It’s easy with a secularist mindset to misunderstand the multiple dimensions of the war that may be coming between Islam and the West. Most secularists are inclined to believe that the fight has only one dimension - that between our secularist ideals and Islam. But the focus on that perspective blinds us to another, more significant, context to this war - the battle for the soul.

Islam has traditionally fought only one genre of rivals (when, like Christianity, it’s not distracted by own sectarian and bloody disputes) – that being other religions. Islamists and non-Islamist Muslims alike, I’m sure, don’t see a problem (and currently little traditional resistance) with Islam’s expansionist ideals - if another religion is not claiming the ground, they no doubt reason, then why should Islam constrain its advance into abandoned territory?

Secularism doesn’t do battles for the soul- about which it really has no opinion, its appeal is to the mind and leaves religion (albeit the apolitical flavours) not only unchallenged, but defended.

And Islam won’t halt its march nor neither can it, for it’s not in the nature of any proselytizing religion to do so.

There is really only one way to beat it back… Take the whole fight to Islam.

Secularism can’t do it.

Yes, you can kill indiscriminately under the banner of secularism (once the enemy has been defined and demonized for its political motivations) but not in the theatre of religion. You can, however, kill for Christ just as easily as you can for Allah.

To really bring it on, an ancient war cry must be chanted – and meant… “We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God, Begotten, not made” & etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Either that or roll the dice and declare religion itself to be a mortal enemy of secularism and deal to it with extreme prejudice. To invoke, in other words, the spectre of Mao and declare that all religion is poison,

But ten to one the latter will provoke a war between the Religionists and Secularists - an unholy alliance between the soldiers of Christ and Mohammedan hordes.

Because, though any instance may die hard, religion, unfortunately, is forever.

It's all a clash of ideologies. whether they have religious overtones or not isn't as relevant as you seem to think.

Actually if we look at this in the historical context, it's in fact the Western/Democratic/Capitalist world that is intent on clashing with all contenders. They've spent the last century fighting against their first major foe, the Communists, and established themselves as the dominant ideology. Unfortunately this has left quite a power vacuum, which means that the global political landscape is out of balance, enter Islam. Muslims have been living amongst the West as immigrant populations, and have been adhering to the exact same beliefs, ideology and even the exact same resistance guerilla groups (al-Qaeda et al) existed in the Muslim world for the past century, nobody said a word about there being a clash of Western vs. Islamic civilisation... why not? Because the West was busy with her foe the Communists, and in fact employed those very same militant guerilla movements that she now claims are the epitomy of evil.

Muslims have not really changed much in the past 20 years, it's the West who has changed.  After the fall of the USSR, that's when the finger started  to get pointed at the Muslims, that's when Saddam, a former friend, suddenly became the most evil dictator this side of the Tibetan Plateau, and the once friendly freedom fighters of Afghanistan became the deadliest evilest most dangerous terrorists on earth.

Somebody wants there to be a clash, but it's certainly not the Muslims. Somebody is agitating for global war, but it's not the Muslims. Somebody believes armageddon is near, and the Jews must "return to Zion", and there must be a huge clash with the "infidels", but it's not the Muslims. Somebody is invading country after country, calling people an axis of evil and demonising them daily in their media. Arming occupationist regimes that expel them from their homes, slaughtering civilians by the tens of thousands, committing unspeakable war crimes all over the planet, and it's not the Muslims. Yes we all know about the isolated retaliation attacks that occured, but really they don't even come close to the numbers of Muslims who've been displaced, murdered, tortured, raped, wounded etc. by the Dominant world ideology, the 'clash-seeker' in the past 20 or so years. And a lot of it happened long before 9/11, so using the typical argument that it's all in response to that is invalid, as tens of thousands, if not more Muslims were already slaughtered by the 'clash-seeker' and her proxies prior to that date, hundreds of thousands more were wounded, left damaged and deformed by DU and other nasties, made homeless, limbless, disabled etc.

It's quite easy for people on either side to claim "They [the faceless other] were hostile and barbaric and uncivilised by nature, we were justified in fighting/obliterating them", but those are the words and sentiments of the 'clash-seekers'. Are you a 'clash-seeker' helian?

As usual, Helian raises some very interesting issues, and opens up new facets for consideration, in an area where our thinking, can be very constrained.

What a perversity it would be, to see other religions uniting with Islam, to resist attempts by secular governments, to curtail the more extreme religious elements within our society from continually seeking to expand their means, and areas of influence.

As the threat that Islam presents to the world becomes more apparent, and more widely accepted, we will no doubt see even more cynical manipulation of western freedoms, to attempt to restrain the voices of reason that seek to warn of Islam's growing militancy, and expansionist agenda.

Unfortunately for the west, the cynical hypocrisy of Islam, whereby it uses freedoms that Islam itself, does not offer, or believe in, to effectively hamstring any opposition to it, and actually gets away with it's false portrayal of victimhood, rather than as the aggressor in the global battle for religious superiority.

Now if Islam were just a religion, and we were just talking about what people take on board as their personal spirituality, then non religious people would not really care, one way or the other.
But the fact is that Islam is far more than just a spiritual philosophy, it is a theocratic, political regime, with megalomanic goals, which the rest of the world can not afford to overlook, and hope it just goes away.

