July 7, 2009      No. 533

   Reformist Iranian-French Writer Chahdortt Djavann: The Hijab, a Political Weapon and Form of Sexual Abuse, Should Be Outlawed
   By: N. Maruani *

Introduction

The debate on the veil in France recently flared up again, after French Secretary of State for Urban Policies Fadela Amara said that the burqa and niqab should be banned in public places, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in parliament that the burqa was "not welcome in France." [1] In this debate, French media outlets have frequently cited the writings of Chahdortt Djavann.

An Iranian-born French writer, Djavann is the author of two influential books, Bas les Voiles (Veils Off) [2] and Que Pense Allah de l'Europe (What Does Allah Think of Europe?), [3] both of which deal with the meaning and implications of the veil as a political tool. [4] Veils Off in particular had a strong impact on the veil debate in France, including on the discussions that took place in the French parliament prior to the passing of the 2004 law banning "conspicuous religious signs in schools." [5] Djavann testified before the Stasi Commission, formed in 2003 by then-president Jacques Chirac to investigate the issue of preserving secularism in the French Republic and to prepare the ground for passing a law on the veil. [6] During the hearing, she clashed with French sociologist Alain Touraine, who claimed that Iranian women were happy with wearing the veil.

Prominent political figures wrote her to express support for her views, including former prime minister Laurent Fabius, as well as Chirac himself, who wrote that Veils Off would have a positive impact on the difficult debate over secularism.

The following is a review of Djavann's writings on the issue of the veil, based on her books Bas les Voiles and Que Pense Allah de l'Europe?, and on several interviews with her.

The Veil as a Political Weapon

Que Pense Allah de l'Europe first presents the views of the proponents of the veil, such as Muslim women who say, "The veil represents my religion, my culture and my identity. It is a sign of modesty, of self-respect, of submission to God. It is a religious duty written in the Koran... [I wear it] out of my own free will..." Also presented are the opinions of European intellectuals who defend the veil on the basis of "the right to be different" and "religious freedom," and who ask, for example, "If body-piercing and displaying one's navel is allowed, how can the veil be banned?"

In response to this argument, Djavann points out that no regime has ever forced women to go about with their navels showing, whereas the veil is imposed upon several hundred million women around the world. She writes that the veil cannot be presented as a personal choice, disregarding centuries of Islamic history. She adds that it is inappropriate to probe the motivations of every young girl wearing the veil when what is at stake is a political agenda.

Djavann explains further: "The veil has never been innocent or innocuous. It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries." She stresses that the Islamists did not invent the veil, but have turned it into a weapon and made of it the symbol of their cause.

Addressing the growing phenomenon of veiled women in European Muslim communities, Djavann points out its centrality to the Islamist propaganda: "The political, ideological, and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance… If this weren't the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus? [7]... It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law."

"The Spread of the Veil in Europe is a Very Clear Indicator of the Spread of Islamism": "Iran Has Imposed the Veil on All Women, Including Christian and Jewish Women"

The veil, Djavann argues, reflects a refusal to integrate, and its spread in Europe is a very clear indicator of the spread of Islamism. Therefore, intellectuals who defend it, in an attempt to be understanding and compassionate, are in fact promoting Islamism: "The French intellectuals who oppose the banning of the veil in secular schools must understand that they are supporting Islamic dictatorships," she writes.

Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system." As an example, she presents Iran, which "has imposed the veil on all women, including Christian and Jewish women, and has deployed its paramilitary forces to enforce the wearing of the veil throughout Iran."

As for those young girls who insist on wearing the veil in France, she says that "they encourage oppression against all the women in Muslim countries who strive to escape the totalitarian hold of the hijab, and [even] risk their lives to do so."

Islamists Reject French Law - Yet Strive to Impose Their Own Laws on Public Life


Islamists claim that the veil is being rejected due to racism, and they call for respect for freedom of worship. However, Djavann points out, when Islamists threatened France because of the ban on the veil in public schools, what was at stake was not the girls' hair, or religion - but political power. While denying the State the right to interfere in what they term religious affairs, the Islamists are striving to impose their laws on schools, including physical education classes, and on higher education and public services. As in Iran, "in order to enforce Islamic regulations, [Iranian leaders] tried to implement mosque laws in public areas: separate entrances for men and women, separate dining rooms, separate libraries and workrooms, separate swimming pools…" [8]

Djavann argues that Islamists take advantage of the difficulties encountered by many Muslims in integrating into French society - difficulties intensified by the veil. He says: "The veil is not the attractive symbol of identity, but the expression of estrangement and isolation… "

Islamists seek to enroll the children of immigrants into the Islamist system in order to gain political power, Djavann says: To those who feel excluded, preachers offer the homeland of Islam. Islam prevails over all nationalities and over cultural and linguistic differences. "The preachers claim that there must be a return to the lost Islamic identity. This identity is presented as a remedy to Western ills." Djavann terms this strategy in which the veil is a central component "Islamic colonialism."

Muslim Women Are Told They Can Swim at Specific Hours - But If They Swim During Mixed Hours, They Are Called Whores

Djavann believes that there must be no compromise with Islamism in state-managed institutions, since any compromise will lead to more oppression. She gives the example of the Islamists' demand for separate hours for men and women for swimming pools: "This is a case of indirect repression. Muslim women are told they can swim at specific hours, but if they choose to go swimming in mixed hours, they will be called whores… It is in the name of democracy that Islamists demand separate hours for women. And then they manage to impose those separate hours on all Muslim women in their areas." [9]

Regarding the situation in schools, she writes: "Those intellectuals who oppose expelling students from school because they are veiled, on the premise that this exclusion will only worsen their situation whereas school will teach them freedom, [are mistaken]. Allowing veil-wearing in schools will only encourage it in France. Allowing girls to wear the veil at school places those teens living in [immigrant] suburbs under the yoke of Islamic dogma, and makes it even more difficult for them to attain emancipation. Some of them have already been called whores because they refused to wear the veil."

Veiling Young Girls: Sexual Abuse That Should Be Outlawed

Djavann also analyzes the social and psychological damage caused by wearing the veil, saying that it denies women any normal social life, because it reduces their social life to that of sexual objects. Wearing the veil only "points to what the veil is hiding… It hides what no one might look at if it were not hidden… The veil calls the attention and energy of men" to what it conceals. As the Islamist system covers women's heads, it only sees them as genitals, Djavann argues. Hence she calls the veil "pornographic on the symbolic level." [10]

Djavann especially condemns the veiling of little girls, calling it abuse because it makes them internalize at an early age that they should be ashamed: "Don't we hide what we are ashamed of?... Since childhood, these veiled girls feel guilty… From childhood, little girls are aware that they are a threat to boys and men…" In addition, the girls are a "constant threat to Islamic morals: a girl could bring about a crime, be slaughtered by her father or brothers to cleanse their sullied honor. Indeed, the honor of men is cleansed with girls' blood!"

The veil may mean several things, Djavann explains. It may mean that the woman has become the property of a man; it may also mean - in the case of young girls - that they are being marketed as sexual objects, ready to wed.

She goes on to write: "When you veil a child, you put her on the sex and marriage market, making her exist only for the interest of men, for [the purpose of] sex and marriage… Forcing the veil on a minor is abuse, because you do what you like to her body and turn her into a sex object designated for men… Several ethnologists once defended genital mutilation in the name of cultural differences… Let us not make the same mistake with the Islamic veil: It is not in the name of secularism that veil wearing should be banned… but in the name of human rights and the protection of minors."

Djavann notes that "even in Muslim countries, making minors wear the veil is considered extremist. In its previous history, France knew how to limit the influence of Catholic rules. Why shouldn't it do the same with Islamic rules? [12]

The Veil Damages Self Image, Social Life - For Both Women and Men

Djavann adds: "If you are a woman [in Islamist societies], you dare not go out on your own or have a cup of coffee at a bar. Relations between men and women are reduced to… sexuality… In Iran, in universities, circulars forbid girls and boys from greeting each other… Can you imagine what humiliation this is?" [13]

Recalling the decade she spent wearing a veil in Iran, she says that much of the problem comes from the fact that the honor of Muslim men depends upon the female body: "I felt humiliation at being a woman… A girl is considered [a source of] shame and danger. Think about it: she may harm a man's honor! I would like someone to tell me why a man feels defiled if a woman violates modesty regulations. Why does the honor of Muslim men depend on the bodies of Muslim women? They should be responsible for their own honor!" [14]

Men also bear the consequences of this dependency, Djavann asserts: "This kind of relationship is more damaging to men than to women… The man bases his existence on his relationship to the female sex… He is a man because he is able to guarantee the decency and the good behavior of the female body within his family; he is a man because he owns the female body - his mother's, his sister's, his wife's, his daughters'…" In other words, "the more a woman is ashamed and modest, the more her father, brothers and husband are honored…"

Djavann also points out that the debate on the veil issue should not conceal other problems: economic inequality, lodging, education. Political leaders should not evade their responsibilities and abandon immigrants to their predicament, dooming them to ghettoes cut off from French society.

* N. Maruani is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.

[1] Sarkozy declared in a parliamentary address on June 22, 2009, that the burqa, which covers women from head to toe, is "not welcome" in France, evoking strong criticism from French Muslim leaders.

[2] Bas les Voiles, Gallimard, 2003.

[3] Que Pense Allah de l'Europe?, Gallimard, 2004.

[4] In 2006, Djavann published "Comment Peut-On Etre Français?" ("How to Be French," Flammarion, 2006), a philosophical essay addressed to 18th century French author Montesquieu, who wrote the famous satirical work Persian Letters (Lettres persanes).

[5] This law bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools.

[6] L'Express (France), October 30, 2003, http://www.lexpress.fr/info/societe/dossier/foulard/dossier.asp?ida=409994.

This 20-member committee, headed by then French ombudsman Bernard Stasi, dealt with the issue of preserving "the neutrality of public services" and promoting "cohesion and brotherhood among [French] citizens" while respecting "pluralism, religious freedom and freedom of speech, gender equality and women's dignity." Modeled on the 1987 committee on the "code of nationality," it held consultions with political parties, religious authorities and representatives of civil society.

[7] "Dévoilez Chahdortt," an interview by Isabelle Robineau in the French literary monthly Topo, http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:IITZshokpqwJ:www.chapitre.com/accueil.asp%3.

[8] Tariq Ramadan advocated separate hours for men and women in swimming pools, saying: "Today swimming pools here… are not Islamic… You cannot go there because your eyes are set on things that you should not see…" See video on website of French intellectual, writer, and activist Caroline Fourest: http://carolinefourest.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/tariq-ramadan-contre-les-piscines-mixtes/ or on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAuLhit-BHA.

[9] "Devoilez Chahdortt," an interview by Isabelle Robineau in the French literary monthly Topo, http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:IITZshokpqwJ:www.chapitre.com/accueil.asp%3.

[10] See also "Une pudeur pornographique" ("A pornographic modesty"), published in the Communist daily l'Humanité, December 19, 2003, http://www.humanite.fr/popup_print.php3?id_article=384774.

[11] Interview by Victor Dixmier, www.leparisien.com, October 17, 2003.

[12] Interview with Chahdortt Djavann published by online French daily on Middle East affairs www.proche-orient.info, October 24, 2003.

[13] "Devoilez Chahdortt", an interview by Isabelle Robineau in the French literary monthly Topo, http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:IITZshokpqwJ:www.chapitre.com/accueil.asp%3.

[14] Interview by Ilana Moryoussef, in the online Middle East affairs daily www.proche-orient.info, October 24, 2003.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA53309

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves.

The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men.

Next..

uhuh - tell that to all the rabid islamics the world over, my deceitful ideological freak.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves. The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men. Next..

Hijab has nothing to do with Islam. Just like Muslims burning down embassies and murdering translators and film makers in the name of Islam have nothing, really, to do with Islam. I can't believe that. Nobody can. Even if I take a deep breath and shut my eyes.

This is another excellent example from our own time of why Islam is intellectually stagnant, absurd  and a mental straight-jacket. You guys are the White Queens without the charm:


Quote:

`I'm seven and a half, exactly.' `You needn't say "exactly",' the Queen remarked. `I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.' `I ca'n't believe that!' said Alice. `Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.' Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.' `I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

I daresay you guys practice five times a day, with your arses in the air. For starters.

Unbelievable but true....

Headdress and sandals disguise for PO robber
Published Date: 16 July 2009
By Polly Rippon
A ROBBER dressed in a woman's Islamic headdress and open-toed sandals stole cash from a post office in Sheffield.
The weapon-wielding raider threatened the sub-postmaster at Tinsley Post Office and forced him to hand over money before running off on Sheffield Road.

Post Office Ltd are offering up to £5,000 for information leading to a successful prosecution. ADVERTISEMENT
Police said the male suspect, who was Asian, burst into the shop at 5.30pm on Tuesday.

He was slim, 5ft 9ins tall and wore dark glasses, a knee-length, dark hijab and a dress with a light pattern. He carried a Burberry-style rucksack.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Headdress-and-sandals-disguise-for.5464900.jp




I wonder how long before garden variety robbers twig onto the benefits of multiculturalism for their industry - the usefulness of Muslim get-up for committing a crime. Can't wear a bike helmet into a bank but who will stop the blamless ethnic-minotrity ladies?
ANd what will the imams says when the infidels disguise themselves as fidels to commit crimes.

Christians in Sumatra: jilbab norm, an excuse to introduce the Shariah
Jakarta (AsiaNews)
The Jilbab is not part of Indonesian culture, but comes from the Arab tradition, to impose a form of dress that conforms to the precepts of Islam reveals "a project to introduce Shariah" and is a blatant "abuse of power." That is the reaction of  Christians in Pekanbaru, capital of Riau province,  Sumatra, to the local mayor’s decision to make the traditional clothing that leaves only the face uncovered mandatory by law.
" I strongly oppose the idea,” says a local Christian, speaking on the condition of anonymity for security reasons - of imposing the Muslim attires to any students in Pekanbaru”. He stresses that the decision "is contrary to the Constitution of 1945" because all legislation must be "general" and not specifically relate "to a particular religious confession." Another resident - also under conditions of anonymity - adds that "the introduction of the law is just one more step towards the full implementation of Islamic law in the city" and an example "of abuse of power."
The dispute stems from the decision by Erizal Muluk, Mayor of Pekanbaru, to introduce a dress code that conforms to Islamic precepts for students in the city. The rule came into force July 13 last, and is valid for the school year 2009/10, involving students from elementary to higher school level.
Most representatives of the local Islamic community favour the law, describing it as a "good" decision.



Well, girls and women are the battleground in the clash of civilisations.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves. The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men. Next..

The hijab worn among women, within moslem communities, is a symbol of their oppression, and a symbol of their implied consent, to their own subjugation [enslavement] to the demands of moslem males, within the moslem community.

Those women who dare, to not wear the hijab around moslem men, are always insulted, and frequently viciously assaulted, to 'put them in their place'.

Google,
muslims acid thrown in face uncovered
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=muslims+acid+thrown+in+face+uncovered&btnG=Search&meta=





As Calanen already astutely remarked elsewhere....


Quote:

.....That, and the risk of being 'honor killed' by their relatives, or beaten to within an inch of their lives because it is a regular tenet of Islam for a man to beat his wife. You don't have to beat or kill everyone, for everyone to be afraid.

"french cowards"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1246017314/12#12




The wearing of the hijab by moslem women, within moslem communities, has today become a Pavlovian 'response', after generations of violence and intimidation, visited upon all women within moslem communities, for any rebellion against the demands and dictates relating to their custom of dress, from their male counterparts.








http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/914415/YAT006_wh.jpg
The wearing of the hijab by moslem women, within moslem communities, has today become a Pavlovian 'response'....


"The veil is Womens Liberation"
"Arrest Jack Straw for Inciting Religious Hatred"
"Jack Straw Judeo-Christian Terrorist"
"Jack Straw Oppressor of Muslim Women"

Sickens me to see so many woman wearing the symbol that makes them second class citizens in their own community. Islam keeps people stuck in the dark ages.

Check out www.ishr.org, especially the "what can you do?" section"
http://ishr.org/index.php?id=761

---

The use and abuse of personal, porttable tents:

Taliban suicide bombers dressed in burkas hit cities
21 Jul 2009
Taliban suicide bombers dressed in burkas killed six people in eastern Afghanistan when they stormed government buildings and a military base.
Six suicide bombers, some of them also carrying guns, tried to enter several government buildings but were shot dead before reaching their targets
Zabihullah Mujahed, Taliban spokesman, said the Islamist militia were responsible for both attacks.
"Fifteen of our mujahideen – suicide bombers who also have guns – entered the governor's compound and other government buildings [in Gardez, Mujahed]," he said.
"Four of our mujahideen entered the Jalalabad airbase – they have killed several Afghan and foreign forces,"
The bodies of four tribesmen whose throats had been slit were found in a deserted place in Koza Bandai in Swat. And on Monday, the army reported separate clashes had left 20 people dead, including an officer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5878787/Taliban-suicide-bombers-dressed-in-burkas-hit-cities.html

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves. The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men. Next..

Yes, next:

Moral policing: mind your mannequins, Gazans told
Reuters/Gaza
Men cannot go topless on Gaza beaches, owners of clothes shops are told to remove mannequins displaying lingerie and some couples complain of being asked for marriage papers as they walk in the streets.
Human Rights groups and critics say some in the Islamist Hamas group, which rules Gaza, are exerting pressure to impose Islamic law on the public at a time when others seek to engage with the Western world.
Hamas, which wrested control of the Gaza Strip from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction in fighting in 2007, denies plans to impose Islamic laws.
But Gazans say bearded men who identify themselves with the ministry of religious affairs are advising people to follow Islamic values, stop smoking and stick to conservative forms of Muslim dress for men and women.
“People from the Virtue Campaign of the religious affairs ministry came and said mannequins were a provocative source of temptation,” said clothing-store owner Saoud al-Rayes.

“They said if we did not remove the mannequins which display underwear, they would confiscate them,” (and play doctors and temptations behind the bike shed) Rayes said.
The Hamas-run government denies any bid to impose Islamic law, but a recent decision by the Hamas-appointed chief justice ordering women lawyers to cover their hair has revived fears.
Ahmed Abu Khaled said three young men had approached him recently as he went for a swim without a T-shirt on Gaza beach.
They told him that was wrong and urged him to stick to Islamic and moral values. “They were polite but I did not think I could argue,” he said.
Taleb Abu Shaar, the minister of religious affairs, said the campaign of his ministry was “cultural and educational”, to spread public awareness but not to force people to do things.
“The campaign is in line with our religion and traditions. We see some dangers threatening youth and some wrongdoings, and our role is advise and to warn our people against bad things,” Abu Shaar said.
“Some people exaggerate the campaign in order to accuse the government to stir fears in society. We do not force people to do what they dislike,” he said.
Human Rights groups expressed concern over decisions made by some Hamas ministers, of which some were later eased, such as checking men walking with women.
Khalil Abu Shammala, director of Ad-Dameer Association for Human Rights, got complaints from people who had been stopped by policemen requesting identity and marriage papers to prove their relationship with opposite sex companions.
“The decision was cancelled after some Hamas leaders noted that its implementation angered the public,” he said.
“There were figures in Hamas calling for imposing Islamic laws ... while others felt it was not the right time,” Abu Shammala said.
Hamas leader Ismail Haniya has recently told worshippers at a mosque that Hamas would not let anyone take the law into their own hands.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=307048&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

I can hear Abu Rashid already: "Nothing to do with Islam Next." Of course, nobody believes him.

seems nothing has got anything to do with islam.

except being attacked by democracies that have freedom of speech.

Sudan women 'lashed for trousers'    
Several Sudanese women have been flogged as a punishment for dressing "indecently", according to a local journalist who was arrested with them.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who says she is facing 40 lashes, said she and 12 other women wearing trousers were arrested in a restaurant in the capital, Khartoum.

