What an excellent gesture, no doubt most of the loons here will label him an 'enslaved dhimmi' etc. but perhaps he's just not a narrow minded bigot intent on causing hatred and conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims as some here are.

Anyway I say Good onya Phil, a great gesture, and a good show of fair dinkum Aussie values, not the fake put-on variety that Howard and his cronies were peddling.

-----

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45274000/jpg/_45274258_artist_226.jpg
Phillip George wants to bring Islamic art to a wider audience

An Australian artist has produced a range of Islamic surfboards in an attempt to create a greater understanding between East and West.

Phillip George was inspired by his trips to the Middle East and by riots in 2005 when Lebanese Australians were targeted on a beach in Sydney.

He has called the range the Inshallah - or God Willing - surfboards and has put them on exhibition in Sydney.

There are 30 surfboards in all, each adorned with intricate Islamic motifs.

Mr George hopes that the Inshallah surfboards can help bridge cultural and religious misunderstandings within Australia.

His inspiration has come from his travels and also from the Cronulla riots, when a crowd of mainly white Australians gathered at a beachside suburb of Sydney and targeted people of Middle Eastern appearance.

This is an attempt to fuse the Australian beach culture with the Islamic culture, he says.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45274000/jpg/_45274230_boards_226.jpg
The boards are adorned with intricate patterns from Islamic culture

"What I've done to bring the joy and the interest of our Islamic art to an Australian audience," said Mr George.

"I have actually transposed a lot of my photographic images - the work of the tiles and shots of the mosque - on to a surfboard so that they become a lot more acceptable or easy to digest for an Australian audience."

The exhibition, Borderlands, is at the Casula Powerhouse arts centre near Sydney.

All the surfboards face Mecca, and visitors have included schoolchildren from Cronulla, a mainly white suburb, and pupils from Sydney's Islamic schools.

This is not the first time that symbols of the Australian beach culture have been used in this way.

A local designer has already brought out what she calls a burqini - a full-length swim suit to make Muslim women feel more comfortable at the beach.

Source: BBC

I agree Abu, all efforts to promote tolerance and understanding, are positive influences, which we all should embrace.

I think most aussies would agree with that sentiment, but also, they would bear in mind that tolerance is a two way street, and expect Islamic spokesmen to show tolerance of our culture as well.

If 'Both' parties start displaying real tolerance, we can move away from the more confrontational attitudes we have seen over recent years.

The artwork is very attractive.  This is where multiculturalism finds common ground - food and art.  It's a pity these two areas couldn't be exploited more.

The intricacy of the art reminds me a little of aboriginal art - an area where the aborigines do gain a lot of respect.  

I note the idea etc was not a Muslims...  need we say more.

That is exactly the type of negativity, that we could safely assume, this artist would hope to see put behind us, Grendel.

I have made no secret of my disdain for some aspects of the muslim culture, which has seen the spread of so much conflict and violence.

I have also noted the fact that the greatest obstacles to Islam progressing, and evolving into a more moderate, and peaceful religion, comes from within Islam itself, from the extremist Islamists, but to treat all muslims, and everything about Islam as negative, only helps these extremists promote mistrust of the west, amongst the muslim world.

Imagine what the world may be like today, if moderate progressive christians had not steered their religion away from the extremist violence of the inquisition era?

Islam is confronted with the same challenges as those earlier christian reformers were, paradoxically by those claiming to be the most ardent, and true upholders of their faith. The fact that they are having to face this directional crisis, in a much more modern, and tolerant world than that of the christian reformers, of hundreds of years ago, would inspire hope that the average muslim would be more capable of accepting the need for this long overdue evolution to occur.

We need not passively accept the wrongs promoted by Islamist extremists, to display tolerance for Islam, but we should try and restrict our criticism to areas where it is relevant, and try and refrain from childish, "ours is better than yours", style, petty point scoring.

I dont care what he puts on surfboards. It may be though other people do. Let's see whether he gets marked for death for doing so.

I like the spin in the article


Quote:

Phillip George was inspired by his trips to the Middle East and by riots in 2005 when Lebanese Australians were targeted on a beach in Sydney.

Saying nothing about *why* that happened, because Lebanese Islamic thugs bashed up some lifesavers who had the audacity to tell some Allah Akbar tough guys to swim beneath the flags.

And this was the straw that broke the camel's back, after the people of Cronulla had endured attacks from islamic thugs for something like 20 years during summer, when the hordes descended on their suburbs with no respect. If law enforcement does nothing, then the people will eventually explode.

That's why it will probably happen again.

But yeah, put anything you want on the surfboards. Who cares.

I have to say "so what?"

Put what he likes on there. I have always been impressed by middle eastern caligraphy and Muslim art. Art that channels extra energies into patterns and mosaics etc because they are not allowed to draw human figures. Not sure if that extends to animals.

It may turn out to be of some positive effect on those that have not seen it before. But the art work tells nothing or little of the culture specifically.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Well it certainly comes across as negativity Grendel.

It is not about being right or wrong, it is about people trying to promote understanding, whether they be christian, muslim, or atheist, is not the issue.

It is about people, and my views in that regard have not changed, I still think that your average joe, whatever his belief, just wants a peaceful decent life for their family.

You know how critical I have been of certain Islamic practices, but that doesn't mean I think all muslims are bad, or inferior, I think their religion needs to evolve, and I think that by not ostracising them, we will see them be more comfortable in taking the path away from extremism, because it is the right thing to do, not because they are bullied into it.

Not negativity at all Mozza ....  REALITY.

Care to prove where I was wrong?

As for the artist...  just another naive do-gooder barking up the wrong tree.  Much like you used to be.  ;)

If Phillip George incorporated some of vatican, zionist, buddhist, atheist, etc. symbolisms together with islamic symbolisms would it still sell as the help bridge between cultural and religious misunderstandings?

I've got a kneeboard with one of those Chinese circle things with two 'fish' swimming around each other. I don't think anyone will read much into it. It's just a marketing gimmick. The designs look nice though.

Calanen,


Quote:

because Lebanese Islamic thugs bashed up some...

1) The Lebanese thugs who cause trouble around Sydney are from both Christian and Muslim background, also some of them aren't even Lebanese, they're Assyrian and from other backgrounds (and many of them are purely Christian). So please don't use the term Islamic here, as it's completely incorrect and is just trying to wrongly direct hatred towards a religion which has nothing to do with these actions.

2) Anyone who goes to beaches hassling girls in bikinis etc. (which is what a lot of the problems were about) is certainly not Islamic. Any Lebanese Muslims involved in going to Cronulla stirring up trouble would hardly be an example of Islamicness, anymore than Martin Bryant for instance is a representative of being Anglican....

LOL...  you are full of it.

Hey fd, abu...   what's that mod: swearing about me starting this topic etc....

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 3:51am:

Calanen, Quote: because Lebanese Islamic thugs bashed up some... 1) The Lebanese thugs who cause trouble around Sydney are from both Christian and Muslim background, also some of them aren't even Lebanese, they're Assyrian and from other backgrounds (and many of them are purely Christian). So please don't use the term Islamic here, as it's completely incorrect and is just trying to wrongly direct hatred towards a religion which has nothing to do with these actions. 2) Anyone who goes to beaches hassling girls in bikinis etc. (which is what a lot of the problems were about) is certainly not Islamic. Any Lebanese Muslims involved in going to Cronulla stirring up trouble would hardly be an example of Islamicness, anymore than Martin Bryant for instance is a representative of being Anglican....

And you can say that with absolute certainty.

I think he means by definition. He's not saying that there are no self identified Muslims hassling girls on the beach, but merely that he doesn't consider them to be Muslims. When a Muslim does something wrong, they cease being Muslim, at least termporarily, so that it becomes impossible for a Muslim to do something wrong. In this way Islam is perfect.

beautiful boards


Calanen wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 11:13am:

I dont care what he puts on surfboards. It may be though other people do. Let's see whether he gets marked for death for doing so. I like the spin in the article Quote: Phillip George was inspired by his trips to the Middle East and by riots in 2005 when Lebanese Australians were targeted on a beach in Sydney. Saying nothing about *why* that happened, because Lebanese Islamic thugs bashed up some lifesavers who had the audacity to tell some Allah Akbar tough guys to swim beneath the flags.

actually that's not what happened at all.

btw I assume the next time some white christians attack a couple of muslims you'll be happy justifying a race riot against anyone of the same demographic?

no?


Quote:

And this was the straw that broke the camel's back, after the people of Cronulla had endured attacks from islamic thugs for something like 20 years during summer, when the hordes descended on their suburbs with no respect. If law enforcement does nothing, then the people will eventually explode.

the 'hordes' did not descend. there have been turf wars going on in cronulla for decades man- and not solely with middle eastern people- in fact way before they arrived there. between skaties and punks and surfies etc etc

there is an over developed sense of territorialism in cronulla which has caused problems in the area for ages mate. I'm not saying either side is completely innocent or completely guilty- but to depict cronulla residents as passive victims up to the time of the riots is nothing short of ridiculous

and EVEN IF they were- those riots were nothing but a filthy display of xenophobia and racism- why else did they attack hijabis? why did they attack anyone instead of just demonstrating? why did white power groups get involved? huh?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:17pm:

I think he means by definition. He's not saying that there are no self identified Muslims hassling girls on the beach, but merely that he doesn't consider them to be Muslims. When a Muslim does something wrong, they cease being Muslim, at least termporarily, so that it becomes impossible for a Muslim to do something wrong. In this way Islam is perfect.

they don't cease to be muslim- that would make them kufr and that's a big thing to say about someone

all it means is that they are acting in a way that is not true to their deen/religion

you can say someone is acting unislamically without casting them out of the religion fd. don't be so extreme

Right. So they temporarily become unIslamic Muslims?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:20pm:

Right. So they temporarily become unIslamic Muslims?

it's not like changing your status on msn fd. not in my opinion anyway

it's the same way as a christian doing something un-christian

it doesn't make them less of a christian or anything like that- it just might mean they're not a very good one

just because you do or say or think something that is against your religion- it does't mean you're automatically cast out of the fold. by our nature as humans we are going to sin, we're going to do things against whatever religion we subscribe to- it's the way we are.

but if you ask me- yes, you certainly can have an unislamic muslim or an unchristian christian- I've met a few of each.

my definition of that is someone who believes in their religion but doesn't practise it

but someone committing a singular act against their religion - I don't think they can be put into that category. if a muslim ate ham once I wouldn't call them an unislamic muslim. but if I knew someone who thoughout their life never prayed, drank, ate pork, had sexual relations outside of marriage etc- I would say their life was unislamic

So it's like saying they are not 'true' Christians, as opposed to saying they are not Christian.