To understand the potential seriousness of this issue, you need to look to a country like Pakistan, a political, and religious basket case, straining under factional fighting, competing terrorist groups, and corrupt government.
Pakistan is an Islamic country, and it is nuclear armed, and close to the chinese, whose tolerance for potential threats would be far less restrained, than what we could expect from western governments, if the fragile structure that holds the country together, finally broke down.

We see these competing factions within Islam, whose hatred of the west, is only surpassed by their hatred of each other, and the thought of people like that, controlling nuclear weapons, is untenable, yet we see Iran, both denying it is, and justifying why it should, be allowed to go nuclear also.
Frankly, I find the prospect, of any Islamic power at all, controlling nuclear weapons, very troubling.

So we all knew that this whole issue is complex, but just how many different factors do come into play?
How many potential, 'Nightmare', scenarios exist?
One aspect I do take comfort in, is knowing that the factions within Islam, will almost certainly stop it from ever putting forward a united front.

Are you trying to say that you are choosing a side Helian?

Secularism has won many battles, including against Christianity, without prompting Christians and Muslims to team up against it. Religion fights for the soul. Secularism fights for the mind. When the French cried liberty, they were chanting the secularist war cry. Even though most of them happened to be Christian as well. Only Islam seems incapable of fighting for the soul while loosing the shackles on the mind. Maybe it too will change.


Quote:

Muslims have not really changed much in the past 20 years

Don't you mean 1400?


Quote:

After the fall of the USSR, that's when the finger started  to get pointed at the Muslims

I'd say it was after the fall of the twin towers.


Quote:

And a lot of it happened long before 9/11, so using the typical argument that it's all in response to that is invalid, as tens of thousands, if not more Muslims were already slaughtered by the 'clash-seeker' and her proxies prior to that date

But according to you, everyone who does the wrong thing is a proxy of the west. Even when Shites and Sunnis bomb each others mosques, it is the west's fault, because 'they started it'.


Quote:

Somebody wants there to be a clash, but it's certainly not the Muslims.

Islam tried to conquer the world politically with the sword. No other religion did. Saying that it has been losing for the last few centuries is not the same as saying that it hasn't been seeking a clash. It's just that it displays a hint of rationality, or self preservation, in trying to end war when it is on the losing side. Islam has never, ever tried to end war when it was on the winning side. The west has.

Abu you claim that the actions of Muslim countries over the last century cannot be attributed to Islam because they weren't Caliphates. Likewise, actions against these countries cannot be attributed to an attack on Islam. We are in the process of replacing Saddam with a democratic government. This is neither for nor against Islam. It's just that Islam likes to throw itself in the way of any gun that is being fired.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 9:25am:

Are you trying to say that you are choosing a side Helian? Secularism has won many battles, including against Christianity, without prompting Christians and Muslims to team up against it. Religion fights for the soul. Secularism fights for the mind. When the French cried liberty, they were chanting the secularist war cry. Even though most of them happened to be Christian as well. Only Islam seems incapable of fighting for the soul while loosing the shackles on the mind. Maybe it too will change.

Are you a compulsive contrarian, FD?

When the French cried liberty, they were primarily chanting the war cry of the underclasses against the class system and specifically the aristocracy. Christianity had been on the decline as a social and political force in Europe long before the enlightenment and Islam had no presence or socio-political clout in Europe when the forces of secularism were taking on the (mainly Catholic) theocracies. It is interesting that Turkey, a secular state, requires a standing army prepared to overthrow any government that threatens Turkey's secular status - and this regardless of any popular mandate the government may have from the people.

Some things can't be beaten by appealing to the mind alone.

Are you trying to say that you are choosing a side Helian?

I'm not a compulsive contrarian. It's just that everyone else is wrong.

If we [the West] want to defeat ISLAM, we must confront the TRUTH.
....but i'm not optimistic!

Today, the West is corrupt, and hates TRUTH, and turns away from it, whenever TRUTH conflicts with its commercial interests.



Listen to what this wonderful, TRUTHFUL woman says....

"It is a clash between civilisation, and backwardness......between barbarity, and rationality....."

"Wafa Sultan Slapping some Fanatics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQu9lbqBDgw





ISLAM can not be defeated until we collectively, and culturally, acknowledge the TRUTH of what ISLAM is.
.....i.e. PURE EVIL.

And we, and our 'leaders', keep denying that TRUTH.

Why?




Want a picture of where we are going, of what our future is?

Look at Europe today,

"Pat Condell - Shame on The Netherlands"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU






I have previously stated on Oz Pol how i believe ISLAM should be treated within all Western host countries, [stated here]......


It should be our governments policy,

   
• to destroy all mosques,
     
• deport all imam's,
     
• and to deport any [and every] person who claims to practice, and follow, the political philosophy called, ISLAM.
  

"Israel accused over Gaza wounded"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231430119/10#10







"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 11:16am:

....I'm not a compulsive contrarian. It's just that everyone else is wrong.

LOL !!!!





p.s.

I was once a free diver too, in South Aust., many yrs ago.

See!! FD, we have so much in common!     ;D    ;D    ;D

Good grief!

I’m sure we’ve had a discussion on secularism and religion before. I’m also sure we came to the conclusion that secularism isn’t atheism.  After all the modern “father” of secularism, Holyoake was an agnostic. Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief.  How very agnostic of him.

"Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it.”

Whereas Christianity has had its reformation/s and secularism is the norm in most “Christian” societies, in Islam, most notably the Arab countries, secularism cannot be allowed to exist.  Islam is not just a religion it is a way of life encompassing all aspects of it.  Hence it cannot exist and be separate from the social order.  Few Islamic nations have a secular society where government is not religion oriented.  The drive against secularism and democracy is from Islam and particularly the Middle East.