She told the BBC several of the women had pleaded guilty to the charges and had 10 lashes immediately.

Khartoum, unlike South Sudan, is governed by Sharia law.

Several of those punished were from the mainly Christian and animist south, Ms Hussein said.

Non-Muslims are not supposed to be subject to Islamic law, even in Khartoum and other parts of the mainly Muslim north.

She said that a group of about 20 or 30 police officers entered the popular Khartoum restaurant and arrested all the women wearing trousers.

"I was wearing trousers and a blouse and the 10 girls who were lashed were wearing like me, there was no difference," she told the BBC's Arabic service.

Ms Hussein said some women pleaded guilty to "get it over with" but others, including herself, chose to speak to their lawyers and are awaiting their fates.

Under Sharia law in Khartoum, the normal punishment for "indecent" dressing is 40 lashes.

Ms Hussein is a well-known reporter who writes a weekly column called Men Talk for Sudanese papers. She also works for the United Nations Mission in Sudan.


Non-Muslims flogged by Muslims for wearing trousers. And these barbarians expect us to treat them as equals? ANd they cry victimhood and islamophobia if we notice their barbarity?

Colonisation ended too soon. But the white man's burden has not eased.

And now this....


Quote:

Jedi ejected from Tesco for wearing hood The founder of the Star Wars-inspired Jedi faith has accused Tesco of religious discrimination after he was banned from wearing a hood in one of its stores. Daniel Jones, 23, who created the International Church of Jediism, claims he was “victimised over his beliefs” by staff at the supermarket in Bangor, North Wales. Mr Jones, also known by his Jedi name Morda Hehol, told The Sun: "I told them it was a requirement of my religion but they just sniggered and ordered me to leave. I walked past a Muslim lady in a veil. Surely the same rules should apply to everyone."

Allow exceptionalism for one "community" and the same stupid argument will be used by other "communities". Putting it the other way around - the Jedi guy has as much claim to his "faith based" exceptionalism in a Tesco as the Musulmans. The former should return to Planet Zorg, the latter to Planet Mo. If that is not possible, then accept the rules and customs of where they are now. But such imple inclusivness is the most challenging thing, the real tumbling block for those whose only raison d'etre IS apartness.


Which one is more laughable? I can't decide.

Quote:

the Jedi guy has as much claim to his "faith based" exceptionalism in a Tesco as the Musulmans

Or as much right as a Christian woman to her "faith based" exceptionalism of wearing a bra in PNG...

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 6:24pm:

Quote: the Jedi guy has as much claim to his "faith based" exceptionalism in a Tesco as the Musulmans Or as much right as a Christian woman to her "faith based" exceptionalism of wearing a bra in PNG...

So a bra is now an expression of Christian faith? You'd better check your wife and make sure she doesn't secretly wear such covert expressions of polytheism.

DO they teach you this in Muslim argument school, how to always come up with a completely wacky and spurious angle,  or are you just a talented autodidact? You remind me of Martini from One flew over the cocoo's nest: you are passing the ball to people only you can see.



 

Quote:

So a bra is now an expression of Christian faith?

As much an expression of Christian faith as hair covering is for Muslim women.


Quote:

DO they teach you this in Muslim argument school

No it's just simple logic. Hair covering is nothing more than the level of public decency that Islam requires. Just like I'm sure breast covering is part of public decency in Christianity (well it used to be anyway, today who knows...). The only reason you consider it anything special is because it's not the norm here, just like a Christian going to live in PNG, covvering her breasts would stand out and not be the norm. Does that mean she would be doing it out of some kind of religious symbolism?? Or would  she just be dressing how she feels comfortable dressing?? exposing only that which she considers appropriate? It's not that hard to comprehend, even for someone as daft and disingenous as yourself soren.

What is ridiculous is the nonsensical claim that women covering their hair is some kind of "religious symbolism" or "faith based exceptionalism", as if a women covers her body just to identify with being an Islamic fundamentalist. Such arguments are simple minded at best.

There is no concept whatsoever of religious symbolism in Islam at all. That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 11:59pm:

Quote: So a bra is now an expression of Christian faith? As much an expression of Christian faith as hair covering is for Muslim women. [quote]DO they teach you this in Muslim argument school

No it's just simple logic. Hair covering is nothing more than the level of public decency that Islam requires. Just like I'm sure breast covering is part of public decency in Christianity (well it used to be anyway, today who knows...). The only reason you consider it anything special is because it's not the norm here, just like a Christian going to live in PNG, covvering her breasts would stand out and not be the norm. Does that mean she would be doing it out of some kind of religious symbolism?? Or would  she just be dressing how she feels comfortable dressing?? exposing only that which she considers appropriate? It's not that hard to comprehend, even for someone as daft and disingenous as yourself soren.

What is ridiculous is the nonsensical claim that women covering their hair is some kind of "religious symbolism" or "faith based exceptionalism", as if a women covers her body just to identify with being an Islamic fundamentalist. Such arguments are simple minded at best.


[/quote]

With ISLAM, its 'laws' and religion are essentially one and the same paradigm.

ISLAM is, a system of laws, and with their own corresponding punishments.

ISLAM is, a political system, of laws [witness, the recent events in Iran, over the stolen election result].

We don't need ISLAM's laws here abu [apartheid laws which make moslems 'special', with 'special' rights], we already have our own laws.


Quote:

".....an approach to law which simply said there's one law for everybody......I think that's a bit of a danger."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42523000/jpg/_42523449_rowan_williams_pa_body.jpg

7 February 2008
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury says.....Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
.....Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019843.php


Personally, i believe that Dr Williams should do the moral thing, renounce his Christian faith, and convert to ISLAM.





abu,

I would argue, that when Christians are treated equally [in law] with moslems, in moslem jurisdictions, and, when Christians [and those of other faiths] can express their faith, openly, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, then moslems in countries like Australia would have the right to bi tch about 'persecution', and 'insults' against ISLAM.

But you abu, and all moslems, are merely RAGING HYPOCRITES, who's complaints we should dismiss with contempt!


http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"i
Quote:

There is no concept whatsoever of religious symbolism in Islam at all. That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons.

LOL!

abu,

And you accuse soren, of being disingenuous !!!




The Koran [itself], the call to prayer [from the mosque], the clothing laws, the bismillah, Sharia, THE BLACK STONE, are all icons of religious symbolism, within ISLAM.

http://www.sfjamaat.org/sf/images/bismillah24.gif
http://www.sfjamaat.org/sf/images/bismillah24.gif
"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful"



http://www.sunna.info/souwar/data/media/2/mecca-27.jpg
http://www.sunna.info/souwar/data/media/2/mecca-27.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone



http://www.crystalinks.com/blackstone2.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/blackstone2.jpg
This moslem is kissing [venerating], the Black Stone.


ISLAM, the Koran, and 666
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1249974580/0#0

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 11:59pm:

There is no concept whatsoever of religious symbolism in Islam at all. That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons.

Really??!?

---

Quote:

The Koran [itself], the call to prayer [from the mosque], the clothing laws, the bismillah, Sharia, THE BLACK STONE, are all icons of religious symbolism, within ISLAM.

Come on Yadda you've gotta be kidding.

You post a picture of the words "bismillah ir-rahman ir-raheem and because it's written in Arabic and looks a little fancy it means it's a "religious symbol"?

Call to prayer is "religious symbolism" also?? How about ringing church bells?

Clothing laws are not religious symbolism, as I stated, anymore than Christian women covering what they cover is religious symbolism. It's just plain and simple public decency. Islam requires more than Christianity, agreed... but that doesn't make it religious symbolism at all. For instance a Muslim woman may cover her hair in any fashion she so chose, as long as it covered the required areas. There's no requirement for it to adhere to any fashion etc. It is the exact same as her covering her arms, legs, stomach, back etc. The only difference is women in the West NO LONGER cover their hair, so you think it's an Islamic symbolism. It's just ridiculous really. The whole issue indicates you are just detached from any logical thought process whatsoever..

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 1:16am:

Quote: The Koran [itself], the call to prayer [from the mosque], the clothing laws, the bismillah, Sharia, THE BLACK STONE, are all icons of religious symbolism, within ISLAM. Come on Yadda you've gotta be kidding. You post a picture of the words "bismillah ir-rahman ir-raheem and because it's written in Arabic and looks a little fancy it means it's a "religious symbol"? Call to prayer is "religious symbolism" also?? How about ringing church bells?

Church bells, "religious symbolism"?

Yes.

And you Christians and non-moslems should be told, that moslems regard the ringing of bells, as coming from a SATANIC influence.

Google,
muslims ringing bells satanic
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=muslims+ringing+bells+satanic&btnG=Search&meta=i

abu,

Isn't the spirit of the moslems god, Allah, being invoked on these headbands [below]???

And to what end, does this religious symbolism play?

"In the name of Allah, peace on earth, and goodwill to all men." ???
/sarc off

All of these headbands declare allegiance to Allah , or to Allah's way, or to Allah's cause.

http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/rpglady.jpg
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/rpglady.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images_4/palestine/young_woman.jpe
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images_4/palestine/young_woman.jpe
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://semiskimmed.net/pix/jihad-nursery3.jpg
http://semiskimmed.net/pix/jihad-nursery3.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/12/29/sanaa_29dec08.jpg
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2008/12/29/sanaa_29dec08.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


https://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/images/stories/conflict/hamas/hamas-suicide-terrorists-kid.jpg
https://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/images/stories/conflict/hamas/hamas-suicide-terrorists-kid.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://tharwacommunity.typepad.com/tharwa_commentary/images/hamas_suicide_bombers.jpg
http://tharwacommunity.typepad.com/tharwa_commentary/images/hamas_suicide_bombers.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/hamas%20suicide%20bombers%20march.jpg
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/hamas%20suicide%20bombers%20march.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0704/a_hamas_war0402.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0704/a_hamas_war0402.jpg
"...That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons."


abu said,

Quote:

There is no concept whatsoever of religious symbolism in Islam at all. That's why Islam is rather devoid of any kind of symbols or icons.

iFor more on ISLAM and religious symbolism, particularly of the religious symbolism present upon armbands and headbands, see also.....
YOUTUBE
Walid Shoebat - Mark of the Beast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtquNNEO7Fw

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/images/symbols/crescent-200.gif

Yadda you've gone completely off track here. The topic was about Muslim women wearing clothes, and this being misconstrued as religious symbolism, merely because the level of public decency differs between Muslim and Christian societies.

Again I will ask, would a Christian woman living in PNG, who covers her breasts (which I assume most practising Christian women would feel it's compuslory to do) be displaying some kind of religious symbolism??? This is the _exact_ same situation, just relating to a different area of the body.


Quote:

All of these headbands declare allegiance to Allah , or to Allah's way, or to Allah's cause.

They do, but I still don't see their relationship to a woman covering parts of her anatomy deemed to be nakedness. Please stick with the issue, instead of diverging off on your usual hair brained tangents.

sprint, as discussed when that symbol (crescent star) was first chosen for the Islamic forum (i think you were involved in the discussion actually). That symbol, although it's come to be associated with Islam really does not have it's basis in Islam at all, and is mostly used today by Westerners to symbolise Islam. It was an ancient Turkish symbol that predates Islam. It appears on the flags of some Muslim countries today, mostly those which were former Ottoman provinces, or those who felt an affinity with the Ottoman Caliphate.

And as stated to Yadda that's not even the topic here. The topic is mere clothing being wrongly claimed to be a "religious symbol".

is that the same symbol that you use in your avatar???

Quote:

is that the same symbol that you use in your avatar???

Yes, but still what does it have to do with a woman's covering her nakedness?? I know you often like to mix in unrelated topics to divert from the issue, but that's getting a little ridiculous.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 10:39am:

Yadda you've gone completely off track here. The topic was about Muslim women wearing clothes, and this being misconstrued as religious symbolism, merely because the level of public decency differs between Muslim and Christian societies. Again I will ask, would a Christian woman living in PNG, who covers her breasts (which I assume most practising Christian women would feel it's compuslory to do) be displaying some kind of religious symbolism??? This is the _exact_ same situation, just relating to a different area of the body. Quote: All of these headbands declare allegiance to Allah , or to Allah's way, or to Allah's cause. They do, but I still don't see their relationship to a woman covering parts of her anatomy deemed to be nakedness. Please stick with the issue, instead of diverging off on your usual hair brained tangents.

Whatever you call the garment that covers your womens faces - that is an exclusively Islamic garment. It is an inhuman and stupid garment, whether it is worn in Araby or Australia. It has no place anywhere outside fancy dress parties. Wearing it non-ironically is barbaric. And only muslim wear it non-irionically. Whoever makes his women wear it is a barbarous, contemptible prick. Any woman who wears it voluntarily (and not out of fear) is also a contemptible bint. The prick and the bint are motivated exclusivly by Islam. Nothing else. That makes that garment, whatever you call it, an Islamic garment.


I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

soren - what, you mean that black tent?
wonder what blind retard invented that one?

soren,

This thread was about hijab (covering the hair), not about niqab (covering the face).

You are confused.

But regardless, even covering the face is still just covering for reasons of what is considered nakedness, it's got nothing at all to do with religious symbolism.

Your whole argument is just baseless and will continue to be so, because you're trying to make it into something which it is not.

sprint,

Covering  all but the eyes predates Islam. The Jews practiced it also, probably in the time of Jesus (pbuh) yet I don't remember anywhere in the NT that he condemned it. His mother and other relatives would've most likely have covered themselves to the same extent as most Muslim women  (certainly in all Christian depictions of Mary (pbuh) she's wearing hijab), if not more... So are you saying those despicable things against your own Messiah??

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 10:46pm:

soren, This thread was about hijab (covering the hair), not about niqab (covering the face).

It is called "Islam and the Veil". No confusion. It does include face covering.

"Religious symbolism"? It is an identifier of the wearer's religion. What do you call that? It is not a symbol. It is a signifier. It is a sign of Islam.

Why? Because only mohamedans wear it.



 

Quote:

"Religious symbolism"? It is an identifier of the wearer's religion. What do you call that? It is not a symbol. It is a signifier. It is a sign of Islam.

The fact someone is identifiable by something doesn't mean it's religious symbolism. Symbolism implies an intent to be identified by something, and also implies a lack of other reason for the action/item. Muslims cover certain part of their bodies to conceal nakedness, not to be identiified as Muslims. Therefore it is not religious symbolism. Please address the Christian/PNG/breast_covering analogy.


Quote:

Why? Because only mohamedans wear it.

Really??


Quote:

“The full body, or full face covering that people think is only part of the Arab world actually started with Jewish women,” said a woman who asked to be identified by her first initial, M. “Muslim women are imitating Jews to try to gain God's favour with modesty. The truth is that the women of Israel are lessening in God's eyes because the Arabs are more modest in dress. If the Jews want to conquer the Arabs in this land they must enhance their modesty,” added M, who covered her face for over a year, but currently wears just a loose cloak over her garments.

(TimesOnline)

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 11:31pm:

Quote: "Religious symbolism"? It is an identifier of the wearer's religion. What do you call that? It is not a symbol. It is a signifier. It is a sign of Islam. The fact someone is identifiable by something doesn't mean it's religious symbolism. Symbolism implies an intent to be identified by something, and also implies a lack of other reason for the action/item. Muslims cover certain part of their bodies to conceal nakedness, not to be identiified as Muslims. Therefore it is not religious symbolism. Please address the Christian/PNG/breast_covering analogy. [quote]Why? Because only mohamedans wear it.

Really??


Quote:

“The full body, or full face covering that people think is only part of the Arab world actually started with Jewish women,” said a woman who asked to be identified by her first initial, M. “Muslim women are imitating Jews to try to gain God's favour with modesty. The truth is that the women of Israel are lessening in God's eyes because the Arabs are more modest in dress. If the Jews want to conquer the Arabs in this land they must enhance their modesty,” added M, who covered her face for over a year, but currently wears just a loose cloak over her garments.

(TimesOnline)
[/quote]


You are making it up as you go.

Re face covering - I don't see any jewish women covering their faces. In our time it is a Mohamedan thing. Today, if you see a woman with the tent over her, you know she is a mohamedan.

As for modesty - covering your face in this society is pure bloody-minded arrogance, unless it is fear of your blooy-minded male relatives.
If you choose to cover your fac and then expect people to speak to you and interact with you in shops and offices, you are an isolent, insulting bint.

ANd it is no use to say that islam has nuffin to do wiv it. It does. Denying it just piles on the contempt even more.

abu -
Quote:

His mother and other relatives would've most likely have covered themselves to the same extent as most Muslim women  (certainly in all Christian depictions of Mary (pbuh) she's wearing hijab), if not more... So are you saying those despicable things against your own Messiah??

only a few hours a go you were saying the white depictions of Christ were probably wrong and i agreed.
But now the depictions of mary wearing a hijabish were correct ?????

Do you have much of an idea why jesus came here?

Quote:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

galatians 5:1-3

Christ fulfilled the laws of the OT, so we don't have to be circumcised or wear a black tent.
then mohammad runs back to the captivity of religion !!!!!!!!!

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 10:46pm:

sprint, Covering  all but the eyes predates Islam. The Jews practiced it also, probably in the time of Jesus (pbuh) yet I don't remember anywhere in the NT that he condemned it. His mother and other relatives would've most likely have covered themselves to the same extent as most Muslim women  (certainly in all Christian depictions of Mary (pbuh) she's wearing hijab), if not more... So are you saying those despicable things against your own Messiah??

abu,

Shame on you abu.

And haven't you claimed to have once been a Christian, before becoming a moslem?

But here you are, once again, misrepresenting Christianity, so as to to erroneously support your ISLAMIC ideal, and ISLAMIC doctrines, misleading those who follow you.



Your assertions above abu, cannot be supported by scripture

John 11:2
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)


John 12:3
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.


Mary, in these verses above, was not a relative of Jesus.

Nevertheless, she clearly 'uncovered' herself in front of Jesus [and presumably 'uncovered' herself in front of others also].


Mary and Martha [from the account above] were NOT related to Jesus.

"....Mary and Martha are the most familiar set of sisters in the Bible. Both Luke and John describe them as friends of Jesus."
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/jesusandwomen/marymartha.stm

Google,
Mary Martha related to jesus
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Mary+Martha+related+to+jesus&btnG=Search&meta=

Quote:

Re face covering - I don't see any jewish women covering their faces. In our time it is a Mohamedan thing. Today, if you see a woman with the tent over her, you know she is a mohamedan.

Even in the quote I provided it says the Jewish woman "M" covered her face for 1 year. And if you read the entire article you'll find it says at least 100 other Jewish women now cover themselves completely, and that it is a growing movement returning to an originally Jewish teaching.

There are also Christian women returning to wearing hijab as well. I recently read a blog about a "Hijabi Catholic".


Quote:

As for modesty - covering your face in this society is pure bloody-minded arrogance, unless it is fear of your blooy-minded male relatives

Out of all the women who wear niqab (covering all but eyes) known to my family, not one of them wears niqab because they were asked to. Some of them actually wear it against the wishes of their family (including male relatives) and most have no problem, except from simple minded hateful people who demonise them for their choice in clothes.


Quote:

ANd it is no use to say that islam has nuffin to do wiv it. It does.

Didn't say Islam has nothing to do with it. Islamic morals of course dictate what Muslims consider is permissible to reveal and what we must conceal.

But the same is true for many Christians I'd think. Does a good Christian woman go about topless soren? If not, why not? Because of "religious symbolism"??

Quote:

But now the depictions of mary wearing a hijabish were correct ????

Certainly much more in agreeance with descriptions of Semitic peoples during that time than the white haired blue eyed messiah.


Quote:

Do you have much of an idea why jesus came here?

Sounds more like why Paul came than why Jesus (pbuh) came.