It seems kind of a moot point. The criticism was that Muslims were doing it, not that the Koran tells people to go to the beach and hassle girls. Whether they were misguided or not, they were still doing it.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:55pm:

So it's like saying they are not 'true' Christians, as opposed to saying they are not Christian. It seems kind of a moot point. The criticism was that Muslims were doing it, not that the Koran tells people to go to the beach and hassle girls. Whether they were misguided or not, they were still doing it.

agreed- but there's nothing wrong with abu pointing out that it's against islamic beliefs. he's called upon as the forum's expert on islam, so him saying where this sits with islam is not unusual.

Perhaps this is just another semantic issue, but my understanding of Christian doctrine is that it is not unChristian to sin. Everybody sins. therefor if someone sins you cannot say they are being unChristian.

Likewise, wouldn't it be more correct to say that these guys were not being unIslamic. Rather it was unIslamic for everyone else not to flog them in the public square.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 6:22pm:

Perhaps this is just another semantic issue, but my understanding of Christian doctrine is that it is not unChristian to sin. Everybody sins. therefor if someone sins you cannot say they are being unChristian. Likewise, wouldn't it be more correct to say that these guys were not being unIslamic. Rather it was unIslamic for everyone else not to flog them in the public square.

yes but you can still say someone is displaying un-christian behaviour  or that they're doing some against the teachings of christianity

to me- unislamic is the same thing

no it wouldn't be more correct- I don't know what the punishment is for caterwalling at women in public so I've got no idea if flogging is appropriate

Quote:

1) The Lebanese thugs who cause trouble around Sydney are from both Christian and Muslim background, also some of them aren't even Lebanese, they're Assyrian and from other backgrounds (and many of them are purely Christian). So please don't use the term Islamic here, as it's completely incorrect and is just trying to wrongly direct hatred towards a religion which has nothing to do with these actions

Don't give me that man, they are completely separate communities. I represent both and they hate each other.  The guys who bashed the lifesavers were muslim. The people who did the revenge attacks were also muslim, and the christian lebanese said they wanted *nothing* to do with those revenge attacks, although asked to join in.

Yes there are idiots in every community, but in terms of jihad and 'uncovered meat for the cats' as sheik hilali would say, that is a purely islamic concept.

so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were?

Calanen would you mind starting a new topic on the general board with those claims about the cronulla attacks being between Muslims?

Quote:

so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were?

The original attacks weren't Ok and from an onlooker - they looked like a drunken bunch of yobbos, which they probably were - but they weren't professing to have any superior moral code, only the fact they were defending their turf from anti-social marauders.  

The revenge attack was planned, there were groups of ethnic males congregating in large parties and on their way over to take revenge.  They smashed cars and property and caused trauma and terror to the innocent residents in nearby streets - of which many were sick and elderly.

No matter what religion they were - if there were Muslims amongst the mob - then they are just as violent and malicious as any male involved in the melee from either side - but they are also hypocrites - preaching one thing and doing another.

Crap is moderate swearing?
You are kidding right.

mantra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 7:20pm:

Quote: so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were? The original attacks weren't Ok and from an onlooker - they looked like a drunken bunch of yobbos, which they probably were - but they weren't professing to have any superior moral code, only the fact they were defending their turf from anti-social marauders.

actually yes they were- their moral code was that of race and belonging to nation, if you read the texts sent around or the flyer's posted promoting the 'event'

what was the moral code of the revenge attacks if you don't mind me asking?


Quote:

The revenge attack was planned, there were groups of ethnic males congregating in large parties and on their way over to take revenge.  They smashed cars and property and caused trauma and terror to the innocent residents in nearby streets - of which many who were sick and elderly.

the original riots were planned- there were flyers up about them and texts sent around to people. groups got together and went in on the trains to join in. they also smashed cars (although not property cause it's 'their area') not to mention a whole lot of people.

there were groups of anglo males congregating in large parties also looking to take revenge in the original riots. and they caused trauma and terror to innocent bystanders who were female and young.

if you switched naitonalities/demographics- and put the original riots in lakemba, the rioters are middle eastern and they bashed up random anglos

and then you had anglos rioting after

would you have the same spin on it?

cause i bet a few people here would say in that hypothetical- that muslims/middle easterners need to stop overreacting and acting like babies, and need to toughen up and stop yelling victim everytime someone says something nasty to them- and that their behaviour is just another example of why they're not welcome in 'this country' and of how theyre not assimilating and have no respect for decent australians etc etc



Quote:

No matter what religion they were - if there were Muslims amongst the mob - then they are just as violent and malicious as any male involved in the melee from either side - but they are also hypocrites - preaching one thing and doing another.

agreed- I don't think either riots should have happened

but the anglos were also hypocrites-because they were talking about how they dislike violence and bullying and the terrorising of others- and then they went and did exactly the same thing

Grendel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 7:27pm:

Crap is moderate swearing? You are kidding right.

crap isn't what came up on the screen

Did the Mohamed surf?

Quote:

so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were?

The original ones? When they bashed the lifesavers?

[edit - decided not to bother.]

Quote:

but the anglos were also hypocrites-because they were talking about how they dislike violence and bullying and the terrorising of others- and then they went and did exactly the same thing

Riots happen when people are frustrated, and it takes a lot for Australians to riot. A real lot.

It wasnt 'racism'. They werent bashing Chinese. Or Aboriginals. Or Jews.

They targetted Middle Easterners - because law enforcement and government has done nothing to stop the constant violence and harassment perpetrated by 'persons of Middle Eastern appearance' every summer at Cronulla Beach, the surrounding shopping centre and Cronulla train station.  That's why the community exploded.

And everyone forgets - who started it.

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 7:42pm:

Quote: so the revenge attacks weren't ok but the original ones were? The original ones? When they bashed the lifesavers?

no the original riots


Quote:

Of course beating random people in the street is not acceptable, but a riot develops when the government ignores the people. They become angry and frustrated, and it is really really hard to make Australians riot. The fact they did meant that they were sick of having to put up with being beaten up, having their women spat on, gang raped, their shopping centre overrun, the beaches taken over. You dont get that sort of ill feeling just from 'racism'.

one could easily say that muslims have undergone similar treatment in the community at large and their frustrations came out in the revenge riots.

shopping center? middle easterners cant shop now?

and do you really think that locals had no part in the ill will generated between the two groups? is it your imagining that middle easterners came to the beach and immediately started stirring up trouble and the locals just sat back?

what seems more likely to me is that they were seen as outsiders and targetted as such- so anything they did was seen as out of line and unacceptable. like I said it's happened in cronulla before with diffferent groups. the only constant element being the overly territorial locals

were there gang rapes in cronulla or are you suggesting they took on grievances of the whole country?

and p.s. anglos gang rape anglo girls all the time and the gang rapists you're referring to raped a middle eastern girl too


Quote:

They werent beating up chinese. They werent beating up Aboriginals.

not this time, but it's happened before


Quote:

They were really really pissed off with Middle Eastern looking people because of what has happened for 20 years there. And if anyone is to blame, its our government for letting it get out of control. They are still in denial.

I agree that if a community has a complaint about trouble makers etc there should be steps taken to make sure it doesn't turn into a turf war. but I would suggest the locals gave as good as they got. you'd see middle eastern people down there getting verbally abused and picked on even if they were just sitting having a picnic- but you're right- it's their fault for...um. what exactly?


Quote:

What is worse is that they let the revenge attacks happen, and arrested no one. The police even gave them an escort into the suburbs with lights and siren. How do I know? I saw it.  The cops drove along behind, watching and doing nothing.

I have a problem with the conduct of the police throughout the whole thing- cronulla and all the rest. it was completely ridiculous


Quote:

When the first calls came out that the suburbs were being invaded by Lebanese, concerned locals rang around and SMSed, and everyone was to meet down at the Maroubra Bay Hotel to get together to defend the suburbs. The police found out (probably from telephone intercepts) and came out in force, to surround the Maroubra Bay Hotel to keep the residents in, and prevent them stopping the attack on the East by the Muslims. Residents just had to grit their teeth as beyond the police line, muslims danced around and taunted them, setting fires, smashing things and laughing.

yeah they should have let them out there and got a real blood bath going


Quote:

In the mean time, a local identity, Frogger, was stabbed repeatedly, and could not be helped because no one could leave the hotel. He lived luckily. He went to the defence of a young girl being bashed by Muslims.

women were bashed by people in cronulla too- don't act like it's just muslims who do it


Quote:

The Police stopped the locals from defending their homes and property, and thought their talents were best served by locking the residents in the Maroubra Bay Hotel while the muslims rampaged around setting fires, beating people, shouting allah akbar. Also, a police paddy wagon was surrounded by muslims, when it was going to assist the police to surround the Maroubra Bay. A group of locals on the way to the Maroubra Bay, saved the cops and fought off the Lebs. I know this for a fact, it was confirmed by a Det Sgt in person.

and at cronulla the police and ambulance crews were also attacked


Quote:

I dont blame the police too much, they were following strict orders from higher up.

you don't blame the police for handling it badly- but you blame muslims and middle easterners for their actions (rightfully so)- yet you don't seem to go into such elaborate condemnation when it comes to what happened at cronulla.

Quote:

one could easily say that muslims have undergone similar treatment in the community at large and their frustrations came out in the revenge riots.

That's just crap. We are so tolerant that we should be called Bendover and Take it Land. We are the most tolerant fricking people in the entire world, and I know this, I've been just about everywhere.


Quote:

shopping center? middle easterners cant shop now?

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. No they cant rampage through the mall, stealing things and knocking over products, starting fights and spitting on people.  And when the cops come they say to shopkeepers, 'Dont worry about it.' I got in-depth quotes about exactly what went on at that shopping centre from the owner of a business down there.


Quote:

and do you really think that locals had no part in the ill will generated between the two groups? is it your imagining that middle easterners came to the beach and immediately started stirring up trouble and the locals just sat back?

If the ill-will was just between the people of Cronulla and Muslims I might buy that. But its not - its between the Muslims and *everyone*. You go to any prison in Sydney. Silverwater, Parramatta, Long Bay - full of muslims. Now why is that when they are like what, 5% of the population? Just framed up too much?