Even here we have seen support and call for a Caliphate.  This is the goal of many Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda.

Having read the rants from such groups, groups supported widely in the Ummah, one can only think that jealousy and shame are the primary drivers of these movements.  Jealousy of the West, because of its global dominance in so many areas of life and hence the cries of victim-hood to hide the shame felt because of their fall from dominance.

It is easier for a Muslim to blame others for their plight than to accept responsibility for it.

“Muslims have not really changed much in the past 20 years, it's the West who has changed.  After the fall of the USSR, that's when the finger started  to get pointed at the Muslims, that's when Saddam, a former friend, suddenly became the most evil dictator this side of the Tibetan Plateau, and the once friendly freedom fighters of Afghanistan became the deadliest evilest most dangerous terrorists on earth.”

Clearly rubbish.

“Somebody wants there to be a clash, but it's certainly not the Muslims. Somebody is agitating for global war, but it's not the Muslims. Somebody believes armageddon is near, and the Jews must "return to Zion", and there must be a huge clash with the "infidels", but it's not the Muslims.”

More rubbish.

As for the rest…  how much baseless brainless propaganda  do Muslims actually believe?

I’m pretty certain if there is to be a final conflict, then it will be between Islam and the rest.

The problem will emerge in those societies where the Muslim population nears a majority. This will be when there is going to be a final conflict whereby secularism will fail those who fear Islamic socio-political dominance. Then there will be the choice of the Fiji dilemma or an ideology that allows discrimination or killing based on religious belief as opposed to responding only to purely political deviance. And what better genre of ideology to get the job done than another religion?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 12:31pm:

The problem will emerge in those societies where the Muslim population nears a majority. This will be when there is going to be a final conflict whereby secularism will fail those who fear Islamic socio-political dominance. Then there will be the choice of the Fiji dilemma or an ideology that allows discrimination or killing based on religious belief as opposed to responding only to purely political deviance. And what better genre of ideology to get the job done than another religion?

helian,

Who do you believe ISLAM will seriously confront first, the corrupt and appeasing, weakened 'democracies' of Europe, or the 'Satan' living within the midst of the ISLAMIC peoples?

Who will be ISLAM's first 'determined', intended 'victim', Europe, or Israel?

Yadda wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 12:54pm:

helian, Who do you believe ISLAM will seriously confront first, the corrupt and appeasing, weakened 'democracies' of Europe, or the 'Satan' living within the midst of the ISLAMIC peoples? Who will be ISLAM's first 'determined', intended 'victim', Europe, or Israel?

Islam cannot defeat Europe or Israel by armed struggle. The defeat of the secular West must come from demographic superiority and the democratic process via high birth rate and successful proselytising.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2009 at 1:06pm:

Islam cannot defeat Europe or Israel by armed struggle. The defeat of the secular West must come from demographic superiority and the democratic process via high birth rate and successful proselytising.

Yes.

"Slowly, slowly catchy monkey."


What does slowly slowly catchy monkey mean? - Yahoo! Answers
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070702095402AAjGj30

Perhaps the West needs to consider Islam and Islamism as inextricable - that there is no such thing as Islam, the religion as distinct from Islamism - the political force... That they are synonymous. Certainly its true that most Muslims are not politically motivated but as there appears to be no mechanism that moderates can engage to decouple Islam's political dimension, they cannot therefore be relied on to assert their moderate views. If Islam is perceived only in the context of a deviant anti-democratic political force, it can then be divested of its protection by secularism.

How does secularism protect religions?

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 8:49am:

How does secularism protect religions?

What is free exercise of religion?

I expect free speech would be enough to kill off Islam, and there is nothing about secularism that protects religion from criticism. Religion has never been a defence when people's actions cross into the illegal or start affecting other people. However, we must also leave open the option of reform from within Islam, which you cannot achieve by making the religion itself illegal. Once we start doing that, we aren't much better than the Muslims. The political aspects of Islam will recieve no more protection here than the political aspects of Nazism. In many ways its competition with Christianity will ensure that. It was active Christians who raised awareness of the issue here. There are far more vested interests opposed to Islam than opposed to purely political ideologies.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 8:49am:

How does secularism protect religions?

Secularism is a Christian idea, as is the concept that reason is divine. Combining the separation of church and state, public affairs and private conscience as well as promoting reason as the only final arbiter in public matters has led to liberal democracy, the worst political system - except all the others. It is able to adapt, self-correcthas declared certain rights fundamental - life, liberty, rule of law (the public operation of reason) and so forth. It is not anti-Christian or anti-religion. The opposite of secularism is theocracy.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:55am:

I expect free speech would be enough to kill off Islam, and there is nothing about secularism that protects religion from criticism. Religion has never been a defence when people's actions cross into the illegal or start affecting other people. However, we must also leave open the option of reform from within Islam, which you cannot achieve by making the religion itself illegal. Once we start doing that, we aren't much better than the Muslims. The political aspects of Islam will recieve no more protection here than the political aspects of Nazism. In many ways its competition with Christianity will ensure that. It was active Christians who raised awareness of the issue here. There are far more vested interests opposed to Islam than opposed to purely political ideologies.