Jesus (pbuh) in all his time on earth, according to the NT, never said anything against circumcision and was himself circumcised. Paul on the other hand, never met Jesus (pbuh) never followed him in his time, and in fact went around fighting and killing his followers, then suddenly has a "magic conversion" and starts teaching things the opposite of what Jesus (pbuh) supposedly taught.... sounds quite sus' if you ask me.

Quote:

Mary and Martha [from the account above] were NOT related to Jesus.

Quite interesting that in many of the "images" you can find of Mary and Martha, they're both wearing perfect hijab :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TkKZZyzUvio/SWKqhT66K0I/AAAAAAAACj8/eYy4qpFN_qg/s400/Jesus+Mary+Martha+2.jpg
http://www.fisheaters.com/stmarta33.jpg


Anyway nowhere did I say the Israelites considered it compulsory. And besides we know many of the people in the time of Jesus (pbuh) had become corrupted from their original practises, and that many of those he preached to were sinners, so even if one did uncover her hair (and it was forbidden for them) then it wouldn't be that strange.

to you though abu, anything not lifted directly from the koran sounds 'suss

is this in agreeance with paul becoming a christian ??

Quote:

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

mark 2;17

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 10:56am:

Quote: Mary and Martha [from the account above] were NOT related to Jesus. Quite interesting that in many of the "images" you can find of Mary and Martha, they're both wearing perfect hijab :)

abu,

You know very well that none of those images, mostly painted by renaissance artists can be an accurate representation of Judea in Jesus time.

So, your presenting such images can only further misrepresent, and only be an imagining [an 'image'] of that past time.







Quote:

Anyway nowhere did I say the Israelites considered it compulsory. And besides we know many of the people in the time of Jesus (pbuh) had become corrupted from their original practises, and that many of those he preached to were sinners, so even if one did uncover her hair (and it was forbidden for them) then it wouldn't be that strange.

But abu,   YOUR moslem Jesus was a prophet of Allah!!

Why didn't YOUR moslem Jesus rebuke Mary for uncovering her hair???

And what was YOUR moslem Jesus doing! ...going into the house of women not related to him???


Luke 10:38
Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.


abu,

Surely, YOUR moslem Jesus, a prophet of Allah, would never have conducted himself in such a way???
/sarc off

Entering the house, of women he was not related to???

SHOCK HORROR!!  LETS STONE HIM FOR HIS IMMORALITY!!!!
/sarc off



The TRUTH is, that YOUR moslem Jesus, that is, the ISLAMIC representation of Jesus, bears no relation, to the Jesus of the New Testament scripture.

But rather, YOUR moslem Jesus is a concoction, invented, manufactured, by Mohammed and placed within the Koran, to support the credibility of his new cult of death, ISLAM.

Both Judaism and Christianity, and their principles, and their prophets, have been 'hijacked' by Mohammed and ISLAM,
....TO GIVE ISLAM CREDIBILITY.


Matthew 24:23
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


The TRUTH is that,

• ISLAM is a false religion,
  
• Mohammed was THE false prophet, and,
  
• ISLAM is patently, a false religion, for false and TREACHEROUS people.
  

From moslems comes,  ALWAYS, ALWAYS, LIES, FALSEHOOD, AND DECEIT.

ISLAM is a structure, FALSEHOOD built upon FALSEHOOD.








++++++++






John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Quote:

You know very well that none of those images, mostly painted by renaissance artists can be an accurate representation of Judea in Jesus time.

Well they would've looked in Jewish books no doubt to get descriptions of the clothing they wore. Also I think it was quite public knowledge the Jews were originally a bedouin-like people. So it's no shock that they represented them much like Arabs, with Turbans, flowing robes and Hijabs.


Quote:

Why didn't YOUR moslem Jesus rebuke Mary for uncovering her hair??? And what was YOUR moslem Jesus doing! ...going into the house of women not related to him???

My explanations would be:

1) The Bible is not an historical record of what happened, but rather it is much like a Chinese whisper. An account of someone who knew someone who reported witnessing the events. The Bible is the equivalent of hadith's place in Islam, but really weak hadith which could not even be corroborated, or the identity of the narrator is not even known for sure. (which in Islam would make it unusable by the way)

2) Her brother Lazarus was present, so there's no problem at all with an unrelated male entering.

3) Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet and therefore exempt from such things himself.


Quote:

But rather, YOUR moslem Jesus is a concoction, invented, manufactured, by Mohammed and placed within the Koran, to support the credibility of his new cult of death, ISLAM.

As stated above, at least we can verify the identity of those who related the Islamic texts relating to the description of Jesus (pbuh). You can't even begin to look at the authenticity of a text if you can't even verify who narrated it.

yadda - jesus was a jew. So was certainly not beholden to the inventions of mohammad.

as a jew/prophet he was beholden to the laws of the OT, which he fulfilled completely.

lazarus being there or not makes no differnece at all, that was not a jewish law.
such backward arbitrary laws were invented later.


abu - hahha, mohammad had the answer for those that disagreed with him.
murder them, islam has followed that tradition ever since

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 5:27pm:

yadda - jesus was a jew. So was certainly not beholden to the inventions of mohammad. as a jew/prophet he was beholden to the laws of the OT, which he fulfilled completely. lazarus being there or not makes no differnece at all, that was not a jewish law. such backward arbitrary laws were invented later.

sprint,

I understand your point.

But what abu, and moslems are putting forward, and insist upon, is that Biblical characters like Abraham, Ishmael, Hagar, King David, AND Jesus,
......were all good moslems.

And that is what ISLAM declares, to anyone who will listen [especially Christians, weak in their faith!].

That being the case [according to abu, and his moslem 'brothers'], Jesus [as a respected prophet of ISLAM] would have behaved as a circumspect moslem.

Dictionary,
circumspect = = cautious or prudent.

As a 'good' moslem Jesus would have rebuked ppl, apostate 'sluts', like Mary and Martha.

That is my point.



Whereas, i believe the account of Jesus life, as it is presented within the NT,

And NOT as Jesus life, and conduct are presented within the Koran.

e.g. According to the Koran, and Mohammed, Jesus, was not crucified, and did not die [and did not atone for our sins through his death].



ISLAM has itself 'plagiarised' many historic accounts from within Christianity and Judaism, and ISLAM has totally re-written Christian, and Jewish history, to fit in with its own world view.




Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 2:25pm:

The Bible is not an historical record of what happened, but rather it is much like a Chinese whisper. An account of someone who knew someone who reported witnessing the events. The Bible is the equivalent of hadith's place in Islam, but really weak hadith which could not even be corroborated, or the identity of the narrator is not even known for sure. (which in Islam would make it unusable by the way)

The Koran is no different in this respect. The first Koran dates to about 20 years after the death of Mohammed. It was compiled out of fear of losing the various bits and pieces that eventually wer included in it.  
This explaines its repetitiousness and bizarre organisation by the length of its chapters.

Quote:

The first Koran dates to about 20 years after the death of Mohammed.

The first complete compiled manuscript, yes.

There's a few major differences though.

1) We know the entire family histories of every single person involved in the compilation process, you don't even know for sure who the authors of the NT are...

2) The Qur'an was compiled in the presence of hundreds of individuals who had committed it's entire contents to memory.

3) Those who compiled it were actual relatives/companions of Muhammad (pbuh), those who compiled/authored the NT never met Jesus (pbuh) and some supposed authors were in fact bitter enemies of his movement even many years after his time..

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 11:37pm:

Quote: The first Koran dates to about 20 years after the death of Mohammed. The first complete compiled manuscript, yes. There's a few major differences though. 1) We know the entire family histories of every single person involved in the compilation process, you don't even know for sure who the authors of the NT are... 2) The Qur'an was compiled in the presence of hundreds of individuals who had committed it's entire contents to memory. 3) Those who compiled it were actual relatives/companions of Muhammad (pbuh), those who compiled/authored the NT never met Jesus (pbuh) and some supposed authors were in fact bitter enemies of his movement even many years after his time..

...according to Muslim tradition.


And we know what happens to those who question muslim tradition.


Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Soren wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 12:32am:

And we know what happens to those [moslems] who question muslim tradition. Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Those persons, moslem, [who question established moslem tradition] are declared to be 'takir', apostates, 'the enemies of Allah', for their 'insult' to ISLAM/Allah, and are murdered,
....err,,, 'justly' killed, by good moslems for their heinous crime.
/sarc off


'Takfir'  = = declaring former 'moslems' guilty of apostasy [and then they are deemed to be people who's blood can be  'lawfully'  spilled].

Takfir - -
"....takfir or takfeer is the practice of declaring unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār), an individual or a group previously considered Muslim.
.....Takfir has also been used on Shias, whose beliefs are questioned by many mainstream Sunni Muslims. This has sometimes been used to legitimize physical attacks on such groups[3]. In the case of groups such as the GIA (as mentioned above), it has been used to legitimize attacks on any Muslim who is not actively fighting against their governments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir

soren,


Quote:

Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Nonsense.

Nice attempt to divert away from the fact though that you don't even know for sure who the authors of your various books are. How on earth you could entrust your eternal salvation or damnation to such vagueness is beyond me.

Yadda,


Quote:

are declared to be 'tak[f]ir'

That doesn't make a lot of sense. As you noted.. 'Takfir'  = = declaring former 'moslems' guilty of apostasy.. so effectively your attempt to use the word 'takfir' translates as: "are declared to be declaring 'moslems' guilty of apostasy". I don't think that's what you meant  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

Yadda, Quote: are declared to be 'tak[f]ir' That doesn't make a lot of sense. As you noted.. 'Takfir'  = = declaring former 'moslems' guilty of apostasy.. so effectively your attempt to use the word 'takfir' translates as: "are declared to be declaring 'moslems' guilty of apostasy". I don't think that's what you meant  ;D

abu,

No?


But the term, an ISLAMIC term, indeed, does confirm, that all good moslems are religious bigots.

I'll just repeat that truth again, for clarity shall i?      :o

All good moslems, are religious bigots.

The murder of moslems who wanted to reform ISLAM, has been consistent, throughout ISLAM's history.

Undeniable. - - but, i know you will abu.       ;D



The view of good moslems is of course, that ISLAM requires no reform, because ISLAM is already Allah's perfect 'way'.

The only decent 'moslems', from the perspective of non-moslems, such as myself, is a moslem apostate, who recognises ISLAM faults, and wishes to expose them.



Where can we find a source of TRUTHFUL information about ISLAM [its aims and methods]?

I would suggest one source could be EX-moslems.

EX-moslems are people who know ISLAM intimately.

http://www.islam-watch.org/IW/aboutus.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/



Whereas, all good moslems, are religious bigots,

Google,
muslim reformers killed
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=muslim+reformers+killed&btnG=Search&meta=
15,300,000 hits


Google,
imam reformers threatened
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=imam+reformers+threatened&btnG=Search&meta=
21,500,000 hits



I'll just have to say it once more abu.      :P

All good moslems, are religious bigots.



ISLAMIC bigotry, and intolerance???

Just open a Koran, and start reading!...

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;........."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

soren, Quote: Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost. Nonsense. [/quote It is not nonsense at all. That the Koran has been with god from all eyternity is a myth of the kind only illiterates could come up with. It is in reality an odd collection of scraps of oral tradition of utterances made over years, then gathered decades after Mohammed's death because of fear of their complete loss. [quote]Nice attempt to divert away from the fact though that you don't even know for sure who the authors of your various books are. How on earth you could entrust your eternal salvation or damnation to such vagueness is beyond me.

A great degree of internal coherence counts for a lot more and the Bible has that.
Coherence is always better than declaring a collection of disjointed platitudes that is the Koran to be the unchanged word of god (in Arabic) from eternity. Threatening death to all who question this does not make it any more coherent or believable. If anything, it is a clear signal of its human origins.

Soren wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 24th, 2009 at 11:43am: soren, [quote]Nice attempt to divert away from the fact though that you don't even know for sure who the authors of your various books are. How on earth you could entrust your eternal salvation or damnation to such vagueness is beyond me. A great degree of internal coherence counts for a lot more and the Bible has that. Coherence is always better than declaring the collection of disjointed platitudes the unchanged word of god (in Arabic) from eternity. Threatening death to all who question this does not make it any more coherent or believable. If anything, it is a clear signal of its human origins.

Dictionary,
coherent = = (of an argument or theory) logical and consistent.  able to speak clearly and logically.




Q.
What is the underlying, consistent and coherent message expressed throughout the OT Bible,
....and which is expressed in many different books of the bible?


A.
That mankind is a lost soul in the world, destined to wander the world, until he is redeemed by his creator, God.

Within the Bible, God's people, Israel, are the archetype, for man's 'situation' in the world.
...initially cast off by God, but ultimately to be redeemed, by God.

Isaiah 54:5
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
6  For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
7  For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
8  In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

Bible verses declaring the scattering, and then God's eventual, and certain, redemption of 'Israel', his people,

Jeremiah 23:5-8
Jeremiah 32:37-42
Ezekiel 11:14-17
Deuteronomy 30:1-7

Those Bible verses cited here,

The one thing worse than denying the Gaza report
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1253240308/6#6






What is the consistent and coherent message expressed  throughout the Koran?

'Worship Allah, become a moslem, or we [good moslems] will kill, or enslave you.'

The lastest in the line of hijabis wanting to be funky hairdressers and muslims wanting to be cocktail waitresses.  Now a burkha-wearing pinhead wants to be able to go to a secular coeducational college in her burkha. Upset when told 'no'.



Muslim student, 18, banned from college because she refuses to remove her burkha
By Liz Hull
24th October 2009


'It is my choice to wear the veil': Shawana Bilqes refused to remove her cover-all Islamic robes at college

A Muslim student has been banned from enrolling at a college because she refused to remove her burkha.
Shawana Bilqes, 18, wanted to wear the garment  -  which covers her body and face, leaving only her eyes visible  -  during lessons.
But staff at Burnley College refused to enrol her, claiming the burkha was a barrier to 'safety and communication'.
In a strongly worded statement, the college said 'unimpeded' face to face contact between teachers and students was vital.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222511/Muslim-student-18-banned-college-refuses-remove-burka.html#ixzz0V2Rq8kOB


Don't forget the comments (480 of them!!!)


Interestingly, there is no reflex backing down by the college.

---

That's fair enough, any institution should be allowed to implement the regulations it thinks it requires to maintain the safety of it's environs. The communication bit is just garbage though. Most Niqabis are very adept communicators, in fact it seems to give them an extra capacity to communicate, from what I'm told from those who actually have real life explains with Niqabis, rather than just from the media.

wearing a black tent makes you a better communicatior same as following a dead paedophile's arbitrary rules gives you 77 virgins.

you're getting more idiotic by the week abu

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 27^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

That's fair enough, any institution should be allowed to implement the regulations it thinks it requires to maintain the safety of it's environs. The communication bit is just garbage though. Most Niqabis are very adept communicators, in fact it seems to give them an extra capacity to communicate, from what I'm told from those who actually have real life explains with Niqabis, rather than just from the media.

I see what you mean about the extra capacity to communicate and so forth.

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/liaison_dangereuse_sexiness_for_everyone



Mark Steyn is a lot less understanding, the islamophobe:

Fatima's Secret   [Mark Steyn]


This German lingerie ad (warning: contains soft-focus footage of the female form in all its pulchritude — don't stampede all at once) has a cool superficial smartness with what is intended to be an O. Henry switcheroo at the tail.

I think it's more like wishful thinking. For one thing, if the actress were truly a believer as opposed to a jobbing actress, taking this underdressed gig would earn her an honor killing. Enjoy the multiculti sophisticated jests while you can, lads.

repressive sexist islam rears its revolting totalitarian head


Quote:

RIYADH: A Saudi court has sentenced a journalist to 60 lashes after she was charged with involvement in a TV show in which a Saudi man talked about sex. Rozanna al-Yami, 22, is believed to be the first Saudi female journalist to be given such a punishment, but there were conflicting accounts yesterday about how the court issued its verdict. Yami, who worked as a co-ordinator for the program but has denied working on the sex-show episode, said it was her understanding that the judge at the court in the western city of Jeddah dropped the charges against her on Saturday. They included involvement in the preparation of the show and advertising the segment on the internet. But she said he still handed down the lashing sentence "as a deterrence". "I am too frustrated and upset to appeal the sentence," she said. Yami refused to provide contact details for her lawyer to ask about the legal proceedings, including the basis in Islamic law for the punishment and whether the charges were really dropped. Sulaiman al-Jumeii, the lawyer for the man who appeared in the show, said such "physical punishment is not an indication of innocence or a drop of charges". "If the judge had dropped the charges, then why did he give her the 60 lashes?" he added. Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, said he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it. In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, the man, Mazen Abdul-Jawad, appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad this month to five years in jail and 1000 lashes. Mr Jumeii maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded. On Saturday, he said that not trying Yami before a court specialised in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law. "It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job," he said. The case has scandalised this ultra-conservative country, where public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated. The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC's two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline. Three other men who appeared on the show, Bold Red Line, were convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and 300 lashes each.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26258171-15084,00.html

TV presenter covered from head to toe
Fatima Sidiya | Arab News
 
JEDDAH: A new TV show that discusses issues concerning teenage girls and female university students was recently broadcast with Saudi presenters dressed in black from head to toe.

The show — named Asrar Al-Banat (The Secrets of Girls) — is broadcast on Awtan TV, a Saudi religious channel that was first aired in August 2008 and has women broadcasters who are covered in the all-enveloping abaya and niqab.




They must have faces suitable only for radio.  ;)

Did you see the niqabi in the video in the Islamic forum soren? Doesn't look like she had too much problem communicating....

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2009 at 4:08pm:

Did you see the niqabi in the video in the Islamic forum soren? Doesn't look like she had too much problem communicating....

She was asking for a duck and some money, wasn't she?




I am not posting on the Islam forum - I asked you to bar me, remember?

I didn't say you're allowed to post there, just asked if you watched the video...

Mattel Sponsors Genitally Mutilated Burqa Barbie Doll

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burqa that fully covers an anatomically correct body of a young genitally mutilated Muslim woman with an amputated clitoris and the labia majora stitched together with thorns and ligament of a hyena.




Read all about it.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4394&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

---

Un ambassadeur arabe a annulé son mariage après avoir découvert que sa future épouse, qui portait le niqab ou voile intégral, avait une barbe et louchait, a rapporté mercredi le quotidien émirati Gulf News.


http://actu.voila.fr/actualites/insolite/2010/02/10/emirats-il-decouvre-que-sa-future-epouse-en-niqab-a-une-barbe-et-louche_492559.html

:D ;D

Soren wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 11:11am:

Un ambassadeur arabe a annulé son mariage après avoir découvert que sa future épouse, qui portait le niqab ou voile intégral, avait une barbe et louchait, a rapporté mercredi le quotidien émirati Gulf News. http://actu.voila.fr/actualites/insolite/2010/02/10/emirats-il-decouvre-que-sa-future-epouse-en-niqab-a-une-barbe-et-louche_492559.html :D ;D

An Arab ambassador married a niqaby bint who turned out to be sporting a beard and a squint. She was a doctor. Divorce was granted but she kept all the presents (100k euros worth) given to her during the engagement. Her family duped him by giving him pictures of her sister.

This in 2010. Between an ambassador and a doctor.
Fly Emirates.

What a goose, should've demanded to see her first.

Maybe even get to know her?

Precisely.

Although I must state I don't think our ideas of getting to know one another are the same thing.

For you it no doubt means have sex with her first. For me it merely means speak with her and get to understand her opinions and her character (since it seems bizarre he'd want to marry her without discovering these first anyway).

Of course. Us infidels always mean sex.

I think it's pretty much expected in Western society that people will have sex before marriage. They even use little jokes about it like "try before you buy" etc.

FD, you seem to forget that I lived most of my life as an "infidel", so I know exactly what your society and culture is all about.

You've got me there Abu. I must have been talkiing about sex yet again.

As long as her hair is covered, it's safe - hair, that's all that matters. That's where their power is, don't you know.


;D ;D ;D ;D

CRACK me up, what?