Quote:

what seems more likely to me is that they were seen as outsiders and targetted as such- so anything they did was seen as out of line and unacceptable. like I said it's happened in cronulla before with diffferent groups. the only constant element being the overly territorial locals

That's crap. Absolute crap. As I say, Asians go to Cronulla Beach too. Was anyone bashing them? No? Why was that - because they just go to the beach and use it like normal people do. They dont start fights, attack women, harass people at the station, rampage through the mall. Muslim male gangs have been doing that for at least 20 years in Cronulla, and to a lesser extent at Bondi and Coogee. And the people were sick of it.


Quote:

were there gang rapes in cronulla or are you suggesting they took on grievances of the whole country?

The problem of rapes and Islam is worldwide, not just in Sydney. Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands


Quote:

and p.s. anglos gang rape anglo girls all the time and the gang rapists you're referring to raped a middle eastern girl too

They do? Then why are the courts packed with Middle Eastern rapists, that far overwhelm their numbers in society. And not just here, but in France, Norway, Sweden, Belgium - everywhere there is a large Islamic population mixing with the infidels. You want reports and figures? I've got them handy.

The cops said confidentially, that there were as of 2005, 70 middle eastern gang rape cases in Sydney alone. Why is that? Because Mohammed said that his warriors could rape infidel women in the Dar al Harb, so its really just part of jihad. And even Sheik Hilali said that the uncovered meat deserves what it gets.

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:04pm:

Quote: one could easily say that muslims have undergone similar treatment in the community at large and their frustrations came out in the revenge riots. That's just crap. We are so tolerant that we should be called Bendover and Take it Land. We are the most tolerant fricking people in the entire world, and I know this, I've been just about everywhere.

well congratulations- so have I


Quote:

shopping center? middle easterners cant shop now?

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. No they cant rampage through the mall, stealing things and knocking over products, starting fights and spitting on people.  And when the cops come they say to shopkeepers, 'Dont worry about it.' I got in-depth quotes about exactly what went on at that shopping centre from the owner of a business down there.


Quote:

and do you really think that locals had no part in the ill will generated between the two groups? is it your imagining that middle easterners came to the beach and immediately started stirring up trouble and the locals just sat back?

If the ill-will was just between the people of Cronulla and Muslims I might buy that. But its not - its between the Muslims and *everyone*. You go to any prison in Sydney. Silverwater, Parramatta, Long Bay - full of muslims. Now why is that when they are like what, 5% of the population? Just framed up too much?


Quote:

what seems more likely to me is that they were seen as outsiders and targetted as such- so anything they did was seen as out of line and unacceptable. like I said it's happened in cronulla before with diffferent groups. the only constant element being the overly territorial locals

That's crap. Absolute crap. As I say, Asians go to Cronulla Beach too. Was anyone bashing them? No? Why was that - because they just go to the beach and use it like normal people do. They dont start fights, attack women, harass people at the station, rampage through the mall. Muslim male gangs have been doing that for at least 20 years in Cronulla, and to a lesser extent at Bondi and Coogee. And the people were sick of it.[/quote]

there's always a flavour of the month man. I dunno about asians- but I do know aboutother groups down there


Quote:

were there gang rapes in cronulla or are you suggesting they took on grievances of the whole country?

The problem of rapes and Islam is worldwide, not just in Sydney. Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands[/quote]

yes but we're talking about cronulla aren't we


Quote:

and p.s. anglos gang rape anglo girls all the time and the gang rapists you're referring to raped a middle eastern girl too

They do? Then why are the courts packed with Middle Eastern rapists, that far overwhelm their numbers in society. And not just here, but in France, Norway, Sweden, Belgium - everywhere there is a large Islamic population mixing with the infidels. You want reports and figures? I've got them handy.[/quote]

yes they do. do you deny that anglo non-muslims conduct gang rape?


Quote:

The cops said confidentially, that there were as of 2005, 70 middle eastern gang rape cases in Sydney alone.

actually I believe the newspapers said that and then had to retract it because it wasn't true


Quote:

Why is that? Because Mohammed said that his warriors could rape infidel women in the Dar al Harb, so its really just part of jihad. And even Sheik Hilali said that the uncovered meat deserves what it gets.

actually that's not what he said

What  he actually said, and how people choose to interpret it are two very different things.

That is why I think there is hope for Islam, because the decent people still have the option of interpreting it in a non-violent, non-aggressive way.

Firstly though, they need to reject the extremist teachings which inspire so much confusion amongst young muslims.

Quote:

actually that's not what he said

I'm sorry, let's quote him *WORD FOR WORD* shall we:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html



Quote:

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? "Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation. [More Islamic interfaith tolerance as preached in Arabic - but it gets better.] "Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing. "But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs). "Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years. [Referring to Bilal Skaf, who Judge Finnane gave 55 years, reduced twice by the Court of Criminal Appeal. But you can't blame Judge Finnane. He tried. 2031 I think is when he gets out.] "But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it." "If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true? "If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. "If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it. "If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use. "If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen. "That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction. "Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You're my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you're my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you're the best of my weapons. "The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

I think my characterisation of what he said, was reasonably accurate. Perhaps not damning enough.

if that's a true translation of what he said it's messed up - WAY messed up

Quote:

That is why I think there is hope for Islam, because the decent people still have the option of interpreting it in a non-violent, non-aggressive way.

I guess. But that would be ignoring the thousands of books that preach the other way. You'd be going out on your own. It would be a bit like me saying I could convince the Tax Office that I really didnt have to pay taxes. No really, if I was just convincing enough, they might believe me instead of the 8 feet high stack of legislation and thousands of policies which say otherwise.


Quote:

Firstly though, they need to reject the extremist teachings which inspire so much confusion amongst young muslims.

There needs to be an implict and express acceptance that Infidel regimes and governments have the right to be infidel regimes and governments without EVER being attacked by jihad, or white anted from within in the stealth jihad. All Islamic immigrants should either be made to undergo a polygraph test to swear loyalty to democracy, Australia and secular law above all else or not be let in. I would limit islamic immigration either to nothing or almost nothing. The consequences of letting in too many muslims is to be seen throughout Europe now, and that is a window on our own future. Rapes, riots, crime, jihad, terror. We do not need it.

The fact that not ALL muslims are like that is meaningless information. There is enough of a problem so that we should act to protect ourselves. And to believe that we should have unlimited immigration of a people that reject our values, culture, government and beliefs is just pure idiocy.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

if that's a true translation of what he said it's messed up - WAY messed up

Yeah that was the other Al Taqiyya they tried 'Oh it was not a true translation.....' crap crap crap. If you have a Christian Arabic friend, listen to the tape with them. That is exactly what he said.

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:47pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 8:40pm: if that's a true translation of what he said it's messed up - WAY messed up Yeah that was the other Al Taqiyya they tried 'Oh it was not a true translation.....' crap crap crap. If you have a Christian Arabic friend, listen to the tape with them. That is exactly what he said.

I didn't say it wasn't a true translation- I said- if it was. basically I don't trust the media

Quote:

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world," Sheik Feiz Mohammad told 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall last year. "Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ... strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/vile-sermon-does-australia-a-big-favour/2006/10/28/1161749357803.html

I think the people that were responsible for leaking the original audio and translation, dont get much wrong.

But dont worry, an Imam in Britarabia backed him as well:


Quote:

ONE of Britain’s most senior Muslims has defended as “a great scholar” the Australian imam who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat that draws predators. Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article616185.ece

Quote:

I didn't say it wasn't a true translation- I said- if it was. basically I don't trust the media

Even the best and brightest ASIO couldnt have made that up. It was pure Gold, and he did it all by himself.

The transcript was made from an audio tape, which I cant find at the moment, but it was around at the time. I remember even the laughter when he says Long Bay from the faithful.

It's legit. He then went on Arabic TV and bad mouthed Australia, something about Arabs having more right to Australia than white Australians because we were descendants of thieves or something.

I've seen that tape too.

mod: offensive

I saw that too on the tv- and I disagree with your interpretation. to be honest in that instance I think he just phrased what he was trying to say badly. but I'd have to see it again to check

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:

I saw that too on the tv- and I disagree with your interpretation. to be honest in that instance I think he just phrased what he was trying to say badly. but I'd have to see it again to check

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIJPaOt79T8

It was 55 years you muppet. He keeps saying 65 years. Skaf should have been executed in my view.

tallowood wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

mod: offensive

Was attacking and punching lifeguards by pretend to be muslim thugs less offensive then comparing  muslim pretend to be surfboards to camels as ships of desert? Why?

Quote:

Was attacking and punching lifeguards by pretend to be muslim thugs less offensive then comparing  muslim pretend to be surfboards to camels as ships of desert? Why?

It was a pretty dumb joke.

tallowood wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:02pm: mod: offensive Was attacking and punching lifeguards by pretend to be muslim thugs less offensive then comparing  muslim pretend to be surfboards to camels as ships of desert? Why?

we both know what the joke meant man- don't play innocent

and you expect me to ban the cronulla riots and surrounding events? uhh, wish I could man but I'm not god

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:18pm:

Quote: Was attacking and punching lifeguards by pretend to be muslim thugs less offensive then comparing  muslim pretend to be surfboards to camels as ships of desert? Why? It was a pretty dumb joke.

Dumb or OFFENSIVE?

If all dumb joke to be removed why not to remove this whole threat about surfboards that are not for surf?

it was offensive and removed as such

end of discussion

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:23pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:16pm: tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:02pm: mod: offensive Was attacking and punching lifeguards by pretend to be muslim thugs less offensive then comparing  muslim pretend to be surfboards to camels as ships of desert? Why? we both know what the joke meant man- don't play innocent and you expect me to ban the cronulla riots and surrounding events? uhh, wish I could man but I'm not god

I don't know what you mean. "Please explain" why the joke about muslim surfboards is offensive but the joke about desert ships is not.

This far the only explanation I can see is your prejudice.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:26pm:

it was offensive and removed as such end of discussion

Very pro muslim way of moderation. QED

Quote:

Very pro muslim way of moderation. QED

I disagree.

I disagree with Gaybriel's view on a lot of things, but she doesnt use the banstick to enforce her opinion.

As John Rambo said to the Sheriff 'Let it go.'