It is not protection from criticism which is the crux... It is the protection of worshippers' right to express their religious beliefs that is the point. Our secularist system of government defends that right and in so doing defends the right of Islam to exist in Australia.

Islamism could be declared a subversive political ideology incompatible with secularist ideals that requires monitoring (and if necessary constraint) in the same way other extremist ideologies are monitored and constrained - The extrication of Islamism from the practice of Islamic worship being the goal. The diabolic detail will be in the definition of what constitutes Islamism as distinct from Islamic worship.

Quote:

Our secularist system of government defends that right and in so doing defends the right of Islam to exist in Australia.

Our secularist system of government also defends the right of people to form political parties that oppose our system of government. The fact that Islam is better organised than most extremist political parties does necessarily make it illegal. This is another one of those tests of freedom. We have to let people freely choose between our system and the alternatives. If we don't then our freedom is an illusion. Islam must fall because people reject it, not because the government rejects it.


Quote:

The diabolic detail will be in the definition of what constitutes Islamism as distinct from Islamic worship.

You would just end up chasing your tail. There are already Muslim terrorists in Australia to worry about. They know when their actions cross over into the illegal and they go underground as is necessary. All the diabolical aspects are already illegal in some way. You don't need any new laws. You don't need any laws that are specific to Islam.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 9:55am:

I expect free speech would be enough to kill off Islam, and there is nothing about secularism that protects religion from criticism. Religion has never been a defence when people's actions cross into the illegal or start affecting other people. However, we must also leave open the option of reform from within Islam,

FD,

ISLAM is not open to reform.

ISLAM kills muslims who try to reform ISLAM!!!

You cannot reform a 'crocodile' !

A 'crocodile', is a 'crocodile' !

Allah says [paraphrasing], "Kill those who resist the authority of ISLAM, over their lives."






Quote:

......which you cannot achieve by making the religion itself illegal. Once we start doing that, we aren't much better than the Muslims.

Here [above], you are promoting the appeasement of what we perceive to be evil.

Why?

Because we insist that we must consider ourselves to be more tolerant, than those who are 'intolerant' ????

That 'logic', err, is illogical!


"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann






Quote:

.......The political aspects of Islam will recieve no more protection here than the political aspects of Nazism. In many ways its competition with Christianity will ensure that. It was active Christians who raised awareness of the issue here. There are far more vested interests opposed to Islam than opposed to purely political ideologies.

FD,

Your wrong.

Your forgetting / ignoring how 'tolerant' we have become.
/sarc off

e.g.

Just look at how authorities in Europe today are folding before every demand being made by muslims.

Authorities in Europe today are PROSECUTING Geert Wilders, because the TRUTH he spoke offends muslims.

Authorities in Europe today are PROSECUTING Geert Wilders, to APPEASE muslims.




".....I'm not a compulsive contrarian. It's just that everyone else is wrong."     ;Di


++++++++


Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196





Koran....

Allah's instructions on how to deal with apostates [ex-muslims],

"Allah! There is no god but He: of a surety He will gather you together against the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. And whose word can be truer than Allah's?
Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.087
v. 87-89




Allah's instructions on how to deal with 'unbelievers',

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029

I'm not saying we have to fold to every demand made by Muslims. We must stand up to them. But we must resist the urge to over-react.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2009 at 11:02am:

I'm not saying we have to fold to every demand made by Muslims. We must stand up to them. But we must resist the urge to over-react.

And having people in your midst who are committed as a matter of faith to the violent destruction of your society, your religion, your government your heritage to rule over all of us (or kill us) with the use of their society, religion and heritage - just exactly what would you call an over-reaction to such a group of people freedo?

Anything illegal is an overreaction. Deporting Australian citizens is an overreaction. Denying people the chance to think for themselves is an overeaction.

Always remember, it is the ideology that calls for those things. Real people on the other hand are never so simple.

Then you are ok to start deporting non-citizens and to cancel Australian passports of Dual passport holders.

Good.  gotta start somewhere.

I would start with immigration of people who reject democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc. There is no need to make this specifically anti-Islamic. Anyone who rejects those things should be rejected, regardless of the reason why. Furthermore, Muslims will give the impression that they support these things. The questions need to be detailed and interrogative, not broad 'do you support our values' BS. There are no doubt plenty of people who consider themselves Muslims but who would choose democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech etc over an Islamic Caliphate. I don't have a problem with them.

Why would a Muslim choose freedom of religion?
They seek only to have 1 religion...  globally.

As for those other freedoms...  I'm sorry...  huge numbers of Muslims have shown contempt for them.

Most ME Muslims pray for a Caliphate...  even Muslims here do.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 4:31pm:

Anything illegal is an overreaction. Deporting Australian citizens is an overreaction. Denying people the chance to think for themselves is an overeaction. Always remember, it is the ideology that calls for those things. Real people on the other hand are never so simple.

So what we needed to do instead of fight Germany in World War II, was reach out to all those moderate Nazis! Would have been much, much easier than doing those nasty D-Day landings and invading Italy.

And real people by the way are MORONS. I see em, every damn day.

Quote:

Why would a Muslim choose freedom of religion?

Because they are hypocrits? Because they value the claims of freedom of religion in the Koran more than the various punishments for not being a Muslim. There are all sorts of possible reasons. Reason itself is the main one. Their reason for doing so doesn't really matter.


Quote:

So what we needed to do instead of fight Germany in World War II, was reach out to all those moderate Nazis! Would have been much, much easier than doing those nasty D-Day landings and invading Italy.