---

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

I know exactly what your society ... is all about.

Yes, we know you don't belong to this society. Yes, we know you are hostile to this society, that you are it enemy.
Yes, we know you want to undermine and replace it.
 

Yeah, put them in burqas and behind veils.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEc4YWICeXk

<3 Brigitte Bardot


Quote:

On 10 June 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court for "inciting racial hatred" and fined €5,000, the fourth such conviction/fine the French courts gave her. The courts remarked passages where Bardot referred to the "Islamisation of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam".[22] Bardot's book was also against "the mixing of genes" and compared her beliefs with previous generations who had "given their lives to push out invaders

My kind of woman too.

http://i46.tinypic.com/bhhrh5.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdzkSP9ewY

fag

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

fag

??

You posted a men of film video ;)

I'm j/k ;D

I was tackling - if that's the word I want - the open face issue.


The Muslim tendency to cover the face of women and of, er. warriors, is profoundly telling, in my view. These open faces, on the other hand,  speak of openness, actors though they are. The self-revelation of acting is anathema to islam. It invites interpretation and empathy, not blind submission.

islam - cover eveything - show no emotion


Quote:

Dubai outlines behaviour guidelines Miniskirts, skimpy shorts and kissing banned All the latest travel news SKIMPY shorts, bikinis and kissing in public could soon be banned in Dubai, say authorities. The glitzy Gulf city has laid down new behaviour guidelines in the local media in an attempt to tame public behaviour. The outlines of the possible new restrictions appeared in Al Emarat al Youm, an Arabic-language newspaper with close ties to Dubai's ruling family. Dancing and playing loud music in public will be banned, while couples kissing, holding hands or hugging could face fines or detention. Miniskirts and skimpy shorts would no longer be tolerated outside hotels, while bikini wearers could be forced off public beaches and only permitted on the fenced-off sands of luxury resorts.............

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/cover-up-or-go-to-jail-says-dubai/story-e6freqwo-1111119156143

Quote:

while bikini wearers could be forced off public beaches and only permitted on the fenced-off sands of luxury resorts

Yeh this shows just how serious they are about it. Hypocrites.

Quebec dit 'non'

Quote:

In recent years, the few fully veiled Muslim women who had dealings with Quebec's health-insurance board could choose to be served by a woman to avoid exposing their faces to a man outside their family. But in the latest example of the province's growing resistance to the accommodation of minority religious practices, the insurance board yesterday announced the end of the policy after the provincial human rights commission said it has no duty to acquiesce. "From now on, for a woman who is veiled with a niqab or a burka and comes to our office asking to be photographed by a woman, the answer is no," said Marc Lortie, spokesman for the Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec. "Line up again, or come back another day." The news follows last week's expulsion from a French-as-a-second-language course of an Egyptian woman who insisted on wearing a niqab during class. It was the second school Naema Ahmed was expelled from for wearing the full face covering, which leaves only a slit for the eyes. Authorities at the first school had said her teacher was unable to properly assess her pronunciation without seeing her mouth. Quebec's Immigration Department said she could not continue her studies while wearing the niqab. "If you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values," Immigration Minister Yolande James told reporters last week. "We want to see your face." Ms. Ahmed has filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission. Read more of this article at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2691222#ixzz0iXLDRptt

Next time I'm in Saudi or Libia and they prevent me from opening a bar and running wet t-shirt competitions on Friday nights - I too will complain to the Saudi or Libian Human Rights Commission.

After all this time soren, you still haven't been able to realise that exposing oneself in public and contravening public decency laws is not the same as trying to force someone to expose themselves...

It's quite ironic that this kind of garbage is usually portrayed as "protecting women's rights", when it reality it's quite clearly eroding them. Forcing a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to. If France bans women from attending school due to her attire, it's liberation and fighting for her rights, if the Talibaan ban women from attending school it's oppressive. It's the same thing if you ask me.

The sad thing is, 20 odd years ago, your ilk would've been fighting the complete opposite fight. You would've been pushing for more individual freedom, rather than less. And the sinister thing is, you don't realise your governments will first use this kind of thing against Muslims, but they won't relinquish it, they'll then use it against the masses. You've compromised your principles, and one day will probably be subject to such restrictions yourself.

What disingenuous, hypocritical rot, when we start to see muslims demanding that theeir societies become more open to western standards, when we here Abu championing the rightds of westerners to wear a bikini in saudi arabia if they want, then we may consider muslims have any right to decry westerners for their lack of tolerance.

Islam is a repressive ideology, and the fact that the women it represses do not recognise their own repression is no surprise, how often have we heard the battered wife apologising for the abuser, because it was her fault for upsetting him?
It is easy to subjugate people's personal identity and self image, when you claim it is god's will to do so, and they believe you.

Muslims need to get this whole freedom of religion idea out of their heads.
Muslims offer NO freedom of religion to anyone, they have no moral right whatsoever to ask others to offer it to them.
End of story, if you want to partake in Islamic customs that do not fit in with the customs of the non-Islamic country you live in, then leave, because muslims have to choose whether western ideals of freedom, or Islamic ideals of subservience, is what they desire, for they cannot have both, and nor do they deserve to.

Quote:

muslims have to choose whether western ideals of freedom, or Islamic ideals of subservience, is what they desire, for they cannot have both, and nor do they deserve to.

BRAVO!!

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 11:22am:

not the same as trying to force someone to expose themselves...

You are a stupid ninny, aren't you.

Look at all those women on the street, their faces not covered, and be very afraid. . We have forced them to expose themselves!!! They wanted to cover themselves but we said NO. And your women are next!
We are madder than you and will force you to do things like - show your face. We are that evil.

Quote:

Look at all those women on the street, their faces not covered, and be very afraid. . We have forced them to expose themselves!!! They wanted to cover themselves but we said NO. And your women are next!

The point is not about Western women being forced to expose themselves, but Muslim women.

Your pathetically constructed argument revolves around the idea that "If they force us to cover up in their countries, we should force them to uncover in our countries".

This is just bollocks. Covering to fit within the public decency laws of a country is not the same as forcing someone to expose themselves. It's not a two way street. It's like a Canadian coming here and saying "Well back in my country it's allowed for a woman to walk down the street topless, and because you try to prevent us here, when you come to our country, we're going to force every Australian woman to walk around topless".

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Quote: Look at all those women on the street, their faces not covered, and be very afraid. . We have forced them to expose themselves!!! They wanted to cover themselves but we said NO. And your women are next! The point is not about Western women being forced to expose themselves, but Muslim women. Your pathetically constructed argument revolves around the idea that "If they force us to cover up in their countries, we should force them to uncover in our countries". This is just bollocks. Covering to fit within the public decency laws of a country is not the same as forcing someone to expose themselves. It's not a two way street. It's like a Canadian coming here and saying "Well back in my country it's allowed for a woman to walk down the street topless, and because you try to prevent us here, when you come to our country, we're going to force every Australian woman to walk around topless".

So why do your women (and you) insist on getting about around here in a garb that is offensive to every sensibility of this country? Because you do not give a fig about our infidel sensibilities. The law you may observe for now, but our sensilbilities (do as the Romas stuff) is anathema to you. Your mission is to challenge it like the kaffir nonsense it is to you.


Face covered women here are exactly as confronting and offensive as topless women would be in 'your' countries. But to you there is no such things as 'do as the Roman'. To you, Romans are to be overthrown, wherever they may be.
This is why the wars in Iraq and Afgahanistan, and soon , hopefully, in Iran are crusades. Islam has been an enemy of the west since its inception. It's raison d'etre is to be an enemy.

Soren wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 8:07pm:

This is why the wars in Iraq and Afgahanistan, and soon , hopefully, in Iran are crusades. Islam has been an enemy of the west since its inception. It's raison d'etre is to be an enemy.

Very interesting point you raise here, Soren. Of course, you're positing this from the vantage point of enemy yourself. And you're hoping for more war; more enemies - more death. It makes sense that you see Islam's purpose as to be your enemy unto death.

This stance on Islam is solely that of enemy. On this topic, there are no subtleties, no shades of grey, only blunt absolutes. This vision is so focused on the "enemy," I can't see how anyone could possibly learn anything new. Just hearing or reading the word "Muslim" must bring about a state of fight/flight where adrenaline floods the system, blood leaves the brain and flows to the outer extremities. Hence, there can be no understanding or knowledge, only a calloused form of attack and defence.

Which perpetuates itself, again and again and again. It certainly does on these pages, anyway.

It doesn't really matter whether the enemy is Islam or not. As it is defined here, it is nothing but an enemy. If there was no Islam, the enemy would need to be invented - as of course it has. The modern project that broadcasts this belief that they're all out to get us - that they would define themselves solely as our enemy - is fundamentally narcisistic.

In actual fact, Islam doesn't really matter at all. Hardly any on this board have much knowledge of it, and certainly no interest in it beyond its existence as an enemy of the West. Anything about Islam, of course; women in veils, bloodthirsty Koran passages, despotic rulers, etc, will be read as proof of its inherent evil.

I think most would propose that we shouldn't try to understand Islam at all, but simply defeat it. Interesting that we've already defeated two global enemies through the 20th Century: fascism and communism. I guess this is proof that it is possible to defeat enemies.

But not to eliminate them. Alas - another always appears!

The war is with Eurasia. The war has always been with Eurasia.

It's never personal, no matter how many emotions  are churned up. The enemy is created for us - it comes as a package, just like a holiday in Bali or a suit off the rack.

The presence of this process is a huge threat to the ego. I know this from personal experience - when enemies are exposed or uncovered, I feel anxious, and this perpetuates the process of defending and justifying and bickering and fighting. Ultimately, this is why we have the enemy: to keep the defenses up - and to keep the focus off ourselves.

We need the enemy because we feel exposed without it. We feel empty and depressed, and we feel this because we realise how futile the whole game is.

Really, the enemy is our best friend, but very few realise this.

The rest are led blindly into war for no other reason than "Islam is the enemy of the West, and has always been the enemy of the West."

Repentance: 123 "Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you."


123. O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).


take your pick, why informed westerners abhor islam

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

Repentance: 123 "Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you." 123. O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). take your pick, why informed westerners abhor islam

Another one. What happens when you read the above as an enemy rather than seeking to know? You think Mohammed is telling his followers to go out and kill everyone - including you.

But why would a small desert cult in the Arabian peninsular tell its members to go out and kill the rest of the world? It doesn't make sense - especially when many "unbelievers" would have been close family members.

They key, I think, is in the text. I'd say that the "harshness" could be better translated as "steadfastness."

My reading here is that Mohammed was telling his followers to fight internally against these enemies, rather than externally. The "harshness" and being on "guard," I believe, highlights this. Likewise, Jesus tells his followers to build their house upon the rock - faith needs to be built on a structure (or lifestyle), or it will collapse into the sand.

I have no idea why "murder" was used in the above passage. Perhaps "sever yourselves from" could give a similar account, although I'm aware I'm paraphrasing to suit my own needs. Murder stands.

I wonder what readers of Antoine Arteau's Theatre of Cruelty will think in a hundred years time. Will they think Arteau literally wanted to kill the audience?

Perhaps.

Jesus said that he came not to bring peace, but to pit son against father, etc, etc.

But OF COURSE we know that Jesus came to bring peace - as this is implicit in the rest of the teachings that we have. Jesus also taught his Jewish followers to obey the Ten Commandments, and within these it says that you should honour your father and mother.

We know this because we've been taught the whole message - we're not just picking quotes off the internet. If we did this, we might wonder why Christians, whose right hand have offendeth, are still walking around with hands and eyes.

Jesus, of course, also taught followers to "love thy enemy as thou love thyself."

If we did this with our "enemies", we might seek a better understanding of what they believe.

maybe when mod the paed said "fight" or "murder" he meant "fight" or murder".

after all, that's what he did.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 29^th, 2010 at 10:36am:

maybe when mod the paed said "fight" or "murder" he meant "fight" or murder". after all, that's what he did.

And maybe Jesus meant pluck out your eyes.

Quote:

A Sydney woman has died after her Islamic head dress got caught in a moving go-kart in the New South Wales town of Port Stephens.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2867849.htm?site=sydney

tallowood wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

Quote: A Sydney woman has died after her Islamic head dress got caught in a moving go-kart in the New South Wales town of Port Stephens. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2867849.htm?site=sydney

And who will be in trouble? go-kart operator and there will be compulsory alterations, so people dressed in whatever can ride safely.

Happy wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 6:18pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 9th, 2010 at 5:48pm: Quote: A Sydney woman has died after her Islamic head dress got caught in a moving go-kart in the New South Wales town of Port Stephens. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2867849.htm?site=sydney And who will be in trouble? go-kart operator and there will be compulsory alterations, so people dressed in whatever can ride safely.

That is interesting question.

Quote:

The owner of the track says he warned the woman it was not wise to wear the head dress. He says the track has been operating for 10 years with an unblemished safety record.

I wonder what our islamic members have to say about that.

Quote:

I wonder what our islamic members have to say about that.

What is there to say about it other than it was a tragic accident? May God rest her soul.

When people die because other articles of clothing become caught do you also blame the wearing of those clothes?

What are you some kind of militant nudist extremist or something???

Quote:

What is there to say about it other than it was a tragic accident? May God rest her soul.

Yes, tragic accident and I feel for the kids who have lost their Mum.

I also feel sorry for the park owners who will likely now face a law suite because they did not enforce their advice to the woman re her clothing.


Quote:

When people die because other articles of clothing become caught do you also blame the wearing of those clothes?

Very definately.

It is a legal requirement that owners of businesses enforce clothing standards to prevent injury.
These standards apply to employess predominately but in most cases apply to visitors to any site where there is potential danger due to proximity.

In this instance, the deceased and particularly her husband, who should have been aware of potential danger and ignored the advice of the park owners in favour of a quasi religeous requirement, are principaly at fault.


Quote:

What are you some kind of militant nudist extremist or something???

If militant extremist nudists insist on getting their floppy bits too close to dangerous machinery, the end result is their own stupid fault.
The rest of the world should not have to act as surrogate nanny for them.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Quote: I wonder what our islamic members have to say about that. What is there to say about it other than it was a tragic accident? May God rest her soul. When people die because other articles of clothing become caught do you also blame the wearing of those clothes? What are you some kind of militant nudist extremist or something???

SO it's burqa or nudity??

Quote:

I also feel sorry for the park owners who will likely now face a law suite because they did not enforce their advice to the woman re her clothing.

Well they shouldn't. People partake in these activities at their own risk.


Quote:

In this instance, the deceased and particularly her husband, who should have been aware of potential danger and ignored the advice of the park owners in favour of a quasi religeous requirement, are principaly at fault.

Quasi-religious? It's a requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her hair. If she does that in a way which endangers herself when riding a go-kart, then she shouldn't ride it. Just like women who wear long skirts that endanger them when doing certain activities, or women who wear fur coats that could endanger them when doing certain activities.

The supposed religious aspect to it is being dragged into it for the usual sensationalism, that's about it.


Quote:

If militant extremist nudists insist on getting their floppy bits too close to dangerous machinery, the end result is their own stupid fault.

My point was that trying to enforce people to expose parts of their body is just ridiculous and is completely contrary to Australian societal norms. It is attempted against Muslims, because the thinking is "They're new here, and wanna fit in, so we'll just demand whatever we like of them". You know full well if someone demanded women expose their legs compulsorily, there would be a huge uproar about invasion of privacy and the like. But it's thought that Muslim women are "naturally submissive" and therefore won't protest. What a miscalculation that is.

Quote:

The supposed religious aspect to it is being dragged into it for the usual sensationalism, that's about it.

That is just not true Abu, the religious element of this case is absolutely fundamental to it's happening at all.

If the woman's clothing choice had not been for religious reasons, then it would be highly probable that most safety conscious people would have banned her from participation, however, because of the unfair demands that religions continually force onto society, in the name of "religious freedom", people are very nervous about ever excluding anyone on grounds which could be later considered as prejudicial.

So, look no further than religion to blame this on, they asked for it.

mozza,

That's purely a perception on the part of the proprieters of the kart centre if that's true, although I think you're guessing about this.

Either way, the clothing has no "relgious significance" it's merely a level of public decency. Anymore than if a bra/blouse of a Christian lady being caught in something resulted in her death would have anything to do with Christianity.

Just out of curiousity mozza, do you consider bras and blouses "Christian religious dress"??? I doubt you do.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 7:20pm:

mozza, That's purely a perception on the part of the proprieters of the kart centre if that's true, although I think you're guessing about this. Either way, the clothing has no "relgious significance" it's merely a level of public decency. Anymore than if a bra/blouse of a Christian lady being caught in something resulted in her death would have anything to do with Christianity. Just out of curiousity mozza, do you consider bras and blouses "Christian religious dress"??? I doubt you do.

Public decency in Australia does not require the wearing of a burqa. Therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with public decency.
The burqa is an exclusively Muslim garment. A bra or knickers or a blouse aren't. You are trying to make Muslim standards universal. This is not on.


As usual, I never know whether you are duplicitous or stupid.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

Quote: Quasi-religious? It's a requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her hair. That is just an opinion that is yours and others of the more extreme catagory who are predominately men. There are many Muslim females who will argue articulately that the head dress is an option only. Those women who have the stones to stand up and say that publicly tend to be well educated and or leaders of muslim women's organisations. You will also be aware that countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco do not enforce the headwear for women. Watching news casts or reading blogs/stories from those counties will confirm that. [quote]If she does that in a way which endangers herself when riding a go-kart, then she shouldn't ride it. Just like women who wear long skirts that endanger them when doing certain activities, or women who wear fur coats that could endanger them when doing certain activities.

Obviously agree with these comments.
If however these people want to indulge in an activity that has potential danger, then they should have the sense to take it off for the duration and muslim males especially should have a bit of empathy with the females who are prevented from activity that the males have no problem enjoying.


Quote:

The supposed religious aspect to it is being dragged into it for the usual sensationalism, that's about it.

Mozzaok answered that statement very well.


Quote:

My point was that trying to enforce people to expose parts of their body is just ridiculous and is completely contrary to Australian societal norms. It is attempted against Muslims, because the thinking is "They're new here, and wanna fit in, so we'll just demand whatever we like of them". You know full well if someone demanded women expose their legs compulsorily, there would be a huge uproar about invasion of privacy and the like. But it's thought that Muslim women are "naturally submissive" and therefore won't protest. What a miscalculation that is.

Oh come on, your struggling now with a nonsense comparison that no one is going to buy.

Soren wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 11:42pm:

The burqa is an exclusively Muslim garment. A bra or knickers or a blouse aren't. You are trying to make Muslim standards universal. This is not on.

This is not true. Anyone can wear a burqa. Despite popular belief, it is not forbidden. I've seen some nice lines in Auburn. They display them on manikins. You can just see the nail polish on their plastic fingernails.

I like a pair of classy sunglasses over the top of that flyscreen they have for eye holes. You can accessorise with a nice Gucci bag. Divine!

There is nothing like the sight of an attractive woman in a big black burqa. All cultures can wear them. Non-Muslims will not go to hell, but may have to atone somewhat in the afterlife. For some, it's worth it just to stay in fashion.

A nice pair of Jimmy Choos underneath and you're in business. Whether at home in the garden, or out shopping for a nice piece of meat, there is no reason why you can't look great.

Big Donger wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 5:50pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 12th, 2010 at 11:42pm: The burqa is an exclusively Muslim garment. A bra or knickers or a blouse aren't. You are trying to make Muslim standards universal. This is not on. This is not true. Anyone can wear a burqa. Despite popular belief, it is not forbidden. I've seen some nice lines in Auburn. They display them on manikins. You can just see the nail polish on their plastic fingernails. I like a pair of classy sunglasses over the top of that flyscreen they have for eye holes. You can accessorise with a nice Gucci bag. Divine! There is nothing like the sight of an attractive woman in a big black burqa. All cultures can wear them. Non-Muslims will not go to hell, but may have to atone somewhat in the afterlife. For some, it's worth it just to stay in fashion. A nice pair of Jimmy Choos underneath and you're in business. Whether at home in the garden, or out shopping for a nice piece of meat, there is no reason why you can't look great.