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:38pm:

Quote: Very pro muslim way of moderation. QED I disagree. I disagree with Gaybriel's view on a lot of things, but she doesnt use the banstick to enforce her opinion. As John Rambo said to the Sheriff 'Let it go.'

I agree with you right to disagree but I don't agree with Gaybriel's right to moderate me when it does not agree with her agenda.
If you look at statistics of policing this forum you will find out that her moderation is sticks out like a xtree in non muslim country in xmass time.

until about 50 seconds you could hear the same from fred nile

duuude- the 65 years thing? chronic. cause from his other speech he said he was referrring to the need for harsh rape punishments- that he supported the punishment...

I don't see how he could have a problem with the punishment as under islam they'd be killed?!

he contradicts himself by saying they deserve to go to jail and then saying they were convicted due to racial prejudice

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:59pm:

until about 50 seconds you could hear the same from fred nile duuude- the 65 years thing? chronic. cause from his other speech he said he was referrring to the need for harsh rape punishments- that he supported the punishment... I don't see how he could have a problem with the punishment as under islam they'd be killed?! he contradicts himself by saying they deserve to go to jail and then saying they were convicted due to racial prejudice

What this runt have to do with islamic pretended surf boards or ship of the desert?  ::)

tallowood wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:08pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:59pm: until about 50 seconds you could hear the same from fred nile duuude- the 65 years thing? chronic. cause from his other speech he said he was referrring to the need for harsh rape punishments- that he supported the punishment... I don't see how he could have a problem with the punishment as under islam they'd be killed?! he contradicts himself by saying they deserve to go to jail and then saying they were convicted due to racial prejudice What this runt have to do with islamic pretended surf boards or ship of the desert?  ::)

yeah you're right we're off topic

any more comments about sheikh hilaly make a new thread please

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:08pm: Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:59pm: until about 50 seconds you could hear the same from fred nile duuude- the 65 years thing? chronic. cause from his other speech he said he was referrring to the need for harsh rape punishments- that he supported the punishment... I don't see how he could have a problem with the punishment as under islam they'd be killed?! he contradicts himself by saying they deserve to go to jail and then saying they were convicted due to racial prejudice What this runt have to do with islamic pretended surf boards or ship of the desert?  ::) yeah you're right we're off topic any more comments about sheikh hilaly make a new thread please

You use well documented islamist tactics. No surprise.   ::)

tallowood wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:15pm: tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:08pm: Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 9:59pm: until about 50 seconds you could hear the same from fred nile duuude- the 65 years thing? chronic. cause from his other speech he said he was referrring to the need for harsh rape punishments- that he supported the punishment... I don't see how he could have a problem with the punishment as under islam they'd be killed?! he contradicts himself by saying they deserve to go to jail and then saying they were convicted due to racial prejudice What this runt have to do with islamic pretended surf boards or ship of the desert?  ::) yeah you're right we're off topic any more comments about sheikh hilaly make a new thread please You use well documented islamist tactics. No surprise.   ::)

you complained we went off topic and now you're complaining that I agree with you?

if someone gave you diamonds would you complain they weren't pearls?

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:39pm:

... if someone gave you diamonds would you complain they weren't pearls?

I like both. Got any?

tallowood wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:57pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:39pm: ... if someone gave you diamonds would you complain they weren't pearls? I like both. Got any?

they're all mine

muahahahaha!

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:57pm: Gaybriel wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 10:39pm: ... if someone gave you diamonds would you complain they weren't pearls? I like both. Got any? they're all mine muahahahaha!

I've mammoth tusks from eastern siberia, can swap some.

are they shiny?

Locutius,


Quote:

And you can say that with absolute certainty.

I can say with absolute 100% certainty their actions are not Islamic, because they're quite obviously not. And wording it as "Islamic thuggery" etc. is just purely wrong. Would it be right to call Martin Bryant's rampage in Tasmania "Christian thuggery"??? Did he act in a Christian manner?? I'm sure most Christians would say no. Likewise any Lebanese of Muslim background who goes to Cronulla to hassle girls in bikinis is certainly not acting in an Islamic manner.

freediver,


Quote:

but merely that he doesn't consider them to be Muslims

Never said anything remotely like this. Just that labeling the activities as "Islamic" is just clearly wrong. As their activities are not Islamic at all.


Quote:

When a Muslim does something wrong, they cease being Muslim,

This does have some truth to it. A Muslim who commits a major sin, such as adultery, is said to not be Muslim when he commits the sin.. but that is not a legalist opinion, and as far as I know cannot be used to declare someone an apostate. However, their eternal destination would certainly be in question were they to die during such an act.

freediver,


Quote:

it seems kind of a moot point. The criticism was that Muslims were doing it, not that the Koran tells people to go to the beach and hassle girls.

The actions were described as "Islamic" by Calanen, which was quite obviously a deceptive attempt to associate the actions with Islam. In my understanding, the term Islamic refers to something which emanates from the Islamic belief system, not opposing actions which completely contradict it.


Quote:

Whether they were misguided or not, they were still doing it.

And likewise whether Martin Bryant was misguided from Christianity or not, he still did what he did.... but what does it have to do with Christianity??? Absolutely nothing!!! and this is a realisation you need to extend to Islam, but so far have been incapable of doing, due to your prejudice.

Calanen,


Quote:

The problem of rapes and Islam is worldwide, not just in Sydney. Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands

There is no problem of Islam and rape at all, as Islam strictly forbids rape and actually calls for capital punishment for rape, a stronger punishment than pretty much every democratic country.

Again, you're using the word Islam to refer to the wrong things. As for the quotes from so called scholars, they only appear to be quotes from local community leaders, certainly not scholars. And none of them claim rape is permissible. They seem to be just speaking about the unfairness of the punishment, which when we compare it to others who rape and murder children and senior citizens and stuff is extremely disproportionate. I remember around the same time as the Bilal Skaf case, there was two anglos who robbed an old lady in her home, raped her, killed her, and got about 1/3 of Bilal Skaf's sentence BETWEEN THEM. Islamically all rapists should receive capital punishment, but giving one 55 years, and another about 10 years, when they broke into a defenceless old woman's home, robbed, raped and murdered her is just ridiculous. And nobody even said a word about them being Anglos nor tried to link their crimes to Christianity... why not??? Why is it the religious background is only important when it comes to Muslims? Why? Because you're peddling nothing but bigoted garbage!!

Quote:

There is no problem of Islam and rape at all, as Islam strictly forbids rape and actually calls for capital punishment for rape, a stronger punishment than pretty much every democratic country.

There are a number of problems with rape and Islam. Let me walk you through them.

While it is true that the sentence for rape (if ever proved) in Islam is severe, women are subjugated to the position of lesser beings under sharia. Rape is about power, and 'property' does what its told. This power imbalance can only lead to more women being subjected to sexual violence.

The second is that like our imam friends, there is a view that women dressed immodestly are asking for it and deserve what they get. That is pretty much every westerner.

The third reason is this. Islam has a long history of saying, and Mohammed said that you could 'take what your right hand possess'. The prize of muslims in the Dar Al Harb, the House of War (where we live) was infidel women they could make their slave girls and rape. We live in the Dar Al Harb, we are infidels - so this presents something of a problem for us.

The fourth reason, is that whatever the reason, there is tangible evidence to link Islamic immigrants to an over representation in crimes of rape, and usually (although not always) against infidel women. This means there is a big problem, and we better face up to it. Quickly.


Quote:

Again, you're using the word Islam to refer to the wrong things. As for the quotes from so called scholars, they only appear to be quotes from local community leaders, certainly not scholars. And none of them claim rape is permissible.

They were seeking to lessen or excuse one of the most heinous organised crimes ever committed in our community. It was meticulously planned, committed with the utmost callousness and orchestrated with a large number of like minded individuals. It also caused the community to live in fear for a number of years until they were caught.

55 years was fine as far as I am concerned. Judge Finnane got it right.


Quote:

They seem to be just speaking about the unfairness of the punishment, which when we compare it to others who rape and murder children and senior citizens and stuff is extremely disproportionate.

Did you read what he said? He was talking about immodestly dressed women as well tempting muslims. Most of us can keep our things in our pants just because a girl is not wearing a burqua.


Quote:

I remember around the same time as the Bilal Skaf case, there was two anglos who robbed an old lady in her home, raped her, killed her, and got about 1/3 of Bilal Skaf's sentence BETWEEN THEM. Islamically all rapists should receive capital punishment, but giving one 55 years, and another about 10 years, when they broke into a defenceless old woman's home, robbed, raped and murdered her is just ridiculous.

I dont know the case you are referring to. But the difference would be premeditation, and the degree of conspiracy. Skaf orchestrated rapes on predominantly Australian women, because they were Australian, with a large number of people as part of a well rehearsed plan. That is something the law punishes severely, well at least our law does. If you believe Saudi justice is better, our airports are available to take you there at any time.


Quote:

And nobody even said a word about them being Anglos nor tried to link their crimes to Christianity... why not??? Why is it the religious background is only important when it comes to Muslims? Why? Because you're peddling nothing but bigoted garbage!!

If they were part of a worldwide christian jihad, then maybe people would. But there is a worldwide islamic jihad against the west, and this is just one part of it.

Calling it biggotted garbage, or racism or whatever - wont make the problem go away. It is just more obfuscation to defend the indefenisble.

Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way

(Note: Updates to this post here: The Norwegian Government - Covering Up Immigrant Rapes and here: Rapes: Nothing to do with Islam?)

Numbers released in January 2005 indicate a sharp rise in the number of rape charges in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city:

Thomas Anderberg, responsible for statistics at the Malmö Police, says there was a doubling of the number of reported rapes by ambush in 2004, following what was already a decade of steadily increasing numbers of sexual crimes. - I think that’s great news, says Anna Gustafsson, head of the Domestic Violence Unit at the Malmö Police. She suggests that the increase is due to the fact that women who otherwise wouldn’t press charges for rape now choose to contact the police.