I was referring to our treatment of Australian citizens, not invading armies.

Quote:

I would start with immigration of people who reject democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc. There is no need to make this specifically anti-Islamic.

No. But you would get like the one or two Neonazis a year and a 100,000 muslims or so.


Quote:

Anyone who rejects those things should be rejected, regardless of the reason why.

Thinking democracy is crap (which it is) doesnt mean you are committed to overthrowing it. Its the last bit that matters.


Quote:

Furthermore, Muslims will give the impression that they support these things. The questions need to be detailed and interrogative, not broad 'do you support our values' BS.

Give me 15 minutes questioning any muslim together with a polygraph operator and you'd know their true colours.


Quote:

There are no doubt plenty of people who consider themselves Muslims but who would choose democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech etc over an Islamic Caliphate.

Ya think freedoi? Then they wouldnt be muslims now, would they?


Quote:

I don't have a problem with them.

The theoretical democratic loving muslims who will not at all, when the proverbial hits the fan, suddenly side with the Ummah Nation of Islam, oh no sir, they will stand right beside secular loving freedo over here.  Because *he* supported them. Back at ya big guy.

Quote:

Ya think freedoi? Then they wouldnt be muslims now, would they?

It depends who you ask. Abu might not think they are Muslims. He may even suggest they should be put to death. I would suggest they should have freedom of religion. Whose side do you think they would choose?


Quote:

The theoretical democratic loving muslims who will not at all, when the proverbial hits the fan, suddenly side with the Ummah Nation of Islam, oh no sir, they will stand right beside secular loving freedo over here.  Because *he* supported them. Back at ya big guy.

The poo has hit the fan in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess what the local Muslims are doing? They are risking their lives to help establish a democracy. They seem to have learned a lesson from Saddam and the Taliban. I couldn't care less whether they do this by rejecting Islam or by reforming it, or just by being hypocrits. They are still people who are capable of thinkging for themselves. The one way to guarantee they side with Islamic extremists is to deny them freedom of religion by banning Islam. It is important that the Muslims are the hypocrits, not us.

As I stated many times islam need reformation just like it' predecessors have had to get out of islamic dark ages.
Is it possible? Ask the only islamic authority here abu.
I'll bet he will evade the question, though.

No he doesn't evade. He quite directly rejects the concept of Islam adapting.

Quote:

Guess what the local Muslims are doing? They are risking their lives to help establish a democracy.

Some are sure. But that is a muslim ruled country. That is a very different thing from the dar al harb where we live, where the goal always is to crush the system and make it a muslim ruled country. And all or most muslims will unite to do that when the call goes out.

There is also a saying in Arabic 'We side with the victor,' meaning that whoever wins and is in power, people side with, and that allegiances are very very fluid.

I wouldn't ban Islam, I would prevent it from ever getting into the political sphere, constantly requiring special treatment and 'justice', and I would prevent Islamic immigration. I have a few sneaky ideas though to do that without actually naming the dragon.

And where is this doctrinal basis for a somewhat islam light you are referring to? Is it just based on your own 'hope' there?

Mostly the posts on these Islam related threads are venting rants. It would be good to read some ideas for constraining or eliminating Islamism that doesn't just call for blanket discrimination against Muslims wanting to immigrate. What would be the outcome for such discrimination? Ostracism by trading nations? Expulsion from political and economic associations?

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

I would start with immigration of people who reject democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc. There is no need to make this specifically anti-Islamic.

FD,

Oh yes there is!

If we study ISLAM, just a little, we learn that ISLAM promotes its violent dominance over, and destruction of, all democratic systems of government.

When proponents of ISLAM say otherwise, they are being bare faced liars.







Quote:

Anyone who rejects those things should be rejected, regardless of the reason why. Furthermore, Muslims will give the impression that they support these things [i.e. democratic values]. The questions need to be detailed and interrogative, not broad 'do you support our values' BS.

Exactly!





Quote:

There are no doubt plenty of people who consider themselves Muslims but who would choose democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech etc over an Islamic Caliphate. I don't have a problem with them.

Incorrect.

By definition, such a 'muslim' would be regarded by [real] devout muslims, as a non-muslim.

So lets make it easy for ourselves [and for the real, nominal 'muslims'].

Just expel all those ppl who claim to follow, the political philosophy called, ISLAM.

I'm sure that in the 'process', many nominal muslims would simply abandon their 'faith', and identify themselves as people who have secular values.

Good!

I have no problem with such ppl.

I welcome such ppl to live among us.

And, when we catch the liars [which there no doubt will be some, among the 'deniers'], who deceived us, prosecute them as agents working for a foreign power / traitors.





FD,

I direct you to my comments here,

"Israel accused over Gaza wounded"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231430119/10#10

".....It should be our governments policy [within Australia],
  * to destroy all mosques,
  * deport all imam's,
  * and to deport any [and every] person who claims to practice, and follow, the political philosophy called, ISLAM."

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 6:46am:

Mostly the posts on these Islam related threads are venting rants. It would be good to read some ideas for constraining or eliminating Islamism that doesn't just call for blanket discrimination against Muslims wanting to immigrate. What would be the outcome for such discrimination? Ostracism by trading nations? Expulsion from political and economic associations?

So that would have been your answer to dealing with the Third Reich? Engage with the moderate nazis, a few trade embargoes? You dont understand that the ideology, is a supremacist ideology for destroying all before it. You cannot reason or bargain with it, your words are meaningless, you are meaningless, your government, religions and laws are meaningless.