Tedious.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Quote: I wonder what our islamic members have to say about that. What is there to say about it other than it was a tragic accident? May God rest her soul. When people die because other articles of clothing become caught do you also blame the wearing of those clothes? What are you some kind of militant nudist extremist or something???

It was a tragic accident and we agree on that but is there lesson to learn so this kind accidents should not happen again?

As for nudity why do you think it is extremist?

Because it gives him the horn.

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 11:10pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 5:50pm: Soren wrote on Apr 12th, 2010 at 11:42pm: The burqa is an exclusively Muslim garment. A bra or knickers or a blouse aren't. You are trying to make Muslim standards universal. This is not on. This is not true. Anyone can wear a burqa. Despite popular belief, it is not forbidden. I've seen some nice lines in Auburn. They display them on manikins. You can just see the nail polish on their plastic fingernails. I like a pair of classy sunglasses over the top of that flyscreen they have for eye holes. You can accessorise with a nice Gucci bag. Divine! There is nothing like the sight of an attractive woman in a big black burqa. All cultures can wear them. Non-Muslims will not go to hell, but may have to atone somewhat in the afterlife. For some, it's worth it just to stay in fashion. A nice pair of Jimmy Choos underneath and you're in business. Whether at home in the garden, or out shopping for a nice piece of meat, there is no reason why you can't look great. Tedious.

Sexist. As an attractive, cosmopolitan woman, it's my democratic right to dress in the latest style.

If men are allowed to wear their their tribal knives, we should be allowed to sack up. It's only fair.

soren,


Quote:

The burqa is an exclusively Muslim garment.

As far as I'm aware she wasn't wearing a burqa, so that's not even relevant.


Quote:

A bra or knickers or a blouse aren't

They are largely peculiar to Judeo-Christian countries, and are linked to moralistic covering. PNG women for instance do not wear them.


Quote:

Because it gives him the horn.

Does Leviticus give you the horn?

northy,


Quote:

That is just an opinion that is yours and others of the more extreme catagory who are predominately men.

No, it's the unanimous ruling of every single reputable Islamic jurist that's ever lived. Not a single authentic scholar of Islam has ever ruled otherwise.

The idea that it's men who hold this opinion is just ridiculous. Have you ever even heard (or do you even care to hear??) the opinion of a single practicing Muslim woman on the issue??? As I've advised others before who peddle the same nonsense, goto an Islamic forum, like Aussiemuslims for instance and ask Muslim women themselves why they cover their hair.

My guess is you're not interested in what Muslim women have to say. And that exposes just how sincere you are about your claims.


Quote:

There are many Muslim females who will argue articulately that the head dress is an option only.

There's the odd secularist who might claim this. Most Muslim women (I'd say in the vicinity of about 90% know full well it's compulsory, even many of those who don't cover themselves).


Quote:

Those women who have the stones to stand up and say that publicly tend to be well educated and or leaders of muslim women's organisations.

No, they usually tend to be extremely secular, that's about the only defining characteristic. In fact usually the more educated Muslim women are, the more likely they are to cover.


Quote:

You will also be aware that countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco do not enforce the headwear for women.

Actually it's much easier to count the countries that do enforce it. Since it's very few, maybe 2?

Yet strangely in most countries where it's not even enforced, or in countries like Tunisia and Turkey where there's actually prohibitions AGAINST it, the women overwhelmingly cover.


Quote:

If however these people want to indulge in an activity that has potential danger, then they should have the sense to take it off for the duration

Should Christian women take their blouses and bras off if they want to engage in activities that could get their blouses caught in stuff? What you're suggesting is ridiculous, and it's quite clear you still don't seem to comprehend that the hair is considered nakedness for Muslims.


Quote:

muslim males especially should have a bit of empathy with the females who are prevented from activity that the males have no problem enjoying.

Would you accept your wife or daughter to walk around bare-breasted? Do you have enough empathy?

I've taken my daughter go-kart riding, and she had no problem enjoying herself with her hijab on.


Quote:

Mozzaok answered that statement very well.

No he did not. He merely repeated the claim that it's a religiously-specific dress, when it is not. Hijab is a level of covering, nothing more, nothing less.

There are Catholics who still wear hijab till this day. It is a level of modesty, just as blouse/bra are a level of modesty most Christian women observe, whilst non-Christian women like those in PNG do not. Is it a Christian dress? Not really.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:37pm:

Quote: [quote]No, it's the unanimous ruling of every single reputable Islamic jurist that's ever lived. Not a single authentic scholar of Islam has ever ruled otherwise. Wasn't there an islamic scholar in Egypt recently who issued an edict that that hidjab was not required as it was nothing more than a cultural thing. The important words here are "reputable" and "authentic" because any scholar who disagrees with you and your fellow travellers will be neither of those things I suspect. [quote]The idea that it's men who hold this opinion is just ridiculous.

I said "predominately" men.
Yes, certainly there are muslim women who hold the same opinion and they are the more dogmatic minority and the majority who would be scared wittless with good reason to defy their husbands/families to walk out the house without their head covered.


Quote:

Have you ever even heard (or do you even care to hear??) the opinion of a single practicing Muslim woman on the issue??? As I've advised others before who peddle the same nonsense, goto an Islamic forum, like Aussiemuslims for instance and ask Muslim women themselves why they cover their hair.

Oh yes, I have had a look at that site and on and off have read a good deal of it.
It is a bit pointless me going there to join up as I do not have the time to engage in futile discussion with zealots, many of whom appear to be converts with other axes to grind that they have imported from their pre Islamic enlightenment.  ;)


Quote:

My guess is you're not interested in what Muslim women have to say. And that exposes just how sincere you are about your claims.

You should not make assumptions Abu, assumptions that are distorted by your dogma.
In fact I am interested in what they say, mainly to observe the psychology at work.


Quote:

There's the odd secularist who might claim this. Most Muslim women (I'd say in the vicinity of about 90% know full well it's compulsory, even many of those who don't cover themselves).

There is more than the odd one, secularist or not.
I heard one of the odd ones on radio in Brisbane a couple of months ago, who was quite adamant that it was purely a cultural thing and not at all compulsory but had been made so in recent times by the members of the Islamist groups that have gained some traction.
IIRC the lady concerned was the head of the largest islamic women's association in Australia and was also a member of a university faculty for islamic studies.

If 90% as you claim know it is compulsory, you have a problem don't you!


Quote:

Actually it's much easier to count the countries that do enforce it. Since it's very few, maybe 2?

Yes, true enough.
Infact Bangladesh has just via it's supreme court, made it illegal to force women to cover.


Quote:

Yet strangely in most countries where it's not even enforced, or in countries like Tunisia and Turkey where there's actually prohibitions AGAINST it, the women overwhelmingly cover.

Not true Abu.
Now that you mention Turkey, a simple google search will give you answers ranging from somewhat less than 50% in regional areas to as low as 10% in Istanbul.
Those that cover in Istanbul tend to be the elderly and the dogmatic, Islamists.

I occasionally communicate with a guy in Istanbul and he is a businessman who confirms those figures.
His girlfreind is a university graduate.
I have seen photos of her and her friends, none of whom wear head covering.


Quote:

Should Christian women take their blouses and bras off if they want to engage in activities that could get their blouses caught in stuff?

Well yes although I cant think of any activity where a bra may present a snagging risk.
Blouses, of the type my 83 year old mother wears and the same as I would assume the female members of your extended family wear are somewhat looser than a bra and if she or they were to indulge in an activity where the blouse is a potential hazard I suspect they would have the common sense to wear something else which would not be a chador, abaya or burhka.


Quote:

What you're suggesting is ridiculous, and it's quite clear you still don't seem to comprehend that the hair is considered nakedness for Muslims.

What you would comprehend in a saner frame of mind is that, women's hair and the site of it is neither lewd or nakedness.
If your particular brand of Islam considers it to be so, it is going to join the Dodo.
Civilised society will make it so.


Quote:

Would you accept your wife or daughter to walk around bare-breasted? Do you have enough empathy?

Childish comparison but, If my adult daughter decided to go to a beach or country where that is permitted, then I am adult enough to trust her that she has made a considered judgement that is right for her.


Quote:

I've taken my daughter go-kart riding, and she had no problem enjoying herself with her hijab on.

Good for you!
Would you reconsider your stance if the same tragedy had befallen your daughter?

Honest answer if you can please!

]/quote]

northy,


Quote:

Wasn't there an islamic scholar in Egypt recently who issued an edict that that hidjab was not required as it was nothing more than a cultural thing.

No. I think you mean Tantawi's claiming the Niqab (ie. full face covering) is not part of Islam and should be banned on campuses in Egypt. Nevermind that he was a government-appointed rubber-stamper. There's definitely some difference of opinion on whether the Niqab is compulsory, but there's no authentic opinion that the hijab is not compulsory.


Quote:

The important words here are "reputable" and "authentic" because any scholar who disagrees with you and your fellow travellers will be neither of those things I suspect.

I say authentic and reputable, because in this day and age you have all manner of weirdos in different religions claiming stuff. Like I don't think those Christians or Jews who claim it's ok to be gay are authentic scholars of their religion either.

Either way, for the past 1300 years, all of the unanimously recognised classical scholars of Islam all came to the same conclusion, that hijab is compulsory. You can believe what you like, but what you believe does not effect what Islam quite clearly teaches.


Quote:

I said "predominately" men.

In my experience, sadly many men today aren't too fussed, and some even forbid their wives/daughters from wearing hijab and especially niqab. I've come across many many cases of women being prevented from covering by family, yet not a single case of them being forced to cover. This is why I argue so strongly, because I'm actually amongst the Muslim community, and I see clearly that the media claims starkly contradict the reality.


Quote:

Yes, certainly there are muslim women who hold the same opinion and they are the more dogmatic minority and the majority who would be scared wittless with good reason to defy their husbands/families to walk out the house without their head covered.

I honestly don't think you have the experience/knowledge/facts to back these claims. You keep saying it, but it's not backed up by anything. Whilst my experience has shown me exactly the opposite.

I could also claim that the majority of Christian women don't want to cover their breasts, and really want to walk around topless like their sisters in PNG. But their moralistic and controlling fathers/husbands prevent them from it and force them to cover. Your experience would suggest otherwise to you though wouldn't it? Most women cover their breasts because they believe it's not befitting to expose them in public, or out of shyness or modesty.


Quote:

It is a bit pointless me going there to join up as I do not have the time to engage in futile discussion with zealots, many of whom appear to be converts with other axes to grind that they have imported from their pre Islamic enlightenment.

Actually there's a pretty good cross section of the Muslim community there. From people bordering on secularists right up to strong practicing Muslims (I assume the latter you're referring to as zealots). Most of them are born here, were educated here, and so we'd expect them to be "breaking out of the shackles" of the oppressive Islamic culture and embracing the freedoms the West offers to them. You know as well as I do, this isn't happening, and this is in fact what scares Westerners about Islam. It has an effect on people that doesn't just wither away when they leave their native environs. It is going to be a formiddable challenge to Westerners, especially whilst we keep converting at such a rate :)

Look, I've examined Muslim society in Arabic countries, and examined it here in the West, and I think your stereotypes are very inaccurate. They simply don't reflect the reality. In fact when people come to the West they often become much closer to Islam, and many of those who follow this trend are women. My experience has shown me that generally speaking women are much more likely to practice Islam strictly than men. Since they know Islam gives them a dignified place. They know that it respects them and doesn't treat them like pieces of meat. They know it honours them for their intellect and their person, not for their looks and appearances. And this makes them feel valued.

It's your choice whether you actually get a first hand view of what Muslim women think or not, but don't pretend to speak from any position of knowledge or authority on the subject when you are not even prepared to examine the reality. You read and see what you want to see, and it's quite clearly reflected in your viewpoint.


Quote:

In fact I am interested in what they say, mainly to observe the psychology at work.

I think you're disproportionately interested in what secularists have to say, rather than what practicing Muslims have to say. Even though they are a tiny little minority amongst Muslims, and obviously are not a good source of what Islam teaches.

I think you'd consider the voice of 1 or 2 secularists much more weighty than that of 50 practicing Muslims telling you otherwise. You obviously just put it down to "zealotry" and dismiss it as unimportant.


Quote:

IIRC the lady concerned was the head of the largest islamic women's association in Australia and was also a member of a university faculty for islamic studies.

I highly doubt it's an authentic Islamic association. Probably a government-established body that's used to try and establish/promote such views amongst Muslims.

abu, if the owner/operator of the go-kart refused the woman on the grounds that she wears inappropriate dress there would be cry out by the muslim that it is religious(racial :)))) discrimination as always.

Quote:

there's no authentic opinion that the hijab is not compulsory.

Doesn't the fact that a religion even sets down a "dress code" trouble you?

I mean how unrealistic a view of god do you people have with these obsessive fantasies that some divine creator, or micro managing controller of the universe, is watching to make sure a woman covers her hair, or a bloke cuts his toenails, or any other number of frivolus frippery that is meaningless compared to what I would want my god to be worried about.
I mean, aren't you ever overwhelmed by the sheer ridiculousness of the concept of a god of toenail clippings?

If you want to invent a god who wants to manage every little detail, you would think things like not killing people in his name would be right up there in the "things I do not like" category, way above hair coverings, and beards and toenails in my book.

tallowood wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:

abu, if the owner/operator of the go-kart refused the woman on the grounds that she wears inappropriate dress there would be cry out by the muslim that it is religious(racial :)))) discrimination as always.

Indeed.
And then Abu and the millions of Keysar Trads of this world would have been speaking ouf the other corner of their mouths.

soren,


Quote:

Indeed. And then Abu and the millions of Keysar Trads of this world would have been speaking ouf the other corner of their mouths.

Yeh because I'm always harping on about discrimination aren't I?

mozza,


Quote:

Doesn't the fact that a religion even sets down a "dress code" trouble you?

No, it gives me comfort, to know that God has given us guidance in all of our affairs. And dress code of men and women in front of one another is a pretty important affair, since it impacts so much on society. The fact you tried to trivialise it and relegate it to being about as important as clipping one's toe-nails indicates you're not the sharpest tool in the shed mozza.


Quote:

If you want to invent a god...

This is what it actually comes down to isn't it? You believe God is invented (being an atheist, of course you do), and so you are astounded why people don't invent a God that is more in line with their own desires and whims.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:

soren, Quote: Indeed. And then Abu and the millions of Keysar Trads of this world would have been speaking ouf the other corner of their mouths. Yeh because I'm always harping on about discrimination aren't I?

Yes, you are. You are always harping.

All those new threads about 'muslims are warning against backlash over tomorrow's train bombing' are precisely that. You DO think that in this democratic country you are hard done by, you do  think that there is a special conspiracy against Muslims, you do think that it against your religion to speak out against Muslims doing evil but you are eager to finger evil done by anyone else, always implying that they do it because thy are not Mulisms.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:

No, it gives me comfort, to know that God has given us guidance in all of our affairs. And dress code of men and women in front of one another is a pretty important affair, since it impacts so much on society. The fact you tried to trivialise it and relegate it to being about as important as clipping one's toe-nails indicates you're not the sharpest tool in the shed mozza.

That's just it - you are standing there, with the Koran in one hand and your d!ck in the other, reading the mind of god. And he says it's either cover up all or nothing. It's burqa or nudity. Either your Koran rules you, or your d!ck.

Here's a big deal that may have bypassed most people: now it is contentious to speak against Muslim face covering in an American (western) city like Seattle, with absolutelly no Islamic history or tradition.  


Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali Feminist Appearing at Town Hall, Draws Veiled Protesters
By Nina Shapiro, Thu., Sep. 30 2010


​It was a scene you don't see everyday in Seattle: Some three dozen Islamic women in cloaks and veils descended on Town Hall last night to wave pickets and pass out fliers. They were there to protest the appearance of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the controversial Somali émigré who's been speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism and oppression of women.

Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who's now a fellow at the conservative D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute, came here at the behest of the World Affairs Council to talk about her views on Muslims and her new book Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

"We don't want hate speech here," said Entisar Ibrahim, one of the protesters, her black hijab revealing only her eyes. But when asked exactly how Hirsi Ali was a "virulently Islamaphobic bigot," as the fliers labeled the visiting author, Ibrahim couldn't say.


She said nevertheless that she and her fellow protesters--whom she said came from all over the city rather than any specific neighborhood or mosque-- were worried that Hirsi Ali's message would incite anti-Islamic feeling in Seattle. She added that the city at the moment was mostly free of such sentiment but that she occasionally gets pointed comments about her appearance, such as: "Don't you know you're free here?"
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/ayaan_hirsi_ali_somali_feminis.php


Now even not liking Islam is "virulent Islamophobic bigotry'.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012935.html


Quote:

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society. The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence. This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let's say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today's society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it. To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can't even be thought. What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable  today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn't dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question--indeed they never even mention--the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped. You don't need to know any more than what I've just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam is a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out. The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today's liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It's not impossible. To understand how this unnatural and anti-human liberal belief came into existence and gained such power over us, we need to understand the natural and human order that the liberal belief is attacking. I would like to quote the Book of Ecclesiasticus: (Ecclesiasticus, 33)

etc. Lawrence Auster has always been an articulate, exceptionally gifted pro-Western Jewish writer who thinks outside, and far beyond, the box of mainstream conservatism. He cuts right to the heart of the solution to all the problems and conflict that Islam brings by focusing his assault on liberalism, which conservatives have basically internalized, its enabler.

Good to read someone who makes sense. Exactly. We need to end tolerance.

I see you've been converted to the cause, my frien.

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves.

The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men.

Next...

- Abu

Apologies to all  for reposting this at this particular point in time .. it's just that I've only begun reading this topic and when I got to this particular bit .. well I almost choked as I was sipping some Twining's Lady Grey tea ... after which I seriously felt like putting skewers through my eyes.

I must be experiencing another allergic reaction to bovine faecal matteritis .. a dreadful affliction I seem to suffer from every now and then.

Again .. my humblest apologies to all. By all means .. please continue.

Regards

Lisa

Quote:

Apologies to all  for reposting this at this particular point in time .. it's just that I've only begun reading this topic and when I got to this particular bit .. well I almost choked as I was sipping some Twining's Lady Grey tea ...

jesus shut up

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 9:22pm:

It's all nonsense because it's based on a flawed premise, that the Hijab is some sort of religious symbol. It is nothing of the sort, and those Muslims arguing it is, have been duped into doing so, by the French themselves. The hijab is simply an article of clothing, and is no more a religious symbol for women than knee length shorts are for men. Next... - Abu Apologies to all  for reposting this at this particular point in time .. it's just that I've only begun reading this topic and when I got to this particular bit .. well I almost choked as I was sipping some Twining's Lady Grey tea ... after which I seriously felt like putting skewers through my eyes. I must be experiencing another allergic reaction to bovine faecal matteritis .. a dreadful affliction I seem to suffer from every now and then. Again .. my humblest apologies to all. By all means .. please continue. Regards Lisa

What - you see headscarves as religious symbols?

I must have missed that one in RE. Mind you, the Virgin Mary wore one, but they never told us it was because she was religious, just poor with nowhere to stay so she had to give birth to the Baby Jesus in a little barn with animals and snow.

Joseph wore sandals and carried a staff, but they didn't say whether that was religious either. Those miserable Jews! Always disguising their religious symbols!

Actually, Mary and Joseph were good Christians. The religious symbol of the Christian is a Roman torture device they nail you to if you don't play nice and agree with Uncle.

