was omitted from the Koran.

freediver,


Quote:

Oh, you were talking about orthodox women, not Jews in general. I don't think I've ever seen such an orthodox jewish woman.

Yep, so are their men covering them? Strange of you to recognise what I asked, yet not to answer it :)


mantra,


Quote:

so I was generalising.  You were too.

I'm always generalising, take no notice of that.


Quote:

All your opponents are those who aren't Muslim - in your mind, and that's OK.

Although I might be a little 'one-eyed' in my support for Islam, I wouldn't go that far.


Quote:

I can understand why you are so defensive, but using reason instead of derision to those who are skeptical increases your chance of shedding a good light on Islam.

Actually I consider myself to have been quite restrained in my time so far on this forum. Have derided very few people except the real loonies like mozza and sprint, and even then only very rarely.


Quote:

What would be interesting is to see some humility from those representing your religion, but perhaps Allah found it unnecessary and therefore it was omitted from the Koran.

If we Muslims here are lacking humility, it is only our own fault, not that of the Qur'an, for it advises us to behave with humility. Just make sure you're not mistaking readiness to defend our position on every occasion with lack of humility as they are not one in the same. If I did that without humility, then that is my fault, but merely doing it doesn't indicate I lack humility.

Quote:

Actually I consider myself to have been quite restrained in my time so far on this forum. Have derided very few people except the real loonies like mozza and sprint, and even then only very rarely.

Wow, now that IS scary!

It is more humorous than scary :D

I understand how younger people have a greater feeling of certainty about things they do not really comprehend, they work very much on feelings, and that is why we see a lot of abherrant behaviour.

What I do find scary is how some young muslims try to deny their views have any association to the acts of evil violence, which unfortunately are perpetrated by too many adherents of their sectarian beliefs.

Quote:

abherrant

Abhorrent, Aberrant, or mozza's new word of a mix between the two? :)

I resist the Americanisation of our spelling Abu.

It is abherrant, unless you prefer the american version aberrant.

It is amusing that you have such disdain for all things US, but not their assault on our language it seems.

BTW, thanks for highlighting the point I was making with your erroneous assumptions.

No actually I strive to use non-US spellings, even to the point of still using gaol over jail, even though the latter is now more acceptable in Australia.

Therefore I admit I was wrong and apologise for wrongly correcting you, thank you for pointing out my error.

It is all a bit of fun, I still misspell things from time to time, no biggy.

What I really would like to see is people take a step back from their certainty on many issues, I think a degree of healthy enquiry is beneficial to nearly every aspect of our lives.

You seem to think that I want you to abandon your faith, when I actually just would like you to question it more, and hopefully be one of the new generation who can effect positive change, which would benefit all, not just the west.

Quote:

What I really would like to see is people take a step back from their certainty on many issues,

Good call, especially when they accuse their opponents of believing in and calling for something which they clearly don't.


Quote:

You seem to think that I want you to abandon your faith, when I actually just would like you to question it more,

I took 2 years to actually embrace Islam, from when I first began enquiring into it, until I finally decided to become Muslim, if that's not questioning it, I don't know what is.


Quote:

and hopefully be one of the new generation who can effect positive change, which would benefit all, not just the west.

Come on, you're speaking for yourself. You want to see Islam modified to suit your vision of how you'd like Muslims to be, and nothing more.

The interesting thing is, that God specifically mentioned this in the Qur'an:

"The Jews and Christians will not be pleased with you until you follow their ways." (Surah al-Baqarah)

The word translated as "ways" actually means religion, community, ideology or societal division. Rings quite true I think :)