All must be subordinate to allah's law, government, and religion - through jihad.

Not sure what you think negotiating is going to do. How do you negotiate away that bottom line there Mr Chamberlain?

Quote:

And where is this doctrinal basis for a somewhat islam light you are referring to? Is it just based on your own 'hope' there?

I said the basis is Human, not doctrinal.


Quote:

What would be the outcome for such discrimination? Ostracism by trading nations? Expulsion from political and economic associations?

I don't think people mind discrimination based on ideology in immigration policy. Immigration policy is out of necessity discriminating. It would be the locals who complaqin the most.


Quote:

Incorrect. By definition, such a 'muslim' would be regarded by [real] devout muslims, as a non-muslim.

You are not contradicting me Yadda. All religious people play the same game.


Quote:

So that would have been your answer to dealing with the Third Reich? Engage with the moderate nazis, a few trade embargoes?

We are currently at war with two such regimes. This has not necessitated denial of rights to local Muslims.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 11:13am:

Quote: Incorrect. By definition, such a 'muslim' would be regarded by [real] devout muslims, as a non-muslim. You are not contradicting me Yadda. All religious people play the same game.

[Yadda throws his hands up in the air!]

FD,

Yes of course FD, you are correct.

All religious people are the same.

ISLAMIST's are just like Christians, ISLAM is a religion, just like Christianity.
/sarc off



What is the point of presenting information, about the lies, the deception and the violence which ISLAM uses to approach its intended victim, when that victim is morally blind?

The morally blind don't see, or will not accept, ISLAM as evil.

FD,

What ppl like yourself are suggesting [as a 'solution'] is, just 'more of the same'....

'Lets compromise and 'accommodate' muslims, rather than confront their [evil] philosophy.'



It is appeasement of evil.

It is moral blindness!

And God help this nation, but i'm not holding my breath!

Because God tends to let a ppl who are hypocrites, get their 'just deserts'.

Quote:

We are currently at war with two such regimes. This has not necessitated denial of rights to local Muslims.

But we don't live there Freediver. And the Muslims are already in power. You can see the distinction surely?

If you look at the original comment, it was a response to someone's attempt to equate the situation with how we dealt with Nazi Germany. Contrary to that situation, we are acting very agressively. I was trying to clarify the deliberate confusion of dealing with Australian citizens and evil foreign regimes.

'Devout muslims are just like us.'



YOUTUBE....
"Holy Koran Numa Numa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vipcEgB8DtM

Calanen wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:46am: Mostly the posts on these Islam related threads are venting rants. It would be good to read some ideas for constraining or eliminating Islamism that doesn't just call for blanket discrimination against Muslims wanting to immigrate. What would be the outcome for such discrimination? Ostracism by trading nations? Expulsion from political and economic associations? So that would have been your answer to dealing with the Third Reich? Engage with the moderate nazis, a few trade embargoes? You dont understand that the ideology, is a supremacist ideology for destroying all before it. You cannot reason or bargain with it, your words are meaningless, you are meaningless, your government, religions and laws are meaningless. All must be subordinate to allah's law, government, and religion - through jihad. Not sure what you think negotiating is going to do. How do you negotiate away that bottom line there Mr Chamberlain?

Reductio ad Hitlerum. The rise of Nazism was also driven by humiliation in defeat of the people and most particularly the German Armed Forces, a collapsed economy, communist uprisings in the east, the hyper-inflation of the 20s.

What I was alluding to was something viable as opposed to nation destroying ideas such as blanket deportation and discrimination based on religious affiliation, which, by the way, was exactly Nazi policy in dealing with Jews during the 30's.

I find this whole concept of trying to ban people very troubling, and not at all what I want my Australia to be like.

If we trade away our principles and freedoms, in some perverse attempt to protect them, then we have already lost them.

While I do not like much of what I learn about Islam, I dislike even more the idea of us becoming totalitarian in our responses to it.

We need to be smart enough to find ways to limit the ability of Islam to further it's ideals of a resurgent caliphate, and an imposed theocracy, without resorting to bigoted pogrom like attacks on muslims.

I refuse to accept the notion that all muslims are inherently evil fifth columnists just biding their time until they can overrun us, I just do not bellieve that ordinary people work that way.

Of course there are elements within the muslim community who harbour such divisive ideals, and unfortunately they attempt to proselytise those ideals to their wider community, and it is with these extremists that we should focus our attention.

As I have always maintained, and with no specific targeting of any religious group, I would ban all religious schooling, as I feel it is important for all children to be given the opportunity of receiving an education, free from religious proselytising.
Parents who wish to impose their religious beliefs onto their children should not be indulged in their wants, by impinging on the child's right to an unbiased, and broad, education.

I also believe that the rights and freedoms which all religions claim for themselves, need to be reviewed.
Religions should be treated like any other organisation, and should be subject to regulations and controls which reflect the values and ideals of the broad community.
Things like tax free status, should only be applied to specific, charitable organisations, and with complete transparency, so no special considerations would be required, just because an organisation chooses to call itself a religion, the privileges it receives would be totally dependant upon it's functions.

So now that we have privilege on religious grounds out of the way, then anyone who promotes dissent, or anti-social activities, could be dealt with impartially, in the judicial system.

So rather than choose one group to try and curtail, we instead create an even system where all are bound by the same legal considerations, irrespective of their claimed religious preference.