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 8:44pm:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012935.html [quote]To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society. The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence. This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let's say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today's society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it. To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can't even be thought. What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable  today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn't dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question--indeed they never even mention--the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped. You don't need to know any more than what I've just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam is a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out. The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today's liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It's not impossible. To understand how this unnatural and anti-human liberal belief came into existence and gained such power over us, we need to understand the natural and human order that the liberal belief is attacking.

Interesting read. However, like all critiques I read of liberalism it doesn't offer any alternative other than to 'forbid Muslim immigration', and other assorted non-desirables. So, basically, they want the same system but with just no Muslims in it. For an alternative there firstly would have to be a discussion of what direction Western countries want to take, rather than just defining itself as not like the 'other'.
Also, I am not sure that modern day conservatives are liberalism's defender. If my memory serves me correctly, they were it's initiator back in the 19th century, but today conservativism has moved into a mish-mash of collectivised hatred against a bunch of minority groups (hence, the exact opposite of what liberalism tries to defend).

Time, the article specifically wasn't concerned with critiquing Liberalism. Auster has offered many substantial criticisms of it in particular elsewhere in his writings.


Quote:

If my memory serves me correctly, they were it's initiator back in the 19th century, but today conservativism has moved into a mish-mash of collectivised hatred against a bunch of minority groups

I think this is an inaccurate description of mainstream conservatism today. While it is often true that they will pay lip service to their constituents in an effort to appear "tough" on particular issues, their policies on issues that pertain to immigration, etc. in effect are little, and often no different, from their alternatives. The Tories in the U.K are almost as "peecee" as the Labour party, the G.O.P under George W Bush coined immigrant apologist lines like "Jobs Americans Won't Do" and parrot the "diversity as strength" mantra as frequently as the Democrats, etc. I don't think they genuinely represent a real, traditionalist voice anymore.

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 10:58am:

Time, the article specifically wasn't concerned with critiquing Liberalism. Auster has offered many substantial criticisms of it in particular elsewhere in his writings. Quote: If my memory serves me correctly, they were it's initiator back in the 19th century, but today conservativism has moved into a mish-mash of collectivised hatred against a bunch of minority groups I think this is an inaccurate description of mainstream conservatism today. While it is often true that they will pay lip service to their constituents in an effort to appear "tough" on particular issues, their policies on issues that pertain to immigration, etc. in effect are little, and often no different, from their alternatives. The Tories in the U.K are almost as "peecee" as the Labour party, the G.O.P under George W Bush coined immigrant apologist lines like "Jobs Americans Won't Do" and parrot the "diversity as strength" mantra as frequently as the Democrats, etc. I don't think they genuinely represent a real, traditionalist voice anymore.

Arh yes. I agree. I thought the article was describing the hard right conservatives you find online and 'journalists' like Bolt and Albrechtsen.
Today's so-called conservative politicians are conservative in 5 second sound bytes only. I remember reading once that Australian immigration reached an all time high under Howard.

That is correct, yes. But Howard was also very good at picking on refugees, maintaining his credibility with bogans at the same time as catering to business by allowing legal immigration to continue unhindered.

Bolt is a joke.

Muslim girl sacked for refusing to wear a headscarf


In England


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/03/muslim-girl-sacked-for-refusing-to-wear-a-headscarf-115875-22604937/

British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil
Hundreds of girls are bring forced by British schools to wear the Islamic veil in a move which has been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8038820/British-schools-where-girls-must-wear-the-Islamic-veil.html

And schoolgirls should be wearing them here too - to be polite to our fellow sisters if for no other reason.

It doesn't have to be called a "Muslim" headscarf, just a scarf or a veil. The Jews even like to wear wigs.

We should be nice to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We should try to make them feel like they fit in. If the simple act of wearing a scarf does it, so be it. All girls should, where appropriate, of course.

This is what being a multicultural melting pot is all about - helping new Australians feel at home.

Some good news.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGi1lXYnVwM

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 11:45am:

That is correct, yes. But Howard was also very good at picking on refugees, maintaining his credibility with bogans at the same time as catering to business by allowing legal immigration to continue unhindered. Bolt is a joke.

If Howard allowed in record numbers of refugees, he could hardly be described as 'picking' on them.
You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Howard did have issues with the criminal smuggling gangs, and so he should have.
Whether it's smuggling sex slaves, drugs, or other people doesn't matter.
They are all illegal under the laws of this country and it is right that the PM should want to put this vile trade out of business.

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

Some good news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGi1lXYnVwM

Outstanding, even the car had a 'freedom sack' on. ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:30am:

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:45am: That is correct, yes. But Howard was also very good at picking on refugees, maintaining his credibility with bogans at the same time as catering to business by allowing legal immigration to continue unhindered. Bolt is a joke. If Howard allowed in record numbers of refugees, he could hardly be described as 'picking' on them. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Howard did have issues with the criminal smuggling gangs, and so he should have. Whether it's smuggling sex slaves, drugs, or other people doesn't matter. They are all illegal under the laws of this country and it is right that the PM should want to put this vile trade out of business.

I don't know whether he let in record numbers of refugees, but he certainly didn't hestitate scoring points with certain elements by trying to make a public image about looking 'tough' on them.

It speaks volumes about the cowardice of contemporary conservatism that you make a point of pointing out people smuggling and your desire to put an end to it as the reason you oppose the arrival of the boat people here. I couldn't give a crap whether or not these people are being shuffled around the ocean in a leaky boat. I just don't want them here because they are trash and I don't care about them. Focusing on the boat people ignores what should be our primary focus; the trend of legal immigration and refugees arriving here by plane.

aikmann4 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 5th, 2010 at 7:30am: aikmann4 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:45am: That is correct, yes. But Howard was also very good at picking on refugees, maintaining his credibility with bogans at the same time as catering to business by allowing legal immigration to continue unhindered. Bolt is a joke. If Howard allowed in record numbers of refugees, he could hardly be described as 'picking' on them. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Howard did have issues with the criminal smuggling gangs, and so he should have. Whether it's smuggling sex slaves, drugs, or other people doesn't matter. They are all illegal under the laws of this country and it is right that the PM should want to put this vile trade out of business. I don't know whether he let in record numbers of refugees, but he certainly didn't hestitate scoring points with certain elements by trying to make a public image about looking 'tough' on them. It speaks volumes about the cowardice of contemporary conservatism that you make a point of pointing out people smuggling and your desire to put an end to it as the reason you oppose the arrival of the boat people here. I couldn't give a crap whether or not these people are being shuffled around the ocean in a leaky boat. I just don't want them here because they are trash and I don't care about them. Focusing on the boat people ignores what should be our primary focus; the trend of legal immigration and refugees arriving here by plane.

Well he certainly would have scored a big fat zero if he allowed smugglers to continue their trade unopposed, so I don't know what real choice he had on the issue.
His political posturing at the time for the cameras was opportunistic as any 'good' politician would, but the need for him to act on the issue at the time was never in doubt.
And as far as I am aware, being an opportunist is not a crime.
Just imagine the thought of a few more boats sunk in international waters with no survivors, would have seen the lefties gnashing their teeth and demanding the government 'do something' and the wailing about the 'blood on the governments hands'.
How about  the thought of a terrorist act being carried out in our cities by people who lands unopposed on our beaches.
The reality is no country on the planet has an open door policy, let alone one as to allow unabated smuggling of people by criminals, so we were never ever really going to be the first.
Howards government allowed in 13,000 refugees and migrants in the year he effectively put the smugglers out of business when we only saw two illegal boat arrivals for that whole year.
So the facts do not back up any claim that Howard ever led a racist government.
I think you will find that federal governments of both persuasions review our immigration intake regularly, however they would have no control over visa overstayers that initially enter our country legally that make up the vast majority of asylum claims.

Quote:

So the facts do not back up any claim that Howard ever led a racist government.

You don't seem to get it Mr. Dynamic Lifter,

Imperium's criticism of John Howard is that he didn't enact racist [enough] policies. Imperium is a white power nutcase in case you hadn't noticed. Getting all cosey with a neo-Nazi there were you? Not surprising considering they're about an ant's whisker away from Zionism on the political spectrum.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Quote: So the facts do not back up any claim that Howard ever led a racist government. You don't seem to get it Mr. Dynamic Lifter, Imperium's criticism of John Howard is that he didn't enact racist [enough] policies. Imperium is a white power nutcase in case you hadn't noticed. Getting all cosey with a neo-Nazi there were you? Not surprising considering they're about an ant's whisker away from Zionism on the political spectrum.

You tell em brian.  Those nazis were ameteurs brian eh?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Quote: So the facts do not back up any claim that Howard ever led a racist government. You don't seem to get it Mr. Dynamic Lifter, Imperium's criticism of John Howard is that he didn't enact racist [enough] policies. Imperium is a white power nutcase in case you hadn't noticed. Getting all cosey with a neo-Nazi there were you? Not surprising considering they're about an ant's whisker away from Zionism on the political spectrum.

I am a palingenetic ethnic nationalist and bio/HBDpolitik advocate, not a neo-Nazi. I'm not interested in racial supremacy in the slightest as such a position cannot be logically supported by anything, nor would it be worth anybody's time even if it could. I suppose you could say I have been strongly inspired by the works of scholars like Frank Salter and consider myself somewhat of an isolationist (in terms of continued immigration and global affairs), which does not indicate an interest in supremacy or domination and enroachment on the soverignty of other people's. You're the one who has delusional, romantic fantasies about the Islamic Caliphrate awakening and conquering the entire world, bringing all dissenters and heretics under the aegis of a totalitarian, global Islam. My ideal notions regarding the rest of the world don't extend much further than "please just leave us alone, and likewise, we will leave you alone." On a personal level, I don't support the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or (coming soon), Persia, nor do I support aid to Israel or anywhere else for that matter. There is not a hint of supremacy in any of my real, non-caricactured views, though there is a desire to preserve my nation, ethny and its traditional values, which in many respects are little different from those promoted by the faith of Islam.

The problem is that you see people like myself as your mortal enemy simply because unlike the ineffectual conservative critics of your political religious ideology, I comprehend well how you and your pals operate and am unconstrained by the mental taboos imposed by political correctness to propose solutions, which are inherently effective and go far beyond perfunctory and pointless gestures like outlawing the wearing of the burqa, to resolving the Muslim Question. You can't yell foul when people imitate your hustle, Abu. You and your buddies are the masters of the hustle and I just want to learn from them and you.

Imperium, I thought I remembered you saying one time you were of Italian extraction? If so, then you should take your own advice and head back to mother Italy to be exclusively with those of your own genetic background.

Although I can understand your predicament, you feel like a lost little soul seeking 'sameness', but inevitably finding yourself drowning in a sea of 'difference', and dying to identify with others in a homogenous society.

Newsflash: Australia (and all other ex-colonies) are not homogenous societies, they have been from their very inception "mongrel mixing pots" (to use your kind of terminology). If you don't like it, then you're the one who should be migrating, elsewhere.

And they never will be.

If that's what you want, then you'd better pack your bags now and make plans for travel, back to wherever it is your genetic buddies live.

This nonsense that people like Salter are peddling about multicultural societies not being possible or natural is just that, nonsense. The Islamic Caliphate lasted for 1300~ years as a multi-ethnic state, and did it quite well. In fact the only time inter-ethnic tensions arose were in the early 20th. century when Europeans began instigating  them from the sidelines in order to bring down the Ottoman State, and divide the spoils amongst themselves.

So it seems it is a very European thing to do, not a naturally human one. About the best Salter seems to be able to do is to link himself with some supposed "primate ancestors" that apparently prove we're all inherently racist by nature. If your best argument is that you're an animal, and animals seek sameness, then you've lost then and there monkey-man, you'd better head back to the jungles.

Quote:

Imperium, I thought I remembered you saying one time you were of Italian extraction? If

Are you confusing me perhaps with Athos? I am Anglo-Saxon.


Quote:

This nonsense that people like Salter are peddling about multicultural societies not being possible or natural is just that, nonsense. The Islamic Caliphate lasted for 1300~ years as a multi-ethnic state, and did it quite well. In fact the only time inter-ethnic tensions arose were in the early 20th. century when Europeans began instigating  them from the sidelines in order to bring down the Ottoman State, and divide the spoils amongst themselves.

Nobody buys your propaganda about the harmonious Islamic golden age where all ethnies and racial groups lived in harmony without discord or ethnic conflict under the universalist, unifying and fundamentally truthful doctrine of Islam. I certainly don't.


Quote:

If your best argument is that you're an animal,

People naturally seek out those who are like themselves and generally are more comfortable in the midst of those who are like themselves. It is normal, natural and healthy to feel this way. Thinkingand feeling this does not mean that I harbor any sense of resentment, contempt or loathing for anybody else. I just feel I have good reason to suspect that nations operate far more effectively if they are filled primarily with people who are similiar, culturally and genetically. Ethnic conflict/nepotism and the erosion of interpersonal trust and community involvement have been indicated in systematic investigations of multiracial societies, which leads inquisitive individuals like myself to wonder why these phenomeona occur and whether or not it is a good idea to construct societies that go against things that are from my perspective, fundamentally a self evident aspect of human and animal psychology.

And yes, I am an animal. What's the big deal about that?

And anyway, why haven't you packed your bags and shipped on out to Saudi Arabia? Every post you make on this forum is some criticism of Western society/white people, oozing with palpable contempt of those who have not bought into your dogma. So perhaps you should mvoe, since you obviously don't feel quite at home here. Are you afraid how your Muslim brothers might treat an old white boy like you over there? Like they treat their Pakistani/Filipino foreign labourer underclasses, perhaps?

http://qatarsucks.com/

Quote:

Are you confusing me perhaps with Athos? I am Anglo-Saxon.

No, it was one of you white supremos. Maybe Aussie Nationalist... oh well, either way, scoot off back to Saxony or Angland then. Australia is not the place for Anglo-Saxon ethnic-isolationists like yourself, you're in the wrong place buddy.


Quote:

Nobody buys your propaganda about the harmonious Islamic golden age where all ethnies and racial groups lived in harmony without discord or ethnic conflict under the universalist, unifying and fundamentally truthful doctrine of Islam. I certainly don't.

Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

This is because Islam from the outset puts zero value on race. That doesn't mean one cannot appreciate their ancestral heritage, but it should never be a point of pride and boasting over. Muhammad (pbuh) taught this clearly from day 1 of his message, and the Muslims held onto this for most of their history. Today in the post-Caliphate period it has started to slip a little, but it's still there, and will definitely be part of the impending Islamic revival.


Quote:

People naturally seek out those who are like themselves and generally are more comfortable in the midst of those who are like themselves. It is normal, natural and healthy to feel this way.

Not me. I personally find being around all people of my own race boring, sorry. I am much more interested in interacting with different people than clones of myself. I do find myself more comfortable with people who hold the same morals and values as I do (whether of my own race or another), but it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin or their ethnic descent, it is to do with what's in their hearts and minds.


Quote:

Ethnic conflict/nepotism and the erosion of interpersonal trust and community involvement have been indicated in systematic investigations of multiracial societies, which leads inquisitive individuals like myself to wonder why these phenomeona occur

This has occurred to some degree in Western attempts to create multicultural societies, I agree, and that's because they are not based on the correct ideals, not because harmonious multicultural societies are not possible.

So you'd feel better having a white Anglo-Saxon neighbour who was a dope fiend and a thief, instead of a black Nigerian who was a model citizen and who shared similar feelings of community etc. to you?

That's not very logical, and I think you know it.

The fact is that Anglo-Saxon societies and their ex-colonies lost the feeling of community not because they mingled with other races, but because they abandoned the extended family structure. I think this would be obvious to anyone who seriously studied the facts and looked at what has caused "white" societies to break down. It's not the presence of non-whites in those societies, it's the lack of family structure, fist the de-generation into the "nuclear family" unit, and then even further into the "no family" unit we see today where families are not even recognisable as "nuclear families" anymore in many cases, let alone extended families.


Quote:

And yes, I am an animal. What's the big deal about that?

If you consider yourself an animal, then don't expect a say in the future of civilisation, you've forfeited that already with such a mentality. Better off heading back to the jungles of Africa where you think your ancestors came from and learning how to swing through the trees. That's what's best for your "survival".

Quote:

And anyway, why haven't you packed your bags and shipped on out to Saudi Arabia? Every post you make on this forum is some criticism of Western society/white people, oozing with palpable contempt of those who have not bought into your dogma. So perhaps you should mvoe, since you obviously don't feel quite at home here.

Never have I made any attack on "white people". As I said, I am not interested in what ethnicity someone is. I make attacks on ideals and concepts which I think are detrimental for humanity as a whole.


Quote:

Are you afraid how your Muslim brothers might treat an old white boy like you over there? Like they treat their Pakistani/Filipino foreign labourer underclasses, perhaps?

Actually, sadly, due to their colonised mindset, they treat us better. Much like everything else, you got that one upside-down, back-to-front, inside-out too.

Quote:

No, it was one of you white supremos

It wasn't me. At any rate, I have already explictly stated that I am not a white supremacist (and can explain why I think racial "supremacy" of any kind is illogical and baseless, but that won't stop you from calling me names, right?)


Quote:

Australia is not the place for Anglo-Saxon ethnic-isolationists like yourself, you're in the wrong place buddy.

But it is the place for deranged, estranged little weirdos who converted to some bizarre one thousand year old warrior cult that is completely alien and historically at odds with everything that is already here, right?


Quote:

This has occurred to some degree in Western attempts to create multicultural societies, I agree, and that's because they are not based on the correct ideals,

Yes.. the correct ideal is.. Islam, right? ::)


Quote:

So you'd feel better having a white Anglo-Saxon neighbour who was a dope fiend and a thief, instead of a black Nigerian who was a model citizen and who shared similar feelings of community etc. to you?

No. But I would prefer a neighbour who was white, Anglo-Saxon who was a model citizen and shared similar feelings of community to me to a black Nigerian who was likewise these things. This is much more complicated than you, and your proposed hypothetical, are making it out to be however.

I'm sorry if these responses have been crummy, rushed and have omitted replying to many of your cardinal points, but I just don't have the heart in me anymore to make effortful posts. I prefer to just write on my blog now. I can't get into arguments with you on Islam anyway since you know so much more about it than me. I'm only just getting into sociobiology since I've spent the last year or so reading a lot about intelligence. After that I want to get into some reading about Islam itself.

Thanks for the discussion.

Quote:

I am not a white supremacist

Well nowadays most white supremos don't like to admit they're white supremos do they? Not very kosher anymore to do that now is it?

That's why many of the white supremos have gone undercover and publicly withhold their hatred for Jews and blacks [for now] and just express it under the guise of "challenging Islam's supremacist and extremist ideology", which has become a perfectly acceptable form of hatred in today's fear-driven climate.


Quote:

But it is the place for deranged, estranged little weirdos who converted to some bizarre one thousand year old warrior cult that is completely alien and historically at odds with everything that is already here, right?

You mean as opposed to how our ancestors treated those they found here when they arrived? Bit of poetic justice isn't it?


Quote:

Yes.. the correct ideal is.. Islam, right?

Correct! And I hope one day you come to realise it. I think you have somewhere deep in you the yearning to realise it, but you're too caught up in all your ethno-centric woes to accept it.


Quote:

No. But I would prefer a neighbour who was white, Anglo-Saxon who was a model citizen and shared similar feelings of community to me to a black Nigerian who was likewise these things.

Why? What benefit do you get out of that? How does the colour of his skin bring anything extra to the table? Would it help if he was an albino?  ;D


Quote:

I'm sorry if these responses have been crummy, rushed and have omitted responding to many of your cardinal points

Well that'd make them par for the course in these parts.

But actually no, I found your responses today at least to be a little more honest. You at least now admit that your aspirations in Australia are doomed to failure. When will you accept it means packing up and going back to the Anglo-Saxon heartland though?

I would like to see your response to my point about the breakdown of the extended family (and then the nuclear family) in Western societies though, and it's impact on communities.