In other words, Gustafsson claims that we are dealing with a “technical” increase, not a real one. However, national statistics reveal that reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years:

According to Swedish Radio on Tuesday, statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995. Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men. (Note: These four men were Kurdish Muslims, who raped the girl for hours and even took photos of doing so)

The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen is a larger city, but the percentage of immigrants is much lower. And it’s not just the rape statistics that reveal a scary increase in Malmö or Sweden. Virtually every kind of violent crime is on the rise. Robberies have increased with 50 % in Malmö only during the fall of 2004. Threats against witnesses in Swedish court cases have quadrupled between 2000 and 2003. During the past few decades, massive immigration has changed the face of Sweden’s major cities, as well as challenged the viability of the welfare state. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita among developed countries with income about 6% above the OECD average. By 1997 it was at fifteenth place with an average GDP per capita 14% below average. Malmö has a heavy concentration of Muslim immigrants in particular. According to some estimates, it will be a Muslim majority city in no more then 10 years. Crime is rampant in the growing ghettos:

Becirov runs the Islamic Center of Malmö, on the outskirts of Sweden's third-largest city. Some immigrant neighborhoods in the city have (official) unemployment rates exceeding 50 percent. Swedish authorities have failed to lift up the area, and seem to be giving the Islamic Center of Malmö a great deal of leeway in attempting to do so. An article that appeared in 2003 noted that "a few" of the 6-to 10-year-old girls were wearing headscarves. On a visit in January 2005, fully 80 percent were covered in class--only a handful were not. In a fit of absent-mindedness, Sweden has suddenly become as heavily populated by minorities as any country in Europe. The percentage of foreign-born is roughly equivalent to the highest percentage of immigrants the United States ever had in its history (on the eve of World War I). Rosengård appears to be all-immigrant. The public schools have virtually no ethnically Swedish children. There are stories--familiar in other parts of Europe where immigrants from the Muslim world have recently settled--of students harassing Jewish teachers and defacing textbooks that treat Jewish themes. Crime is high.

Is it unfair and “racist” to suggest a link between the influx of Muslim immigrants and the growing number of rapes? Not if we compare with the situation in neighboring Denmark, where this trend has been evident for years:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions

If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape.'

Muslim rape concern

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

As Robert Spencer has demonstrated, rape can indeed be linked to Islamic teachings of Jihad, and even to the example of Muhammad himself, his Sunna. Above all, it is connected to Islamic notions of the role of women in society, and their behaviour in the public sphere. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he isn’t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way:

The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte told in a recent interview that in Holland, you can now see examples of young, unveiled Moroccan women with a so-called "smiley". It means that the girl gets one side of her face cut up from mouth to ear, serving as a warning to other Muslim girls who should refuse to wear the veil. In the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France, 77 per cent of the veiled women carry veils reportedly because of fear of being harassed or molested by Islamic moral patrols.

Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about ”choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005?

Even though Sweden, unlike Denmark, has almost no public debate about immigration, frustration is very much present underneath the surface. 75 % of Swedes think that many people in their country “dislike” Muslims, more than in any other European nation surveyed. Even in Holland, which recently witnessed violent clashes with Muslims after the murder of Islam-critic Theo van Gogh, the rate is lower than in Sweden. But you’re not supposed to talk about such issues in Sweden. That would be “racist”:

Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don’t think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes." ["Jag tror inte jag är ensam om att må dåligt när jag läser om hur svenska tjejer har våldtagits av invandrarhorder"]

All in all, we must say that there is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that the rise in rape charges in the city of Malmö could very well be real, which puts the Malmö Police assertion that this is “great news” in a rather curious light. And the problem is not just limited to Sweden. It exists in Norway, too:

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Europe: Tolerating Intolerance

An incredibly revealing article that tells us all we need to know about the multiculturalist fetish in Europe and some parts of North America, not to mention the need for change within Islam. Apparently, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants – a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (note: her name is Unni Wikan) as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

In January 2005, Norwegian media reported that 2004 saw the highest number or rape charges ever recorded in the capital city of Oslo. Strangely enough, there was now no mentioning of how immigrants were grossly overrepresented in rape cases. Why not? Unless there has been a sudden and unexplained drop in the number of immigrants raping Norwegian women between 2001 and 2004, which is unlikely, the statistics should be at least as staggering in 2005 as they were before. If they are not revealed, it can only mean that “somebody” didn’t like the numbers presented in 2001, and decided to bury them. That “somebody” must be a person at the very top level in the police, maybe even in the government. If so, that is disquieting. What is even more disquieting is that the media are equally silent about this. How come no journalists are digging into the material? And where are all the professional Feminists, in a Scandinavian nation brimming with them?

The conclusion one may draw from this is that the authorities in Sweden and Norway know about, or should know about, a disturbing amount of Muslim immigrant rapes of native Scandinavian women, yet choose not to make this information known to the public. Perhaps it would be just too politically incorrect to reveal the negative effects of decades of naïve immigration policies. Perhaps it would also destroy too many multicultural pipe dreams among the intellectual elites, who have built their current careers and reputations on advocating how culturally and economically enriching this new population mix would be. So in the end, the safety of young Scandinavian women is sacrificed in order to keep the glossy image of a multicultural society intact. It is a chilling demonstration of an Eurabian continent that now appears to care more about not upsetting relations with its immigrant population than about protecting its own citizens.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

The 'main' thread about the alleged rape epidemic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227660129

I responded to your articles in the gang rape thread btw calanen

Calanen,


Quote:

Rape is about power, and 'property' does what its told.

I think you're confusing Islam with Judaism and Christianity. Yes under the Biblical system, the female was a possession of her father (he is even able to slave her out, according to the Bible), and later husband. Islam came and changed all that, givinng women rights to be individuals, to work, own, to inherit etc. All things that previous religious systems did not give them. If you like, I can go through the textual proofs that confirm this beyond doubt.


Quote:

there is a view that women dressed immodestly are asking for it and deserve what they get.

I really doubt any imam has ever said they deserve it for  dressing immodestly. They may have implied that it incites sexual instincts in men, but that's about it. I've never heard any imam even quoted as saying they deserved it. You're reading a bit too much into what they said. Either way, the Islamic position is that rape's a crime, but then again so is walking around half (actually 9/10 most of the time now) naked.


Quote:

The prize of muslims in the Dar Al Harb, the House of War (where we live) was infidel women they could make their slave girls and rape.

That is for an army under the command of a Khaleefah, fighting against a hostile nation, and is for women caught in the battle. That's the way war was in those times, today things are quite different. People don't carry their wealth and women into battle with them (generally).

It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims living as citizens of non-Islamic states. You're speaking nothing but garbage, and I strongly suspect you know it too.


Quote:

there is tangible evidence to link Islamic immigrants to an over representation in crimes of rape

Can you show some independant statistics on that? Not propagandaous garbage from white power linked blogs as you've done so far.

Even if it were the case (which is far from demonstrated here), it would not indicate Islam is linked with rape. Islam is a belief system, not the actions of individuals.


Quote:

If you believe Saudi justice is better, our airports are available to take you there at any time.

I don't recall mentioning I believe in the Saudi justice  system. I am an Australian, and this is my country, and the country of my fathers, if anyone should be heading to the airport it should be racist bigots like yourself, who really don't belong here and are out of step with Australian values of tolerance and equality. If you can find a christian/white-centric  state, then I suggest you migrate there.. Rhodesia is out.. so is Afrikaan South Africa... Keep searching, maybe you can find a place that's white enough for you.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

Calanen,


Quote:

Rape is about power, and 'property' does what its told.

Quote:

I think you're confusing Islam with Judaism and Christianity. Yes under the Biblical system, the female was a possession of her father (he is even able to slave her out, according to the Bible),

No habibi, I'm not. We've moved on a fair bit since 700 AD or so, and the human rights available for women under sharia are available for all to see throughout the Islamic world. Women are second class citizens and baby factories that do what they are told under the threat of violence. And not just in the Islamic world, the same mysoginist threat based culture is being brought into the west.


Quote:

I really doubt any imam has ever said they deserve it for  dressing immodestly. They may have implied that it incites sexual instincts in men, but that's about it. I've never heard any imam even quoted as saying they deserved it. You're reading a bit too much into what they said. Either way, the Islamic position is that rape's a crime, but then again so is walking around half (actually 9/10 most of the time now) naked.

Quote:

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world," Sheik Feiz Mohammad told 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall last year. "Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ... strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/vile-sermon-does-australia-a-big-favour/2006/10/28/1161749357803.html

Didn't you read what Sheikh Hilali said? I posted it above for you. Im surprised you were not at the mosque when it was said so you could have heard it yourself.


Quote:

The prize of muslims in the Dar Al Harb, the House of War (where we live) was infidel women they could make their slave girls and rape.

Quote:

That is for an army under the command of a Khaleefah, fighting against a hostile nation, and is for women caught in the battle.

So that makes it ok then? Notice you didnt say 'Nah thats not true!' which is to your credit.


Quote:

That's the way war was in those times, today things are quite different. People don't carry their wealth and women into battle with them (generally).

Islam moves with the times? I doubt it. This is Dar al Harb, so the rules of war apply, you know they do habibi. No more al Taqiyya please.


Quote:

It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims living as citizens of non-Islamic states. You're speaking nothing but garbage, and I strongly suspect you know it too.

No, I don't. The obligation of jihad to bring everyone into the House of Islam doesnt change.


Quote:

Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilisation of the entire Umma into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil. The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (PBUH) are overflowing with all these noble ideals and they summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.

That's from Hasan al-bana, 1928. Do you have a copy?


Quote:

People have for some time now ridiculed this but today these same people acknowledge that preparation for war is the surest way to peace! Allah did not ordain jihad for the Muslims so that it may be used as a tool of oppression or tyranny or so that it may be used by some to further their personal gains. Rather jihad is used to safeguard the mission of spreading Islam. This would guarantee peace and the means of implementing the Supreme Message. This is a responsibility which the Muslims bear, this Message guiding mankind to truth and justice. For Islam, even as it ordains jihad, it extols peace: the Blessed and Almighty said: ‘But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah.' (Surat al-Anfal (8), ayah 61)

Quote:

Can you show some independant statistics on that? Not propagandaous garbage from white power linked blogs as you've done so far.

I did. You just didnt read them.


Quote:

While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

Fjordman is not a white power linked blog, that's ridiculous.


Quote:

Even if it were the case (which is far from demonstrated here), it would not indicate Islam is linked with rape. Islam is a belief system, not the actions of individuals.

A bit like the Third Reich was just a belief system, not the actions of individuals, or Stalinism. So many misunderstanders of the tolerant message of Islam. 12,500 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. How could so many muslims get islam so wrong? Misunderstanders aplenty.


Quote:

Quote: If you believe Saudi justice is better, our airports are available to take you there at any time.

Quote:

I don't recall mentioning I believe in the Saudi justice  system.