Quote:

If we trade away our principles and freedoms, in some perverse attempt to protect them, then we have already lost them.

Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.


Quote:

So now that we have privilege on religious grounds out of the way, then anyone who promotes dissent, or anti-social activities, could be dealt with impartially, in the judicial system.

dissent?

Yes, dissent.

How we respond would be in proportion to the seriousness of it.

Some where T Shirts with snappy slogans, some want to blow up footy grounds, the response would be different for each.
Is that hard to follow?

What would you have done to someone who wore a T shirt with a snappy slogan on it?

Quote:

What would you have done to someone who wore a T shirt with a snappy slogan on it?

Well, if they paid an inordinate amount of cash for a cheap nylon T, which promotes it's own clothing brand, then I would sign them up for voluntary sterilisation, just to do my bit for the gene pool.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 2:43pm:

What would you have done to someone who wore a T shirt with a snappy slogan on it?

I don't care about t-shirts. But people should be prepared to be criticised about what is on them.

But take steps to commit terror, the appropriate penalty is death.

Quote:

the appropriate penalty is death.

You sound more like an extremist everyday Calanen.

The things that I dislike about Islam, are the things you suggest we do to counter it, and that ain't gonna fly, with this little black duck.

We need to resist barbarism, not succumb to it.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

I would start with immigration of people who reject democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc. There is no need to make this specifically anti-Islamic. Anyone who rejects those things should be rejected, regardless of the reason why. Furthermore, Muslims will give the impression that they support these things. The questions need to be detailed and interrogative, not broad 'do you support our values' BS. There are no doubt plenty of people who consider themselves Muslims but who would choose democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech etc over an Islamic Caliphate. I don't have a problem with them.

I agree that this is the most rational and non-invasive starting point FD. In particular the highlighted section.

Nonetheless there would be criticism for such a concept as discriminatory but it's about time we grew up and said this is a simple matter of selection that favours a hard to define but recognisable way of life. I t has been a long tiime since my mental image of an Australian was the bronzed muscle man in the life saver cap, but it is still essentially of a secular, largely non-religious democratic character.

All countries are very discriminating in who they let in. We choose people with the best qualifications, best job prospects etc. Supporting the principles that are fundamental to our society would barely change this.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 4:02pm:

All countries are very discriminating in who they let in. We choose people with the best qualifications, best job prospects etc. Supporting the principles that are fundamental to our society would barely change this.

100% sensible.

As a younger man I made some enquiries about emmigrating to some of the scandinavian countries because I like their type of democratic socialist systems, social programs etc.

I had excellent bill of health, spotless criminal record and a trade. I was still told it would be extremely difficult. I accepted it that there was a high standard and as dissapointing as that may have been, good on them.

I find it laughable that peopel crap on about hitlerism and totalitarianism in an attempt to disuade others.

Yet cannot come up with one decent idea themselves as how to handle Islam and more importantly islamic extremism.  hard to tell the 2 apart one might think.

No use calling others names and doing the old pc labelling like Hanson and her supporters had to put up with.  It may have worked then but violence and dead people have a way of being more difficult to hide.

There is nothing barbaric BTW in having a discriminatory immigration policy.  In fact if the entire West adopted one it might drive change from within the Islamic countries...  it also might just fuel their paranoia and victimhood... but at least they'd be paranoid and victims in their own countries.

locutius wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 4:16pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 4:02pm: All countries are very discriminating in who they let in. We choose people with the best qualifications, best job prospects etc. Supporting the principles that are fundamental to our society would barely change this. 100% sensible. As a younger man I made some enquiries about emmigrating to some of the scandinavian countries because I like their type of democratic socialist systems, social programs etc. I had excellent bill of health, spotless criminal record and a trade. I was still told it would be extremely difficult. I accepted it that there was a high standard and as dissapointing as that may have been, good on them.

And instead they let in muslims, and watch rape and crime statistics surge,  but still dont speak the native language. Good job there Scandinavia.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 3:44pm:

Quote: But take steps to commit terror, the appropriate penalty is death.   You sound more like an extremist everyday Calanen. The things that I dislike about Islam, are the things you suggest we do to counter it, and that ain't gonna fly, with this little black duck. We need to resist barbarism, not succumb to it.

moz,

How should we "resist barbarism" ?

How are our children taught in schools to "resist [real] barbarism" ?

I am all ears.

Do you mean that 'good ppl' like us, should intellectually resist barbarism?

But that, we 'good ppl', should not lift one finger, against barbarians, or aggressors?

Why not?

Because we are told that violence only begets violence?

That is a falsehood, designed to deceive you.

What prolonged violence [war] really begets is death and poverty.

EXAMPLE,
....Gaza, Somalia, etc.





moz,

You don't sleep safely in your bed at night, because our forefathers intellectually resisted barbarism.

Many of our forefathers [often] reluctantly went to war, to resist barbarism, and totalitarianism.

And a lot of people died.

1930's Europe was a frightful place, once the Nazis began their reign of terror.

Should our forefathers not of bothered opposing, what they considered evil [i.e. fascism]?

Should they have refused to resist the hatred, and schemes of people like Hilter, and Nazism?





I am not a war monger.

I am a peace monger.

But Peace comes from Justice [not appeasement of evil].

And Justice comes from free and open TRUTH, and from facing up to TRUTH.