Nobody buys your propaganda about the harmonious Islamic golden age where all ethnies and racial groups lived in harmony without discord or ethnic conflict under the universalist, unifying and fundamentally truthful doctrine of Islam. I certainly don't.

- Imperium


Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

- Abu in response to Imperium

WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!

HOW DARE YOU POST SUCH ROT!

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT THE AMOUNT OF RUBBISH SPEWING FROM YOUR MOUTH COULDN'T GET ANY WORSE.

YOU S  HIT DAILY ALL OVER OZ CULTURE .. AND NOW YOU'RE REWRITING HISTORY.

HOW DARE YOU!

MOST OF MY (GREEK) ANCESTORS WERE EXTERMINATED BY THE OTTOMANS YOU VILE MAN!

YOU REALLY MAKE ME FEEL ILL.

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

THERE'S HEAPS MORE COMING OUT .. RE THE GREEK/PONTIAN HOLOCAUST WHICH THE MUSLIM OTTOMANS CAUSED.

THE TRUTH IS .. THE ARMENIANS SUFFERED, LATER THE GREEKS AND LATER ON HITLER SAW FIT TO USE THE OTTOMAN METHODS OF GENOCIDE ON THE JEWS.

MY FAMILY TREE IS A MESS THANKS TO THE OTTOMANS .. I LOST SO MANY GRAND AUNTS AND GRAND UNCLES .. LOST SO MANY COUSINS .. MANY WERE JUST BABIES WHO WERE SHOT AS THEY FLED FROM YOUR MUSLIM OTTOMANS.

MY GRANDMOTHER SAW HER HUSBAND BEING MURDERED AS SHE FLED FOR HER LIFE CARRYING BABIES .. AND AS PEOPLE FLED FOR THEIR LIVES MANY RELATIVES COULDN'T CARRY THEIR BABIES BECAUSE OF EXHAUSTION AND LACK OF FOOD AND WATER AND MANY SUFFERED FROM DYSENTERY AFTER EATING WILD FRUIT AND FILTHY WATER ( WHY?  ALL THEY COULD FIND ) AS THEY FLED. THOSE WHO COULDN'T FLEE FAST ENOUGH WERE LEFT BEHIND SHRUBS .. MANY BABIES WERE ESSENTIALLY LEFT TO DIE THIS WAY.

YOU KNOW ONLY ONE OF MY LITTLE COUSINS SURVIVED .. HER NAME WAS ELISA (I WAS NAMED AFTER THIS BRAVE WOMAN) AND EVEN SHE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK BY ONE OF YOUR PEACE LOVING PEOPLE. ONLY SHE WAS ABLE TO SURVIVE AND SHE TOLD ALL THAT SHE SAW. .. AND YOU KNOW WHAT .. SHE ONLY DIED A FEW YEARS BACK ... AND SHE TOLD ME ALL THAT SHE SAW. SHE NEVER FORGOT THE TRAUMA OF SEEING HER FAMILY MURDERED ALL AROUND HER. THE POOR CHILD PLAYED DEAD AFTER SHE WAS SHOT IN THE BACK .. THEN ONCE SHE HEARD THE OTTOMANS LEAVE SHE SLOWLY GOT UP AND KEPT WALKING UNTIL SOMEONE RECOGNISED HER AND WAS ABLE TO HELP HER.  

SO DON'T YOU DARE REWRITE HISTORY ABU. DON'T YOU DARE.

AND THERE IS NO WAY I'M GOING TO SIT BACK AND PRETEND YOU'VE NOT POSTED YOUR HOLOCAUST DENIAL DRIVEN DRIBBLE.

OK .. I'M DONE NOW.

I'M OUT OF HERE .. I FEEL FILTHY NOW FOR HAVING POSTED IN HERE.

KEEP HAMMERING IMPERIUM!

NIGHT!

PS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I'M INFORMING THE SITE MODS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND APART FROM THAT I'VE ONLY ONE THING LEFT TO TELL YOU .. MAY GOD TRULY HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL ABU.

Quote:

You at least now admit that your aspirations in Australia are doomed to failure.

When did I admit that?


Quote:

Well nowadays most white supremos don't like to admit they're white supremos do they? Not very kosher anymore to do that now is it?

When have I ever backed down from being controversial? ::)

I sincerely and openly say some of the most politically incorrect, incendiary things without hesitation. If I was a supremacist I would simply admit it. I just consider it a logically impossible position.


Quote:

That's why many of the white supremos have gone undercover and publicly withhold their hatred for Jews and blacks [for now] and just express it under the guise of "challenging Islam's supremacist and extremist ideology", which has become a perfectly acceptable form of hatred in today's fear-driven climate.

Is this unrelated to our chat here or are you lumping me in with these types?


Quote:

Well that'd make them par for the course in these parts.

Wouldn't know. I've tuned out to most of the discussions of Islam on here. I only pop in to them to read Karnal's Karzai fanfiction.

Quote:

I would like to see your response to my point about the breakdown of the extended family (and then the nuclear family) in Western societies though, and it's impact on communities.

It does not necessarily mean that the (detected) deleterious effects of ethnic heterogeneity are merely proxying the breakdown of the extended family, but what do you want me to say about this? That it's a good thing and a triumph for Western individualism and female rights and whatnot? Are you confusing me with a liberal, Abu?

Western generations are definitely getting smaller...
In my grandparents' generation, 6-8 children was normal...
In my parents' generation, 4-6 children was the norm...
In my generation, 3-4 children was typical...
In my childrens' generation, 0-2 children is common...
Many children are growing up with no siblings...
Many of these only children also have no cousins...
Little wonder, that lack of sharing and empathy are becoming rife...

In response to Lisa's usual emotional-rant nonsense.

The claims by Greeks, although they might have some basis in fact, are extremely over-inflated and are not heavily supported by third party witnesses. The only "evidence" for them is the claims by Greek nationalists themselves, many of whom were themselves murderous thieves that terrorised the Ottoman populations of lands the Ottoman State was forced to withdraw from.

There are abundant documented third party eyewitness accounts from other Europeans and from Greeks themselves who saw the inhuman horrors some Greeks perpetrated against the Ottoman citizens who were left behind.

Here's a few accounts, and I warn you, some of them are just sickening, that a human being could carry out such activities just leaves one speechless:

British historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that there were organized atrocities since the Greek occupation of Smyrna on the 15 May 1919. Toynbee also stated that he and his wife were witnesses to the atrocities perpetrated by Greeks in the Yalova, Gemlik, and Izmit areas and they not only obtained abundant material evidence in the shape of "burnt and plundred houses, recent corpses, and terror stricken survivors" but also witnessed robbery by Greek civilians and arsons by Greek soldiers in uniform in the act of perpetration. Toynbee wrote:

"No sooner had they landed than they began a ruthless warfare against the Turkish population, not omitting the commission of atrocities in the worst Near Eastern manner, they laid waste the fertile Maender Valley, and forced thousands of homeless Turks to take refuge beyond the occupied area".

Historian Taner Akcam noted that a British officer claimed:

"The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks...The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state...There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression, and they have continued to burn villages, kill Turks and rape and kill women and young girls and throttle to death children".

Inter-Allied commission in the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula, in their report of the 23rd May 1921, during the Greek occupation of western Anatolia, wrote that:

"A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months, which destruction has even reached the neighbourhood of the Greek headquarters. The members of the Commission consider that, in the part of the kazas of Yalova and Gemlik occupied by the Greek army, there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops".

Inter Allied commission also stated that the destruction of villages and the disappearance of the Muslim population might have at its objective to create in this region a political situation favourable to the Greek Government.
M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross who accompanied the Inter-Allied Commission wrote as follows:

"...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula. The facts established -burning of villages, massacres, terror of the inhabitants, coincidence of place and date- leave no room for doubt in regard to this. The atrocities which we have seen, or of which we have seen the material evidence, were the work of irregular bands of armed civilians(tcheti) and of organised units of the regular army...Instead of being disarmed and broken up, the bands have been assisted in their activities and have collaborated hand in hand with organised units of regulars".

Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that they obtained convincing evidence that similar atrocities had been started in wide areas all over the remainder of the Greek occupied territories since June 1921. Toynbee argued that: " the situation of the Turks in Smyrna City had become what could be called without exaggeration a 'reign of terror', it was to be inferred that their treatment in the country districts had grown worse in proportion."

According to a number of sources, the retreating Greek army carried out a scorched-earth policy while fleeing from Anatolia during the final phase of the war. Historian of the Middle East, Sydney Nettleton Fisher wrote that:

"The Greek army in retreat pursued a burned-earth policy and committed every known outrage against defenceless Turkish villagers in its path"

TBC...

James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in Constantinople at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns of İzmir he has seen, as follows:

"Manisa...almost completely wiped out by fire...10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas...[destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Muslims. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete. Alasehir, hand pumps were used to soak the walls of the buildings with Kerosene. As we examined the ruins of the city, we discovered a number of skulls and bones, charred and black, with remnants of hair and flesh clinging to them. Upon our insistence a number of graves having a fresh-made appearance were actually opened for us as we were fully satisfied that these bodies were not more than four weeks old.[the time of the Greek retreat through Alasehir]"

It is estimated some 3,000 lives had been lost in the burning of Alaşehir alone. In one of the examples of the Greek atrocities during the retreat, on 14 February 1922, in the Turkish village of Karatepe in Aydin Vilayeti, after being surrounded by the Greeks, all the inhabitants were put into the mosque, then the mosque was burned. The few who escaped fire were shot. The Italian consul, M. Miazzi, reported that he had just visited a Turkish village, where Greeks had slaughtered some sixty women and children. This report was then corroborated by Captain Kocher, the French consul.

The Siege of Tripolitsa or the Fall of Tripolitsa (Greek: Άλωση της Τριπολιτσάς) to Greek rebels in the summer of 1821 marked one of the first victories in the Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire, which had begun earlier in that year.
It is notorious for the massacre of its Turkish and Jewish population - the Massacre of Tripolitsa, which occurred after the city's fall to the Greeks. As historian of the war W. Alison Phillips noted, "the other atrocities of Greeks paled before the awful scenes which followed the storming of Tripolitza".

Describing the massacres that occurred following the capture of Tripolitsa, W. Alison Phillips noted that:

"For three days the miserable inhabitants were given over to lust and cruelty of a mob of savages. Neither sex nor age was spared. Women and children were tortured before being put to death. So great was the slaughter that Kolokotronis himself says that, from the gate to the citadel his horse’s hoofs never touched the ground. His path of triumph was carpeted with corpses. At the end of two days, the wretched remnant of the Mussulmans were deliberately collected, to the number of some two thousand souls, of every age and sex, but principally women and children, were led out to a ravine in the neighboring mountains and there butchered like cattle."

There were about a hundred European officers who were present at the scenes of atrocities committed in Tripolitsa. Based on the eye witness accounts and descriptions provided by these officers, William St. Clair wrote:

"Upwards of ten thousand Turks were put to death. Prisoners who were suspected of having concealed their money were tortured. Their arms and legs were cut off and they were slowly roasted over fires. Pregnant women were cut open, their heads cut off, and dogs' heads stuck between their legs. From Friday to Sunday the air was filled with the sound of screams... One Greek boasted that he personally killed ninety people. The Jewish colony was systematically tortured... For weeks afterwards starving Turkish children running helplessly about the ruins were being cut down and shot at by exultant Greeks... The wells were poisoned by the bodies that had been thrown in..."

According to another historian of the Greek revolt, William St. Clair, upwards of twenty thousand Turkish men, women and children were killed by their Greek neighbors in a few weeks of slaughter. William St. Clair also argued that: "with the beginning of the revolt, the bishops and priests exhorted their parishioners to exterminate infidel Moslems." St. Clair wrote:

"The Turks of Greece left few traces. They disappeared suddenly and finally in the spring of 1821 unmourned and unnoticed by the rest of the world....It was hard to believe then that Greece once contained a large population of Turkish descent, living in small communities all over the country, prosperous farmers, merchants, and officials, whose families had known no other home for hundreds of years...They were killed deliberately, without qualm or scruple, and there was no regrets either then or later."

TBC...

Up to 30,000 Turks were killed in Tripolitsa, including the entire Jewish population. Steven Bowman claims that despite the fact that the Jews were murdered, they were not targeted specifically: "Such a tragedy seems to be more a side-effect of the butchering of the Turks of Tripolis, the last Ottoman stronghold in the South where the Jews had taken refuge from the fighting, than a specific action against Jews per se."

Navarino Massacre was one of a series of massacres that occurred following the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence, which resulted in the extermination of the Turkish civilian population previously inhabiting the region following the killing of its originally Greek population.

Before Navarin capitulated, many Turkish families had been compelled by hunger to escape and throw themselves at the mercy of Greeks of the neighbourhood. However, they were massacred. The Turks, who were at the last extremity of starvation, offered to surrender. The Greeks proposed a convention whereby surrendering Turks would be granted secure passage to Egypt. When the capitulation was concluded, the Turks in the city gave up all the public property in the fortress, and all their money, plate, and jewels. However the Greeks had neither the intention nor even the means of providing this promised secure passage . One of the Greek negotiators, Poniropoulos, boasted some years later to General Gordon that he destroyed the copy of capitulation given to Turks so that no proof would remain of any such transaction having been concluded.

When the gates opened on the 19 August 1821, the Greeks rushed in and the whole population numbering around 3000 were killed with the exception of 160 who managed to escape.
Historian George Finlay noted that a Greek priest, named Phrantzes, was an eyewitness to the massacres. Based on the descriptions provided by Phrantzes, he wrote:

"Women, wounded with musketballs and sabre-cuts, rushed to the sea, seeking to escape, and were deliberately shot. Mothers with infants in their arms were robbed of their clothes, and ran into the sea as the only place of concealment, yet while crouching in the water they were fired on by inhuman riflemen. Greeks seized infants from their mother's breasts and dashed them against rocks. Children, three and four years old, were hurled living into the sea and left to drown. When the massacre was ended, the dead bodies washed ashore, or piled on the beach, threatened to cause a pestilence..."

Had enough to really make you sick yet? Slitting open the stomachs of decaptitated pregnant women, stuffing dogs heads between their legs, dashing little infants against rocks, hurling young kids into the sea enough to make you sick is it? Or are you content just clinging onto the Chinese whispers of your family? Completely oblivious to the reality of what occurred at the hands of your own people.

I'll leave you with the statement of William St. Clair regarding the complete and utter extermination of the Muslims of Greece: "The orgy of genocide exhausted itself in the Peloponnese only when there were no more Turks to kill."

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarino_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Tripoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)#Greek_massacres_of_Turks

In response to Lisa's usual emotional-rant nonsense....

- Abu

Save it .. not interested in your attempts to rescript my posts .. or history for that matter.

Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

- Abu to Iperium

Oh and one more thing .. I was responding to the nonsense you posted earlier to Imperium.

Now ... about the racial harmony bla bla bla you dreamed up in that post. Seriously Abu .. do you actually THINK before you post.  I highly doubt it!

Have a look back .. your OWN posts actually contradict you .. and it's pathetic to see! I certainly don't enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself like this.

I pity you .. to be brutally honest.

You know Abu .. my Greek ancestors fled as refugees .. and most were murdered by Muslim Ottomans as they fled.

The term for this event is now recognised as the GREEK GENOCIDE perpetrated by your peace loving Muslim Ottomans.

You can deny it all you like .. the rest of the world KNOWS it happened.


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

During World War I and its aftermath (1914–1923), the government of the Ottoman Empire instigated a violent campaign against the Greek  population of the Empire. The campaign included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches, and summary expulsions. According to various sources, several hundred thousand Ottoman Greeks died during this period. Some of the survivors and expelled, especially those in Eastern provinces, took refuge in the neighbouring Russian Empire. However, after the end of the 1919–22 Greco-Turkish War most of the Greeks migrated or were transferred to Greece under the terms of the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey.

The government of Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, maintains that the large-scale campaign was triggered by the perception that the Greek population was sympathetic to the enemies of the Ottoman state. The Allies of World War I took a different view, condemning the Ottoman government-sponsored massacres as crimes against humanity. More recently, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in 2007 affirming that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Greeks, was genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide, as have the parliaments of Greece, Cyprus and Sweden.

In the summer of 1914 the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa), assisted by government and army officials, conscripted Greek men of military age from Thrace and western Anatolia into labor battalions in which hundreds of thousands died. Sent hundreds of miles into the Interior of Anatolia, these conscripts were employed in road-making, building, tunnel excavating and other field work but their numbers were heavily reduced through either privations and ill-treatment or by outright massacre by their Turkish guards.This program of forced conscription later expanded to other regions of the Empire including Pontus.

Conscription of Greek men was supplemented by massacres and by deportations involving death marches of the general population. Greek villages and towns would be surrounded by Turks and their inhabitants massacred[citation needed]. Such was the story in Phocaea (Greek: Φώκαια), a town in western Anatolia twenty-five miles northwest of Smyrna, on 12 June 1914 where the slain bodies of men, women and children were thrown down a well.

In July 1915 the Greek chargé d'affaires explained that the deportations "can not be any other issue than an annihilation war against the Greek nation in Turkey and as measures hereof they have been implementing forced conversions to Islam, in obvious aim to, that if after the end of the war there again would be a question of European intervention for the protection of the Christians, there will be as few of them left as possible.According to George W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office, by 1918 "... over 500,000 Greeks were deported of whom comparatively few survived. In his memoirs, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire between 1913 and 1916 wrote "Everywhere the Greeks were gathered in groups and, under the so-called protection of Turkish gendarmes, they were transported, the larger part on foot, into the interior. Just how many were scattered in this fashion is not definitely known, the estimates varying anywhere from 200,000 up to 1,000,000."

On 14 January 1917 Cosswa Anckarsvärd, Sweden’s Ambassador to Constantinople, sent a dispatch regarding the deportation decision of the Ottoman Greeks:

What above all appears as an unnecessary cruelty is that the deportation is not limited to the men alone, but is extended likewise to women and children. This is supposedly done in order to much easier be able to confiscate the property of the deported.

Methods of destruction which caused death indirectly - such as deportations involving death marches, starvation in labour camps, concentration camps etc. - were referred to as "white massacres".

The Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 saw charges brought against a number of leading Turkish officials for their part in ordering massacres against both Greeks and Armenians.

In an October 1920 report a British officer describes the aftermath of the massacres at Iznik in north-western Anatolia in which he estimated that at least 100 decomposed mutilated bodies of men, women and children were present in and around a large cave about 300 yards outside the city walls.

In 1917 a relief organization by the name of the Relief Committee for Greeks of Asia Minor was formed in response to the deportations and massacres of Greeks in Turkey. The committee worked in cooperation with the Near East Relief in distributing aid to Ottoman Greeks in Thrace and Asia Minor.

Contemporary accounts

German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, as well as the 1922 memorandum compiled by George W. Rendel on "Turkish Massacres and Persecutions", have provided evidence for series of systematic massacres of the Greeks in Asia Minor. The quotes have been attributed to various diplomats, notably the German ambassadors Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim and Richard von Kühlmann, the German vice-consul in Samsoun Kuchhoff, Austria's ambassador Pallavicini and Samsoun consul Ernst von Kwiatkowski, and the Italian unofficial agent in Angora Signor Tuozzi. Other quotes are from clergymen and activists, notably the German missionary Johannes Lepsius, and Stanley Hopkins of the Near East Relief. It must be noted that Germany and Austria-Hungary were allies of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

The accounts describe systematic massacres, rapes and burnings of Greek villages, and attribute intent to Turkish officials, namely the Turkish Prime Minister Mahmud Sevket Pasha, Rafet Bey, Talat Pasha and Enver Pasha.[11][20][21]

Additionally, The New York Times and its correspondents have made extensive references to the events, recording massacres, deportations, individual killings, rapes, burning of entire Greek villages, destruction of Greek Orthodox churches and monasteries, drafts for "Labor Brigades", looting, terrorism and other "atrocities" for Greek, Armenian and also for British and American citizens and government officials. The newspaper was awarded its first Pulitzer Prize in 1918 "for the most disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by an American newspaper—complete and accurate coverage of the war".More media of the time reported the events with similar titles.