You were saying that the Sharia penalty for rape was better.


Quote:

I am an Australian, and this is my country, and the country of my fathers,

Really? How many fathers did you have?


Quote:

if anyone should be heading to the airport it should be racist bigots like yourself,

What race is Islam again?


Quote:

who really don't belong here and are out of step with Australian values of tolerance and equality.

I think more people would say that I belong here than you do. But that to one side, who's going to move me habibi? You? Please give it a go.


Quote:

If you can find a christian/white-centric  state, then I suggest you migrate there.. Rhodesia is out.. so is Afrikaan South Africa... Keep searching, maybe you can find a place that's white enough for you.

See you keep trying to move the debate into other areas to protect your own religious fascist ideology. So let me make it quite clear to you. I dont care if they bring unlimited amounts of Chinese buddhists or communist atheists here. I dont care if they bring unlimited sikhs, christian lebanese, nigerian christians or indian hindus here. In fact Im counting on them to side with me against Islam and jihad so the more the merrier.

The only thing I dont want here is more Islam - because wherever Islam is, there is only a question of time before the Islamic faithful build up the numbers and declare jihad on the others around them. This has happened in *every* single place where Islam has moved to throughout the world. Already there have been 'misunderstanders' of Islam arrested, charged and convicted with terrorist offences. It is only a matter of time before we have sporadic outbreaks of violence and then open warfare.

And I dont want to our society to be so open minded that its collective brain has fallen out of its head. It is interesting to hear a muslim speak of tolerance. Wherever Islam is in power, it is tolerant of nothing - and is the most brutal repressive theocratic religious fascism the likes of which are comparable to any fascist dictatorship in history. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Somalia. The 'tolerance' of Islam is there for all to see, and it is tolerant of nothing and no one save its own point of view. But it expects, even demands, special treatment and tolerance for it wherever it goes, until it builds up its forces enough so it can then attack and destroy everything around it.

I've read your books, I've got your number habibi. You may think most of Westerners are easy to fool, and maybe that's right. But I'm not - and I am going to tell any who will listen - the truth. Will your Al Taqiyya win or will my truth? Time will tell.

Quote:

I really doubt any imam has ever said they deserve it for  dressing immodestly.

Political uproar after mufti's remarks
24.09.2004 Print article (IE & NS 4+)
An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen has sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."
An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi, has sparked political outcry from the left-wing Unity List and right-wing Danish People's Party, after stating in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Unity List equality spokesman Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil has threatened to file suit for defamation against the mufti on behalf of herself and all the women of Denmark. The Danish People's Party has urged Justice Minister Lene Espersen and Integration Minister Bertel Haarder to stop the mufti's religious activities in Copenhagen.
Shahid Mehdi made his remarks in the DR2 programme "Talk to Gode," and reiterated his stance in daily newspaper B.T. The Danish People's Party and Unity List agree that Mehdi's remarks could incite Muslim men to rape Danish women by insinuating that women who did not cover their hair were undeserving of basic respect.
As a mufti, a jurist who interprets Islamic law, Shahi Mehdi is in a special position of authority as a Muslim scholar. Mehdi is currently affiliated with the Islamic Cultural Center in Copenhagen, but Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil has urged officials to ban his teachings in Denmark due to his "reactionary view of women."

"The very idea that this man is authorised to teach young people in the Koran is ludicrous. It's like letting (Danish Nazi leader) Johnny Hansen teach the history of World War II," said Rosenkrantz-Theil.
The Socialist People's Party is urging Integration Minister Bertel Haarder to investigate whether Mehdi had violated Danish laws prohibiting foreign religious clerics from engaging in activity that poses a threat to public safety, health, decency and order.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/82118.html

Quote:

The prize of muslims in the Dar Al Harb, the House of War (where we live) was infidel women they could make their slave girls and rape.

Quote:

That is for an army under the command of a Khaleefah, fighting against a hostile nation, and is for women caught in the battle. That's the way war was in those times, today things are quite different. People don't carry their wealth and women into battle with them (generally).

Quote:

It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims living as citizens of non-Islamic states. You're speaking nothing but garbage, and I strongly suspect you know it too.

Who is the Caliph in Iraq?

August 12, 2005  Clip No. 813  

Investigator: Tell me how many rape and kidnapping operations were carried out. My information says that the kidnapped women were university students or daughters of famous people. You raped them and got money for it, and if they were not slaughtered afterwards.... Did this really happen?

Abed: Yes, it did.

Investigator: Who would carry out these operations?

Abed: Abu Sajjad.

Investigator: Your superior?

Abed: Yes.

[...]

Investigator: Is this Jihad - raping women? Is this Jihad?

Abed: It is because they collaborated with the Americans.

Investigator: That's why they were raped?

Abed: Yes.
Investigator: A student, who is simply going to her university, is kidnapped, raped, and then slaughtered?! This was an American collaborator?!

Abed: Mullah Al-Raikan would give the names to the squad commander.

Investigator: My information says that they were kidnapped and brought to Mullah Al-Raikan's headquarters. True or false?

Abed: He would interrogate them.

Investigator: Were they raped after the interrogation?

Abed: Yes. He would give them to the squad, and they would kill them. Some would rape them.

Investigator: You bastards. This is Jihad? You call this Jihad?

Investigator 2: What was your role in these operations?

Abed: I would stand at the entrance to the headquarters. It was a house, and they would bring them there.

Investigator 2: Did you participate in the rape and murder?

Abed: No. Just one who worked for the PUK. She was a Kurd.

Investigator: In the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan?

Abed: Yes. We brought her too.

Investigator: And you raped her?

Abed: Yes.

[...]

Abed: Our Ansar Al-Islam military camps were in Halabja.

Investigator: This was in the days of the previous regime?

Abed: Yes.

Investigator: And now?

Abed: Now, there is nothing. They were all scattered. The training area was in Falluja.

Investigator: And then?

Abed: After Falluja was hit, they would come through Syria to Mosul... I mean, through Falluja to Mosul.

[...]

Abed: I want to say one thing. Lieutenant Muhammad respected me and gave me food. I never thought it would be like this. He gave me food, and we had lunch together, and the honorable lieutenant-colonel gave me some Pepsi. I never believed Shiites could show such respect and care. We were taught by people like Mullah Al-Raikan that Shi'a is not Islam.

Investigator: You mean we show you respect and you slaughter us?

Abed: Yes. Mullah Al-Raikan thinks so, and he said so more than once.

Investigator: That's what they think.

Abed: Yes, that Shiites are not Muslims, that they worship the Imam Ali and do not accept Muhammad.

[...]

Al-Iraqiya TV

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/813.htm

Quote:

Phillip George was inspired by his trips to the Middle East and by riots in 2005 when Lebanese Australians were targeted on a beach in Sydney.

This idiot has nothing between the ears. He lives under a rock obviously, considering he does not know what started the riot in the first place!  ::)

Grendel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

As for the artist...  just another naive do-gooder barking up the wrong tree.  Much like you used to be.  ;)

An apologist would be a better term.

calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc

when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28^th, 2008 at 1:52pm:

calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics.

This is stupid. So if I hate Catholics, Marxists, conservatives, Buddhists or Lutherans,  then I am racist under your 'cultural and religious incompatibility'.

It is perfectly OK to dislike Islam, to be afraid of it, even to laugh at it. It is equally ok to dislike every other religion and political idea, to be afraid of them and to laugh at them. Islam has absolutely no grounds  for speacil pleading.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2008 at 4:09pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28th, 2008 at 1:52pm: calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics. This is stupid. So if I hate Catholics, Marxists, conservatives, Buddhists or Lutherans,  then I am racist under your 'cultural and religious incompatibility'.

yep. like many other terms that evolve through public usage, so has the word 'racism'. that's why when people write about racism they usually define what kind of racism they mean old/new, biological/cultural. it may be untrue to the root of the word, but like I said- public usage of a word can sometimes transform it


Quote:

It is perfectly OK to dislike Islam, to be afraid of it, even to laugh at it. It is equally ok to dislike every other religion and political idea, to be afraid of them and to laugh at them. Islam has absolutely no grounds  for speacil pleading.

I think it's ok to dislike a religion or doctrine- but I don't think it's ok to dislike or hate people because of it.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28^th, 2008 at 1:52pm:

calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc

Says who? The tired Marxist Apologist Wannabees who need a convenient label to denigrate anyone who doesnt support unlimited immigration of people who believe in an ideology that wants to destroy us? It's like saying criticising Marxism is Anti-Semetic or the policies of the Third Reich is Germanophobic. The term Racism and Islam is just a tired cliche that is used to silence the critics of Islam and prevent them making legitimate criticism of a violent, hate filled supremacist ideology. It has nothing to do with race at all.


Quote:

when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics.

It's not semantics. Islam is not a race. Jews are a race. Criticising Islam is not criticising a race.  Racism, Islamaphobia, bigotry etc etc - are all just labels that are used to silence Islam's critics. And there is loads to be critical of. In every area. Human rights abuse, religious apartheid, supremacist ideology, distopian concepts of justice, terrorism. But to notice any of this there is only the attempt to silence the critic by calling them something as offensive as possible. The hope is that they will then be ignored. To be termed a racist, today, is something that can ruin lives, lose jobs. The people who support Islam's plan for world domination know this - and use it to denigrate their critics.

Label away - I wont be silenced. There is far more hatred, bigotry, violence, mysogyny and death in the Islamic world and enshrined in law as a way of life, than anything I believe or that is present throughout the Western world.  

I see the Islamic apologist is now rewriting the meaning of English words to fit her agenda.

pathetic.

BTW you are clueless on the events and their chronology etc, etc, etc...  but I expect no more from an apologist and propagandist such as yourself.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28^th, 2008 at 7:28pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2008 at 4:09pm: Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28th, 2008 at 1:52pm: calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics. This is stupid. So if I hate Catholics, Marxists, conservatives, Buddhists or Lutherans,  then I am racist under your 'cultural and religious incompatibility'. yep. like many other terms that evolve through public usage, so has the word 'racism'. that's why when people write about racism they usually define what kind of racism they mean old/new, biological/cultural. it may be untrue to the root of the word, but like I said- public usage of a word can sometimes transform it Quote: It is perfectly OK to dislike Islam, to be afraid of it, even to laugh at it. It is equally ok to dislike every other religion and political idea, to be afraid of them and to laugh at them. Islam has absolutely no grounds  for speacil pleading. I think it's ok to dislike a religion or doctrine- but I don't think it's ok to dislike or hate people because of it.