We are kidding ourselves, if we believe that aggression, or barbarism, is overcome by surrender to it, or appeasement of it.

It may be a TRUTH that many people today do not want to face, but politics IS 'violence'.

And the violence or peace of politics, is won and protected with the gun [i.e. with force].



               RASCZAK
       When you vote, you're exercising political
       authority. You're using force. And force, my
       friends, is violence, the supreme authority
       from which all other authority derives.

   CARL JENKINS, 18, a superintelligent geek, jumps in.

               CARL
       Gee, we always thought you were the
       supreme authority, Mr. Rasczak.

   Laughter. Rasczak grins.

               RASCZAK
       In my classroom, you bet. Whether it's
       exerted by ten or ten billion, political
       authority is violence by degree. The
       people we call citizens have earned
       the right to wield it.

   DIZZY FLORES, 18, athletic, pretty, no nonsense, chimes in.

               DIZZY
       My mother always says that violence
       never solves anything.

               RASCZAK
       Really ? I wonder what the city fathers of
       Hiroshima would have to say about that.
       You.

   Rasczak points at Carmen.

               CARMEN
       They probably wouldn't say anything.
       Hiroshima was destroyed.

               RASCZAK
       Correct. Naked force has settled more
       issues in history than any other factor.
       The contrary opinion 'violence never
       solves anything' is wishful thinking
       at its worst.

               RASCZAK
       People who forget that always pay...
       They pay with their lives and their
       freedom.

From a scene in the movie Starship Troopers






++++++++



Definition,
Thug = = a person willing to commit violence to get what they *desire*.

Definition,
'nice' person = = persons who enjoy the benefits of rights and freedoms, but see no connection between their own rights and freedoms, and the personal sacrifice which was required, to secure those rights and freedoms.

Definition,
Citizen = = a person who recognises they have a responsibility to defend [through personal sacrifice], their own rights and freedoms.



What we all have to ask ourselves is, in a world full of thugs, and 'nice' people.....

If the 'nice' people in the world are not prepared to defend their rights and freedoms [which were won by the sacrifice of the spilt blood of their fathers], and and if they are not prepared to condemn [and physically oppose] the thugs....

Then in a struggle between thugs, and 'nice' people, who will prevail?




Aggression is not overcome, by surrender to it.

That way leads to slavery [and no peace!].



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 4:02pm:

All countries are very discriminating in who they let in. We choose people with the best qualifications, best job prospects etc. Supporting the principles that are fundamental to our society would barely change this.

Australia is not.

There are a number of reasons for this. People who come here seeking political asylum or as refugees, and are refused, can keep appealing the decision ad infinitum. So they stay here for 10 years, have a few kids etc, all as an illegal on welfare, with their application refused. But they cant be deported, because the kids are born here, so better let them stay.

It's a joke. So dont for a moment think we only get the best people here.

Can you back that up Calanen? The imrpession I had was that it was the government that tended to delay the process.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 9:38am:

Can you back that up Calanen? The imrpession I had was that it was the government that tended to delay the process.

I don't know how I can really, its just from my own experience, but a good friend of mine who works for the Crown doing immigration work says the same thing.

Basically, the Immigration Tribunal rules on your case. You can then appeal to the Federal Magistrates court, you can then appeal to the Federal Court, you can then appeal to the High Court, both during the case at the end of the case. If you do win any of those, it goes back down to be determined again, and if u lose, again you appeal, and off you go.

In the mean time, pop out a few kids, then there is too much hardship to send you back, so too bad so sad, you get to stick around.

Anyone can appeal a legal ruling. That doesn't mean the courts have to accept the appeal. They can reject it upfront.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 10:23am:

Anyone can appeal a legal ruling. That doesn't mean the courts have to accept the appeal. They can reject it upfront.

They can, but they rarely ever do. Procedural fairness dont you know, that is you have to be heard, completely, before you get punted. And many of these people represent themselves, so they make their idiotic points for days and days on end.

I'm pretty sure the courts would be able to deal with time wasters appropriately.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 11:07am:

I'm pretty sure the courts would be able to deal with time wasters appropriately.

You'd think a lawyer would know that.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 11:07am:

I'm pretty sure the courts would be able to deal with time wasters appropriately.

Regrettably, not.  Because, everyone has to get a fair heairng, and if you are not legally trained and dont speak the language, the court has to give you certain indulgences to go on and on...

and on..and on...

And the 'Me No Speakie English and the translator was bad and didnt listen to me etc..' is a good ground of appeal. Had a case where we had to fight tooth and nail to stop that being overturned on the 'Me No Speakie English and it Was All Terribly Unfair' principle. We won, but it was a close run thing.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 11:12am:

freediver wrote on Feb 9th, 2009 at 11:07am: I'm pretty sure the courts would be able to deal with time wasters appropriately. You'd think a lawyer would know that.

I think I do.

But who can say for sure, I'm a strange guy.

Actually I remember once reading a pamphlet from drug smoking hippies about how to waste as much of the court's time etc when you get busted without doing anything that might increase your punishment.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 12:28pm:

Actually I remember once reading a pamphlet from drug smoking hippies about how to waste as much of the court's time etc when you get busted without doing anything that might increase your punishment.

Taxi Drivers do it on a regular basis to avoid losing their licence via demerit points... i.e. plead not guilty to secure a day in court some time in the future, have it remanded (if they can) until they have passed the live date for some demerits then withdraw their not guilty plea and pay the fine / take the new demerits.