Henry Morgenthau, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916 accused the "Turkish government" of a campaign of "outrageous terrorizing, cruel torturing, driving of women into harems, debauchery of innocent girls, the sale of many of them at 80 cents each, the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to and starvation in the desert of other hundreds of thousands, [and] the destruction of hundreds of villages and many cities", all part of "the willful execution" of a "scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Christians of Turkey."[26]

United States Consul-General George Horton reports that "[o]ne of the cleverest statements circulated by the Turkish propagandists is to the effect that the massacred Christians were as bad as their executioners, that it was '50-50.' ".

Now have a read of this Abu ... look at what Greeks were doing back home ..

" As an eye-witness, he also praises Greeks for their "conduct toward the thousands of Turks residing in Greece, while the ferocious massacres were going on...", which, according to his opinion, was "one of the most inspiring and beautiful chapters in all that country’s history

Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

- Abu to Iperium

You were saying Abu??

You do realise that ANYONE who dares to enter this topic is now able to see .. well unless they can resist the urge to put skewers through their eyes on a/c of the dangerous drivel you've been posting .. YOUR above statement is rubbish of the highest order.

And the most amazing thing is .. your own posts have subsequently proven this to be the case.

Bottom line?? Don't attempt to re script modern history thinking people who post on these boards will take it lying down .... particularly where you feel the urge to remove historical facts of genocide so as to replace these with your imagined concocted delusions of racial harmony in their stead.

It's not on my dear friend .. not while I am alive. I trust I have NOW made my position very clear to you.

If you're trying to suggest that the deaths which were mostly "death by neglect" that some Christian subjects of the Ottoman State suffered DURING a time in which Christian nations were surrounding it from all sides attacking and trying to dismember it (and some Christian citizens were assisting this from within) even remotely compares to decapitating and slitting open the bellies of pregnant women, dashing infants against rocks, hurling toddlers into the sea and all the other brutal inhumanity the Greeks (and other Christian nations) committed against their Muslim populations then you've seriously got rocks in your head.

My guess is, up until yesterday you were completely ignorant to the realities of what actually happened and have now gotten yourself into a bit of a situation here. I know you can't defend it, because anyone with a shred of humanity in them couldn't. The two sides of this situation are on complete opposite ends of the scale.

One is a case of orgies of massacres of innocent civilians in the most brutal and gut-wrenching manners by soldiers and civilians alike, whilst the other is the case of a state trying to quell an internal population that was often assisting invading forces. Perhaps they overstepped the boundaries on occasion but certainly nothing even remotely like what your people did.

Honestly you should be deeply ashamed of your ancestry, not proud of it. What the Greeks and other Christians did was simply not human.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Quote: So the facts do not back up any claim that Howard ever led a racist government. You don't seem to get it Mr. Dynamic Lifter, Imperium's criticism of John Howard is that he didn't enact racist [enough] policies. Imperium is a white power nutcase in case you hadn't noticed. Getting all cosey with a neo-Nazi there were you? Not surprising considering they're about an ant's whisker away from Zionism on the political spectrum.

Well perhaps you would be better off taking that up with him then.

Maybe the Assyrians killed themselves.

Karnal, the Assyrians who died unfortunately were marched to their deaths in most cases, as they were being exiled. That's not a nice thing to have happened to them, and I can't make excuses for it, but it certainly pales in comparison to what the Christians did to the Muslims in those times.

And I don't see the home of hypocrisy, France, making any laws to make denial of those atrocities a crime.

Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

- Abu to Iperium

You do realise that since you posted the above rubbish of the highest order .. and it is exactly that .. you've actually contradicted yourself and back peddled.

That alone tells me everything I need to know.

Seems I have successfully challenged you yet again.

Tip? Don't attempt to rescript modern history. As you can see .. it only makes you look more silly.

God bless

Lisa

Quote:

The Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 saw charges brought against a number of leading Turkish officials for their part in ordering massacres against both Greeks and Armenians.

As opposed to the Greeks who were considered national heroes for having done far far worse.

Anyway unless you're about to commence providing a justification for the dashing of infants against rocks, hurling of toddlers into the sea or decapitation and splitting open of the bellies of pregnant women and all the other horrific things the Christians did to the Muslims, then I think you officially got rolled here.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 6:32pm:

Karnal, the Assyrians who died unfortunately were marched to their deaths in most cases, as they were being exiled. That's not a nice thing to have happened to them, and I can't make excuses for it, but it certainly pales in comparison to what the Christians did to the Muslims in those times. And I don't see the home of hypocrisy, France, making any laws to make denial of those atrocities a crime.

Abu, I know there's always two sides to every story, but can you give any previous examples of approximately 3 million Muslims being round up, shot and having their villages razed in a similar time frame?

Big Donger wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 10:49am:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 6:32pm: Karnal, the Assyrians who died unfortunately were marched to their deaths in most cases, as they were being exiled. That's not a nice thing to have happened to them, and I can't make excuses for it, but it certainly pales in comparison to what the Christians did to the Muslims in those times. And I don't see the home of hypocrisy, France, making any laws to make denial of those atrocities a crime. Abu, I know there's always two sides to every story, but can you give any previous examples of approximately 3 million Muslims being round up, shot and having their villages razed in a similar time frame?

It happens all the time!!!

It's just that the biased western media don't report it and the history books are being constantly re-written by the jooos. WHere have you been???

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Big Donger wrote on Oct 8th, 2010 at 10:49am: abu_rashid wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 6:32pm: Karnal, the Assyrians who died unfortunately were marched to their deaths in most cases, as they were being exiled. That's not a nice thing to have happened to them, and I can't make excuses for it, but it certainly pales in comparison to what the Christians did to the Muslims in those times. And I don't see the home of hypocrisy, France, making any laws to make denial of those atrocities a crime. Abu, I know there's always two sides to every story, but can you give any previous examples of approximately 3 million Muslims being round up, shot and having their villages razed in a similar time frame? It happens all the time!!! It's just that the biased western media don't report it and the history books are being constantly re-written by the jooos. WHere have you been???

And neither does the biased Arab Eastern media.
It's simply amazing, damn jews control them too.
My chooks didn't lay eggs this morning.
Damn jews.
Is their nothing these people won't stoop to.

The Jews aren't entirely innocent. They did kill Jesus, after all.

Big Donger wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 2:39pm:

The Jews aren't entirely innocent. They did kill Jesus, after all.

Excellent, even though it was over 1960 years ago, and it only involved a few of them we can damn millions of them today who had nothing to do with it.
And we can also forget about the Romans, who actually did the deed.
Damn jews.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Big Donger wrote on Oct 8th, 2010 at 2:39pm: The Jews aren't entirely innocent. They did kill Jesus, after all. Excellent, even though it was over 1960 years ago, and it only involved a few of them we can damn millions of them today who had nothing to do with it. And we can also forget about the Romans, who actually did the deed. Damn jews.

You are correct. Pontious pilate washed his hands and the Jews all said "crucify Him! Crucify Him!"

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 6:01am:

Quote: The Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 saw charges brought against a number of leading Turkish officials for their part in ordering massacres against both Greeks and Armenians. As opposed to the Greeks who were considered national heroes for having done far far worse. Anyway unless you're about to commence providing a justification for the dashing of infants against rocks, hurling of toddlers into the sea or decapitation and splitting open of the bellies of pregnant women and all the other horrific things the Christians did to the Muslims, then I think you officially got rolled here.

It is gratifying to see that you have all but retreated to your 'islam' banlieu and rarely venture off that fascist reservation.
When you do, people pelt you with contempt.

Quote:

Abu, I know there's always two sides to every story, but can you give any previous examples of approximately 3 million Muslims being round up, shot and having their villages razed in a similar time frame?

It's estimated well over 2 million Muslims were massacred by the Christian successor states in former Ottoman territory.

Are you claiming 3 million Christians were killed by the Ottomans? Can you provide some documented evidence for this?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2010 at 6:39am:

Quote: Abu, I know there's always two sides to every story, but can you give any previous examples of approximately 3 million Muslims being round up, shot and having their villages razed in a similar time frame? It's estimated well over 2 million Muslims were massacred by the Christian successor states in former Ottoman territory. Are you claiming 3 million Christians were killed by the Ottomans? Can you provide some documented evidence for this?

The same "documentary source" that allows you to say, without batting an eyelid, that "It's estimated well over 2 million Muslims were massacred by the Christian successor states in former Ottoman territory."

The same "documentary source" that allows you to say, without batting an eyelid, that "It's estimated well over 2 million Muslims were massacred by the Christian successor states in former Ottoman territory."

- Soren

Bravo! Well said Soren!

It's probably the same "documentary source" which enables Abu to state this:

Well perhaps you don't buy it, since you have an agenda for refusing to accept it, but it's a fact, and an historical reality that it did exist. One only needs to look at the list of Ottoman Grand Wazirs (Prime Ministers) for instance to see how multi-ethnic the state was even just for the 700 or so years the Ottoman dynasty dominated it. From Serbs to Turks to Armenians to Arabs to Persians to Macedonians to Greeks to etc. etc. Even critics of the Ottoman State admit that in terms of racial harmony, it was a rarity amongst the states of the world.

- Abu to Iperium



.. when in actual FACT .. a series of genocides took place compliments of the Ottoman Muslim Turks.

Unfortunately for Abu .. these genocides are well documented, world recognised historical events.

Regards

Lisa

Oh .. just caught this:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/82#82


Reply #82 - Today at 1:38pm

Abu, can you explain where it is recommended

- FD


Nope, I've just heard it from word of mouth that some legal scholars have stated ....

In the absence of actual textual evidence ...

- Abu


Perhaps this post provides the missing clue re Abu's sources ???

Although I much prefer to think he relies on the highly esteemed and often referred to work of  Dr K C Flakes.

Quote:

The same "documentary source" that allows you to say, without batting an eyelid, that "It's estimated well over 2 million Muslims were massacred by the Christian successor states in former Ottoman territory."

The massacres of Muslims were witnessed and recorded by numerous independant third parties. The claimed massacres of Greeks were mostly claims by nationalist fanatics, with little or no evidence to back it up.

And there's certainly no evidence of the kinds of inhuman stuff described above that was committed against the Muslims, and which continues to be committed until this day, recently in Bosnia and in Chechnya.

Sigh .. more rubbish!

zczcz

Turkish army chiefs shun ceremony over headscarf
Published Date: October 31, 2010
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/upload/img_pict/regional4b5252.jpg
ANKARA: On Turkey's anniversary celebrations, all eyes were on the head of the president's wife. In a gesture that strikes at the heart of a wrenching debate over secularism and piety, Hayrunnisa Gul wore an Islamic headscarf at a reception Friday marking the founding of modern Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - whose secular principles are revered by the nation's traditional establishment with almost religious fervor. Across town, at around the same time, the military - which sees itself as the guardian of Ataturk's legacy - held its own Republic Day fete in a scheduling conflict symbolic of the divide between the elected, Islamic-leaning government and opponents who fear secular ideals are in peril.

...

The headscarf is an explosive issue in Turkey, where government supporters view it as an essential emblem of piety, and opponents see it as an ominous symbol of political Islam. Female students and civil servants are barred from wearing it in schools and offices, but many universities have relaxed the ban under a government that says the rules deprive devout women of the right to jobs and education.

The debate touches on broader issues about the direction of conflicted yet increasingly confident Turkey, a regional power and NATO member that asserts its outreach to Iran and harsh criticism of Israel do not mean it is turning away from Cold War-era alliances with the West. Turkey, struggling to join the European Union, has become a freer, richer place during the 8-year tenure of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but he has been unable to shake a minority's suspicions that he is steering the country toward an Islamic way of life.

-------------------------------


And Turkey wants to join the EU.   ::)

Female students and civil servants are barred from wearing it in schools and offices eh???

LOL .. interesting to note :)

Quote:

And Turkey wants to join the EU.

Most Turks do NOT want to join the EU.

Previous governments have expressed an interest to, but I think that window of opportunity is fast fading. Erdogan is looking more towards the Muslim world, giving Europe the snub.

Why be the footstool of Europe when he can be the head of the Middle East?


Quote:

LOL .. interesting to note

Yes Lisa take note, that treacherous Western-installed regimes in the Muslim world have outlawed even basic Islamic dress codes. Think about why...

P.S Tunisia is the other country where such a ban exists also.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 31^st, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Quote: And Turkey wants to join the EU. Most Turks do NOT want to join the EU.

Good news. Send them home from all the European countries  then.


Quote:

Why be the footstool of Europe when he can be the head of the Middle East?

Well, they'll have to fight the Persians for that privilege first, as always, even under Ottoman rule.

Quote:

Send them home from all the European countries  then.

The Turks (and other Muslims) who live in Europe live in the respective countries as citizens of those countries, just as Christians live in the Middle East as citizens of those countries. Why would they "go home" when they are in their home?


Quote:

Well, they'll have to fight the Persians for that privilege first, as always, even under Ottoman rule.

Not too sharp with your history are you? The Ottomans ruled all the Middle East and had no problem from the Persians at all, apart from the occasional border skirmish. The Persians never had any control over the Middle East since the dawn of Islam.

The term Turco–Persian Wars can refer to two sets of conflicts:

The wars of the Central Asian Göktürks against the Sassanid Empire

First Perso-Turkic War (588)
Second Perso-Turkic War (619)
Third Perso-Turkic War (627-629)


The Ottoman–Persian Wars between the Ottoman Empire and a succession of Persian dynasties
Battle of Chaldiran (1514)
Ottoman-Safavid War (1532–1555)
Ottoman–Safavid War (1578–1590)
Ottoman–Safavid War (1603–1618)
Ottoman–Safavid War (1623–1639)
Ottoman-Safavid War (1722–1727)
Ottoman-Afsharid War (1730-1736)
Ottoman-Afsharid War (1743-1746)
Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823)


ANd that's just from Wiki.

Quote:

Good news. Send them home from all the European countries  then.

Now we're talkin'! :D

Keep a couple around for kebabs though.

Quote:

The wars of the Central Asian Göktürks against the Sassanid Empire

Pre-Islam and not relating to the Middle East, irrelevant.


Quote:

The Ottoman–Persian Wars between the Ottoman Empire and a succession of Persian dynasties

And all throughout those skirmishes.. err I mean wars, how many times did the Persians rule any part of the Middle East as a result?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 31^st, 2010 at 5:18pm:

And all throughout those skirmishes.. err I mean wars, how many times did the Persians rule any part of the Middle East as a result?

Dunno, you count it: how many times did Baghdad change hands?
Or is Baghdad not part of the middle east?

And what have we here??

Another example of why History should be made a compulsory subject in high school.

Soren .. it's highly commendable to see you're educating the feeble and frail minded tonight lmao :)

It was a compulsory subject at my high school from years 7-10.

Quote:

Dunno, you count it: how many times did Baghdad change hands?

As far as I know it only ever once fell under Persian control for a brief decade or so during the entire Ottoman period of Iraq.


Quote:

Or is Baghdad not part of the middle east?

It's the eastern most part of the Middle East by the common definition. Egypt and Shaam (ie. the Levant) is the bulk of the Middle East, and the Safawi empire never even came near any of it.

You are a Mohammedan and indeed you ARE like Mohammed - you just bloody well make it up as you go along.

Middle East - Definition

A map showing countries commonly considered to be part of the Middle EastThe Middle East is a region comprising the lands around the southern and eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea, a territory that extends from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. The Middle East is a subregion of Africa-Eurasia, or more specifically, Asia, and sometimes North Africa. Three main cultures of the Middle East are Persian, Arabic and Turkish cultures. These cultural spheres have three genetically different languages and ethnicities i.e. Persian, Turkish and Arabic.

Most definitions of Middle East in established dictionaries and common usage are 'nations in Southwest Asia from Iran to Egypt'. Hence, Egypt, although mostly in Northeast Africa, is usually also considered part of the Middle East. Other North African nations like Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are frequently and increasingly simply called North Africa in contrast to Middle Eastern (Iran to Egypt - Asia) by international media.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Middle_East

There's differing definitions you half wit.

One of the first definitions for the term was "Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar" (U.S State Department clarifies the terms "Middle East" & "Near East", The New York Times - 1958).

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 10:16pm:

The New York Times - 1958).

Now you are relying on nothing but what a cheaply bought propaganda outfit printed more than 50 years ago:



abu_rashid wrote on Oct 28^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

our own filtered media. Wikileaks has exposed the Western media for what it is, nothing but a cheaply bought propaganda outfit.

Like Mohammed, speaking out of both corners of your mouth and your aarse, just to achieve maximum discombobulation.


Iran is part of the Middle East.

Quote:

Now you are relying on nothing but what a cheaply bought propaganda outfit printed more than 50 years ago:

No... I'm relying on what the U.S state department defined the term to mean.

I know you're not quite all there, but I'm sure you appreciate the concept of propaganda outfits generally reporting what their own benefactors state honestly. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't mind trusting Press TV to report accurately what the Iranian government announces.

See this does highlight the excessive bias you operate under doesn't it?

Soren's view of the media:
Our media reports honestly about us and them, their media reports dishonestly about everything.

My view:
Their media generally reports honestly about them and dishonestly about us, and vice versa.


Quote:

Iran is part of the Middle East.

According to some definitions yes, according to others no.

Interestingly in the time period you were referring to, that of the Ottomans and Safawis, the term near east (which is what today we take middle east from) referred to the Ottoman lands.

Now that we have been to New York and the US State Deprtament and back we can safely repeat that if Turkey wants to be dominant or even influential, in the Middle East, it will have to contest Iran for that role. That's what matters in all this.

Hamas and Hezb'allah are Iranian tools, operating in Gaza and Lebanon and Syria and the West Bank. Syria itself is an Iranian tool. Whether Iran is in the Middle East or on the edge of the Middle East (the same fine distiction can be debated about Turkey),  the point is that Iran's presence, directly and via proxies, is very real in the Middle East. The same cannot be said for Turkey (yet). Turkey and Iran are not exactly friends. Shia Iran does not have friends in the Middle East, only proxies and tools. All it's friends are among the crazies across the seas or in Iraq, which is presently under the influence of the  Great and Little Satans and their infidel running dogs.

Turkey is a Nato country. It doesn't have the luck Iran has, to be a pariah, and so free to help and finance crazies in its own neighbourhood, thereby gaining influence in the Middle East. SO it had to go and do something crazy and sponsor a blockade busting flotilla.

Meddling in Iran's sphere of influence by Turkey gives Iran the chance to finance the Kurds inside and ourtside Turkey, a big smacking head-ache for the Turks. Allah in his infinite wisdom has given Turkey similar strings to pull to influence matters inside Iran, as Iran has its own restive minorities who happen to be, waddaya know, Turkic types.

Even if there was no Israel, no Great and Little Satans, the Muslims of the Middle East have enough hatred of each other bottled up to last them for centuries - not at all exhausted by the same in-fighting since the inception of Mohammedanism.

Quote:

Turkey and Iran are not exactly friends.

They certainly seem friendly enough to me...

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/images/stories/personalities/recep-erdogan-ahmadinejad-350px.jpg
Iran donates $25 million to Turkey's ruling party

Perhaps you meant you'd _like_ them not to be friends?  ;D

You are easily fooled, pseudo-moor.  Australia gives $50 million to Myanmar (Burma) a year. Does that make us friendly with the military junta there?

The US gives Russia a similar sum in aid. Does that mean they are no longer rivals (albeit less overtly than  in the Soviet era), especially around the Middle East and the Caucasus?




ANd anyways, come the caliphate, the shia will be the first (after the jooos, of course) up against the wall. The shia/sunni split in Islam is the reserve hatred - when there are no infidels to menace and kill, Muslim turn to killing each other. Historically speaking (ahem).