Very well, we are all racists and islam is the most racist of them all, then, because it condemns all non-islamic beliefs. Equivalence taken to its farcical extreme.
What are you doing your PhD in? Knitwear studies?

Calanen wrote on Dec 28^th, 2008 at 10:51pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 28th, 2008 at 1:52pm: calanen- the term racism has changed a bit now. in modern usage it has moved from the traditional meaning referring to biological race difference, and now is used to encompass things like cultural and religious incompatability etc Says who? The tired Marxist Apologist Wannabees who need a convenient label to denigrate anyone who doesnt support unlimited immigration of people who believe in an ideology that wants to destroy us? It's like saying criticising Marxism is Anti-Semetic or the policies of the Third Reich is Germanophobic. The term Racism and Islam is just a tired cliche that is used to silence the critics of Islam and prevent them making legitimate criticism of a violent, hate filled supremacist ideology. It has nothing to do with race at all. Quote: when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics. It's not semantics. Islam is not a race. Jews are a race. Criticising Islam is not criticising a race.  Racism, Islamaphobia, bigotry etc etc - are all just labels that are used to silence Islam's critics. And there is loads to be critical of. In every area. Human rights abuse, religious apartheid, supremacist ideology, distopian concepts of justice, terrorism. But to notice any of this there is only the attempt to silence the critic by calling them something as offensive as possible. The hope is that they will then be ignored. To be termed a racist, today, is something that can ruin lives, lose jobs. The people who support Islam's plan for world domination know this - and use it to denigrate their critics. Label away - I wont be silenced. There is far more hatred, bigotry, violence, mysogyny and death in the Islamic world and enshrined in law as a way of life, than anything I believe or that is present throughout the Western world.

look man- I'm just saying that the word has changed somewhat. that's pretty much it. personally I think using the word racism to describe these various things is a waste of time - because then conversations like this happen and people spend ages debating about whether the word should actually be used.

personally I couldn't care less how you describe it- but when people sit there and go "islam isn't a race- DUH" and act like this somehow discredits the other persons argument, it just gets a little bit old - especially when the use of the word in its modern context is actually legitimate

as to the rest- yes, some people just pull out the racism card whenever they feel like it. if something doesn't go their way it's because the other person is racist etc etc- and often times it isn't the case. and then of course there are times that it is apt to say that someone is speaking from their prejudice. so there you go.

Grendel wrote on Dec 29^th, 2008 at 10:28am:

I see the Islamic apologist is now rewriting the meaning of English words to fit her agenda.

ahh yes, it was me who caused the word racism to be applied to things other than race. of course- all those books I've read using the term and discussing its meaning- I must have forgotten I wrote them!

Soren wrote on Dec 31^st, 2008 at 6:02pm:

Very well, we are all racists and islam is the most racist of them all, then, because it condemns all non-islamic beliefs.

no they don't actually. and it's not racist to disagree with something or to condemn it. it's only racist if you're doing it simply because of the race/religion etc of the other person.


Quote:

Equivalence taken to its farcical extreme. What are you doing your PhD in? Knitwear studies?

the art of papier mache actually

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another dear girl...  anyone telling you differently and I don't care whom they are...  they are wrong and are misusing the language.

Grendel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 3:07am:

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another dear girl...  anyone telling you differently and I don't care whom they are...  they are wrong and are misusing the language.

I understand the origin of the word perfectly dear boy.

do you understand how language evolves over time and even when words are misappropriated for a particular use they often become accepted for that use over time?

the most obvious example being 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'happy' to 'homosexual' and is now often used to refer to something that is weird or wrong- eg "that's so gay"

I don't see anyone jumping up and down about the original meaning when gay is used for any of these latter reasons however

Quote:

when people use the term in regards to islam or judaism etc- this is how it is meant. so constantly picking on that one word doesn't change what is meant by it- it's just semantics.

Gaybriel, there is value in using the correct term. Racism does not refer to criticism of religion. It never has. There may be some confusion in cases where there is a mixture of racism and criticism of religion. This is especially the case with the Jews. But it is still important to remember what words mean. I have never heard an 'anti-Semite' criticise what is written in the Torah. People will keep correcting you on this matter because you are wrong.


Quote:

that's why when people write about racism they usually define what kind of racism they mean old/new, biological/cultural.

No they don't. They use the term racism to refer to racism. From what I have seen, only people who are ignorant of the distintion confuse the term. Most people stop misuing the word racism when it is pointed out to them. There is a fundamental difference.


Quote:

personally I think using the word racism to describe these various things is a waste of time

Quote:

as to the rest- yes, some people just pull out the racism card whenever they feel like it.

That's odd, because you are going to unusual lengths to defend your use of the term, when most people realise that it is an error to use it in that context.


Quote:

but when people sit there and go "islam isn't a race- DUH" and act like this somehow discredits the other persons argument, it just gets a little bit old

But Islam isn't a race. If you don't want to get into useless arguments, don't say something that you know is wrong. Don't say that criticism of Islam is racism.


Quote:

especially when the use of the word in its modern context is actually legitimate

But it isn't legitimate.


Quote:

do you understand how language evolves over time and even when words are misappropriated for a particular use they often become accepted for that use over time? the most obvious example being 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'happy' to 'homosexual' and is now often used to refer to something that is weird or wrong- eg "that's so gay"

Yes that happens, but it has not happened with the term racism. If you used the term gay here to mean homosexual, people wouldn't tell you that you are wrong. If you used the term racism to refer to criticism of Islam, people would tell you that you are wrong. Hence, the term gay has evolved into a different meaning. The term racism has not.

---

A few examples of people misusing a term does not mean that the meaning of the word has actually changed. It just means that some people misuse the term. People always misuse words. Usually they are corrected, as misuse of words leads to an inability to communicate.

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

Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their racial groups. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment. Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

And from the first dictionary given by google:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 12:15pm:

Grendel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2009 at 3:07am: Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another dear girl...  anyone telling you differently and I don't care whom they are...  they are wrong and are misusing the language. I understand the origin of the word perfectly dear boy. do you understand how language evolves over time and even when words are misappropriated for a particular use they often become accepted for that use over time? the most obvious example being 'gay' which has changed from meaning 'happy' to 'homosexual' and is now often used to refer to something that is weird or wrong- eg "that's so gay" I don't see anyone jumping up and down about the original meaning when gay is used for any of these latter reasons however

Soooo....


If I take the piss out of Arab Jehova's witnesses - is that racist because they are Arabs or because they are JWs?
How about if I have some choice words for Irish (Celtic) Muslims on account of their pathetic leg-humping embrace of an alien religion for the purposes of gaining moral cudos?


It seems that language has now evolved to the degree that 'racism' means the attitude of people towards me who notice whateever chip I may have on my shoulder.

And anyone not caught up in this net can always be labelled as "you-monomania-phobe".

How ‘bout using one of these -

religiophobia
Islamophobia
Christophobia
seculo-chauvinism
religio-chauvinism
Christo-chauvinism

I reckon any reader would intuit their meaning in context easily enough.

Or how about something with a more postmodern flavour – the ethno-religio chauvinism complex?

Islamophobia is in common use, and to a lesser extent Islamofascism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 8:22pm:

How ‘bout using one of these - religiophobia Islamophobia Christophobia seculo-chauvinism religio-chauvinism Christo-chauvinism I reckon any reader would intuit their meaning in context easily enough. Or how about something with a more postmodern flavour – the ethno-religio chauvinism complex?

Phobiaphiliac-phobe - that's me.

Quote:

Islamophobia is in common use, and to a lesser extent Islamofascism.

Actually islamofascism is a term used to inaccurately describe the totalitarian nature of Islam. So it's not quite synonymous with islamophobia.

I'd suggest the term which should be used here is xenophobia. It includes racism but also blind hatred based on religion, creed or any other arbitrary attribute of a collective people.

anti-Islamic sentiment is based purely on hatred and fear of an unknown other. Those who feel this hatred usually have very little real knowledge or experience or exposure to Islam or Muslims, other than through mainstream media and anti-Islamic websites. As one Jewish intellectual himself described it, it is exactly the same thing as the wave of anti-Jewish hatred that swept across Europe in the early 20th. century and which culminated in such disastrous  consequences. Sadly, some here don't seem to have learnt any lesson at all from that.

Hey buddy you aren't the victim...  all the people your religions zealots kill and maim are. You are the xenophobes, the bigots, the haters of others.  you bring re-actions upon yourselves.

People are free to observe right here who is espousing blind hatred of others. I don't believe I've ever done any such thing here, nor has any other Muslim, yet anti-Islamists regularly make a habit of doing so. Cheering the deaths of Muslim civilians, calling for all Muslims to be deported, supporting military actions against Muslims etc.

Well abu, if Muslims are duty bound to wage war with all non Muslims and set up a global caliphate, they have declared war against all non Muslims already, globally, and in war you do not cheer for the enemy. There are plenty of people who call themselves Muslims who advocate peace and are not in to the whole global war and genocide and conversion by the sword, but of course you wouldn't consider these people Muslim.

The sooner Palestine becomes a non-Muslim issue, the sooner it will get more support against Israel.

ROTFLMAO Abu....
Condemned by those YOU SUPPORT ABU...
Islamists leave Israel no choice
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | March 08, 2008
Article from:  The Australian

THE attack yesterday in Jerusalem on a Jewish religious school in which eight civilians died disclosed important political trends.
It showed once more the depths of the divisions within the Palestinian leadership.

The Palestinian Authority, under its President Mahmoud Abbas, condemned the attack.

On the other hand, Hamas, the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza Strip, praised the attack and Gazan civilians danced in the streets with joy. And the Israeli public understood once more that there is no proximate chance of peace in their long-running dispute with the Palestinians.

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have their reasons for continuing to pretend that there might be a peace agreement this year, but if they really believe this, which is unlikely, they could do more harm than good to the region.

The Gazan reaction to the Jerusalem attack also illustrates why, probably later this year, it is almost inevitable that there will be a huge Israeli operation in Gaza. Many people will die. The suffering will be acute.

Yet it is almost as if this is exactly what Hamas wants. It is impossible otherwise to explain its actions.

Once more the Middle East is set to pivot this year. There are a range of churning dynamics, some of vast strategic consequence, others more tactical improvisations, all happening at once. For the moment, Gaza is their centre, or at least it is possible to understand much of what is happening by focusing on Gaza. In 2006, in relatively free elections, Hamas, which is a branch of the extremist Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, won elections among the Palestinians. It did not secure a majority of the vote but it legitimately won.

Subsequently, in a ferocious, bloody and extremely cruel civil war among the Palestinians, Fatah, loyal to Abbas, consolidated itself in the West Bank while Hamas consolidated its rule in Gaza.

Hamas is less corrupt and more efficient than Fatah but it is a ferocious terrorist organisation. In recent months it has shown how willing it is to sacrifice its own people in order to pursue its war against Israel. However, it is wrong to imagine that Hamas is in any sense a mad group. Its strategy is rational. It is also difficult for the Western mind to grasp because of two elements: its genuinely religious foundation, and its willingness to inflict any suffering not only on its enemies, but on its own people.

Over recent months terrorists have fired mainly Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel almost on a daily basis. It is true that they have killed few people. But they have terrorised the citizens of the small Israeli city of Sderot and the nearby kibbutzes and farms. Further, Hamas and other terrorist groups have smuggled weapons and people across the border from Egypt. When recently this border was smashed by Palestinian civilians and left open for several days, before the Egyptians closed it down again, much more such smuggling went on.

Gaza's terrorists have slowly been improving the range, explosive power and precision of their rockets. But now they also have a number of Grad rockets, and indeed some others, some of them apparently of Iranian manufacture, to fire at Israel.

Some of these have hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon, with more than 100,000 people.

This has necessitated an Israeli response. Israel tries to suppress the rocket fire by taking out Hamas and other terrorist leaders, and by destroying from the air Qassam factories and launching points. Although Israel tries not to hit civilians, inevitably some Gazan civilians are hit and killed in these actions.

Further, Israel has imposed a limited economic blockade on Gaza, for which it has been widely criticised. However, it is inconceivable that any nation would allow endless rocket attacks on its civilians without trying to stop them. If the Gaza terrorists could do this with impunity, it would inspire other terrorists to do the same. Hezbollah, intensely rebuilding its capacities in southern Lebanon, could begin launching rockets again from there. Similarly, Israeli security forces have found and destroyed some rocket-making ventures in the West Bank. While the rockets from Gaza have been a tactical rather than strategic threat to Israel, rockets fired simultaneously from Gaza, southern Lebanon and the West Bank would completely paralyse Israel. Therefore Israel ultimately cannot allow the rocket attacks to go on, especially as they increase in lethality and range. There is a marvellous irony in much of the international community demanding that the power station in Ashkelon supply electricity to the rocket factories in Gaza which are trying to destroy it.

Without the rocket firings there would be no economic blockade of Gaza and no Israeli air campaign. Life in Gaza would be infinitely better. Why doesn't Hamas embrace this much better life for its citizens, which would certainly not require it to give up its goal of running an independent Palestinian state?

pt 1

pt 2.
There are four interlocking, plausible answers: it wants to damage Israel internationally, radicalise other Palestinians, ensure Israel's policy of disengagement from the Palestinians fails, and serve Hamas's Iranian and Syrian sponsors. Consider each of the four.

On Monday night, the ABC's Lateline program ran a report on the suffering of civilians in Gaza, an absolutely legitimate subject. Among the heart-rending footage there was an interview with a Gazan civilian who understandably complained bitterly about Israel's actions. But the ABC reporter didn't ask the absolutely obvious question: Do you wish your leaders would stop firing missiles into Israel, which make inevitable both the economic blockade and the Israeli military response? The ABC, as usual, was following more or less exactly the terrorists' preferred script for the Western media. Islamist terrorists have always been centrally concerned with the Western media and their understanding of its story presentation dynamics is acute, as this episode demonstrates. Hamas gets to sheet all blame to Israel.

Second, Hamas is trying to radicalise more Palestinian opinion. Palestinian politics has evolved from nationalism to religious extremism as the rise of Hamas demonstrates.

Palestinian opinion is not only divided between Hamas and Fatah, a division the Israelis are trying to exploit by making life better in the West Bank and more miserable in Gaza, to give Palestinians an incentive to return to secularism and negotiations with Israel rather than nihilist, suicidal terrorism. But Hamas and Fatah are both internally divided as well. Hamas is much stronger even on the West Bank than most commentators allow. Some in Fatah want to try to reclaim credibility by renewed armed conflict with Israel. This would plunge their people once more into terrible suffering but would allow them to compete with Hamas in the dynamics of zealotry.

Third, Hamas is determined to prevent the Israeli policy of disengagement from the Palestinian territories from succeeding. Thirty months ago, then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon pulled out of Gaza, evacuating all the Jewish settlements. Sharon then founded a party, Kadima, on the basis of disengagement.

The Palestinians would be behind their borders and could run whatever sort of society they liked, provided they didn't attack Israel. But the religious extremist leadership of groups like Hamas does not believe that Israel has any right to exist under any circumstances. This is enshrined in Hamas's charter and in all its propaganda. Therefore they want to ensure that no matter what happens, Israel still bears moral and political responsibility for the Palestinian population.

Eventually, Palestinians believe they might triumph by demographics alone. The Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the Israeli birthrate and ultimately it might become impossible for the Israeli state to provide for its own security with an unreconciled Palestinian population. This is a multi-generational strategy and if it is the strategy of some Hamas leaders, it means they really want the opposite of what the international community claims to want from Israel.

Israel is always told to retreat to the 1967 borders. The two places where it has done this - southern Lebanon and Gaza - have been disasters for Israel and have not produced peace. The 1967 borders only work for Israel if its neighbours don't make war on Israel any more. There is no indication at all that either Hamas or Hezbollah, or indeed Iran, which soon enough will possess nuclear weapons, is on a trajectory towards accepting Israel's right to exist.

And finally, Hamas may well be operating in very close concert with its sponsors, Iran and Syria. There is tremendous Sunni Arab concern about the growing power of Iran, evident not least in the bloody political vacuum in Lebanon.

A crisis in Gaza forces the forthcoming Arab summit to focus on the Palestinians, rather than Syria's murderous campaign to prevent the emergence of a democratic Lebanon.

After the situation in Lebanon becomes clearer, a huge Israeli operation in Gaza, to take control of the Gaza-Egypt border and to set up new intelligence mechanisms within Gaza, all to prevent the increase in rocket firings, is perhaps all but inevitable.

Peace is as distant as ever.

easel,


Quote:

Well abu, if Muslims are duty bound to wage war with all non Muslims and set up a global caliphate

Muslims are not duty bound to wage war against anyone. And even if Muslims are commanded to setup a global Caliphate, likewise Westerners want to setup global systems under their ideology... To suggest otherwise would just be naive...

Your own system not only seeks world domination but has largely achieved it. Islam is all that stands in it's way, and that's the West's beef with it. Now that Communism is gone, it's the only other semblance of an opposing ideology that could be a threat to the global Western domination and dissemination of their ideology.

Grendel,

Nice article, it almost sounds fair and balanced except for the fact his sources are quite obviously filtered through firms which handle the PR of the Israeli government.

Especially comments like this one: "Further, Israel has imposed a limited economic blockade on Gaza, for which it has been widely criticised. However, it is inconceivable that any nation would allow endless rocket attacks on its civilians without trying to stop them"

Anyone who's actually been following this issue would know Israel imposed the blockade as soon as Hamas attained power and stated at the time that it is purely for the fact that Hamas has power. The rocket attacks were in response to the blockade. It is inconceivable that any nation would allow their civilians to starve under an economic blockade and not take action to remove it... is it not? Or does such reasoning only apply to Israel?

One day...  when you are no longer brainwashed...  you may be able to discern truth and reality from the propaganda you live and breathe.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2009 at 8:29pm:

Islamophobia is in common use, and to a lesser extent Islamofascism.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2949/islamaphobia5fe6.jpg

Quote:

Actually islamofascism is a term used to inaccurately describe the totalitarian nature of Islam. So it's not quite synonymous with islamophobia.

I didn't say it was synonymous. I'ts obviously not a synonym. How is it inaccurate? I mean that in a technical sense - how does a true Caliphate fail the definition of fascism?


Quote:

I'd suggest the term which should be used here is xenophobia. It includes racism but also blind hatred based on religion, creed or any other arbitrary attribute of a collective people.

Please explain.


Quote:

anti-Islamic sentiment is based purely on hatred and fear of an unknown other.

That's not true. I was quite supportive of Islam until I found out the details.


Quote:

Those who feel this hatred usually have very little real knowledge or experience or exposure to Islam or Muslims, other than through mainstream media and anti-Islamic websites.

Being anti-islamic has nothing to do with hatred. That's just the extreme end of it. The mainstream media and anti Islamic websites tend to make people more supportive. I defended Islam quite a lot when it was just sprint here bagging them. It was exposure to actual Muslims that made me concerned about Islam.


Quote:

Yet it is almost as if this is exactly what Hamas wants. It is impossible otherwise to explain its actions.

It is easier to push people to extremists ideologies like that of Hamas and short-circuit basic reasoning if they are suffering. Hitler's rise was a good example of this.


Quote:

Palestinian opinion is not only divided between Hamas and Fatah, a division the Israelis are trying to exploit by making life better in the West Bank and more miserable in Gaza, to give Palestinians an incentive to return to secularism and negotiations with Israel rather than nihilist, suicidal terrorism.

Interesting strategy.


Quote:

Especially comments like this one: "Further, Israel has imposed a limited economic blockade on Gaza, for which it has been widely criticised. However, it is inconceivable that any nation would allow endless rocket attacks on its civilians without trying to stop them" Anyone who's actually been following this issue would know Israel imposed the blockade as soon as Hamas attained power and stated at the time that it is purely for the fact that Hamas has power. The rocket attacks were in response to the blockade. It is inconceivable that any nation would allow their civilians to starve under an economic blockade and not take action to remove it... is it not? Or does such reasoning only apply to Israel?

Isn't the destruction of Israel a stated goal of Hamas? If an organisation gains power in a neighbouring country and openly declares their intention to destroy you, the situation is little different to the firing of rockets - action must be taken in self defense. Israel did make diplomatic moves to get Hamas to recognise Israel's right to exist, but Hamas knocked them back. Also, when did the firing of rockets start? When was the last one before the election of Hamas, and the first one after?