they have buggered england and much of europe.
everywhere they are, the more they are given what they want, the more they demand and the more they ruin where they are.


Quote:

ELEMENTS of Islamic law - the sharia - should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says. Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,'' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session. ''I don't think we are so unsophisticated that we cannot consider a multilayered legal system as long as it doesn't conflict with the existing civil system.'' The comments shocked some attending the open day. They felt Dr Matthews was advocating the introduction of the penal system under which women have been stoned to death for adultery, and corporal punishment is meted out for some offences. ''It came as quite a shock to some non-Muslims in the crowd when sharia law and the idea of a parallel legal system was mentioned,'' one audience member, Jasmine Donnelly, said. ''One group of people just left straight after that.'' But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system. ''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said. Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said. ''There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision. ''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html

Quote:

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

Then he is an idiot. Our system puts the interests of the child first. Their system puts the interests of the father above all else. What happens if the mother wants it decided in a real court and the father in a kangaroo court? What else could this possibly bring but clashes? Custody cases only go to court if their is a disagreement over who should get custody. How are they going to agree on a court system? If they agree, they can hold whatever kangaroo court they want and agree to respect it's decision, provided it remains voluntary. His stupid scheme would only be different to the current situation if you could impose Sharia on peiople against their will.

Quote:

But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system. ''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said.

That's funny, Dr Matthews. I thought Islam was a total way of life. Where does it say in Islam that you can choose to submit to some of the laws only, instead of total submission, just genuflect a little? Is Dr Matthews a Church of England convert?

Just calm down everyone. If you want to work yourselves into a fervour, do it over something that might actually happen.

Quote:

If you want to work yourselves into a fervour, do it over something that might actually happen.

That is the whole point paella, it has happened overseas, and unless we wish to see it happen here as well, we do need to monitor closely, just what designs minorities may have, and make our objections , loud and clear, if their agenda is counter to the best interests of our own society and culture.

We have our own culture, and a lot of us think it is a pretty darned great one, and we have the absolute right to defend that.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 8:31am:

Quote: If you want to work yourselves into a fervour, do it over something that might actually happen. That is the whole point paella, it has happened overseas, and unless we wish to see it happen here as well, we do need to monitor closely, just what designs minorities may have, and make our objections , loud and clear, if their agenda is counter to the best interests of our own society and culture. We have our own culture, and a lot of us think it is a pretty darned great one, and we have the absolute right to defend that.

This just in:

Migrants must obey new laws
EXCLUSIVE by Gemma Jones From: The Daily Telegraph March 10, 2010

NEW migrants from all ethnic backgrounds will have to "demonstrate a unified commitment to Australia" under new state laws.

For the first time multiculturalism legislation will also talk about "shared values" after changes were approved at a State Cabinet meeting yesterday.

Until now the Community Relations and Principles of Multiculturalism Act stated all institutions and people had to "respect and make provision for the culture, language and religion of others".

Community Relations Commission chairman Stepan Kerkyasharian said the law change would create a new definition of multiculturalism.

"We're not telling people to change their religion - we're not telling people to all look the same," he said.

"There are some things where we have to be all the same. Those things are the way we obey the law and the way we demonstrate our commitment to Australia.

"What this [change] does, it says that while we accept that Australians have different languages, backgrounds, they may speak different languages at home, they may have different religions, different ethnic groups, the bottom line is we have some common values.

"As Australians we all have a commitment to this country."

He said the laws of Australia would now be recognised above people's cultural backgrounds.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/migrants-must-obey-new-laws/story-e6freuy9-1225838885216

well done.
I'ld like to see that any intending immigrant OR resident immigrant vow to never attempt to install any other legal system over the westminster system.
Nor attempt to impose any other form of political control NOR make any comments/plans/actions against OUR armed forces or political leaders.

Any breaking of these vows and you get shipped out bucko.

Sounds pretty vague to me. How are we going to go about enforcing this 'commitment' to Australia? What does that even mean? Really think we're going to be kicking people out who don't?

Nothing is going to come out of this.

Its not like these Muslims here are ever going to have the numbers needed to impose Shariah law anyway. Sure, they're obnoxious, but they're not really that much of a threat.

imperium -
Quote:

.........Its not like these Muslims here are ever going to have the numbers needed to impose Shariah law anyway. Sure, they're obnoxious, but they're not really that much of a threat. ...

exactly what europe and england thought years ago when they were going through early prob;lems.

do NOT be the frog in a pot of water being bought to the boil

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 11:08am:

Sounds pretty vague to me. How are we going to go about enforcing this 'commitment' to Australia? What does that even mean? Really think we're going to be kicking people out who don't? Nothing is going to come out of this. Its not like these Muslims here are ever going to have the numbers needed to impose Shariah law anyway. Sure, they're obnoxious, but they're not really that much of a threat.

This establishes a legal basis for challenging views that express loyalty to 'foreign powers', as they used to say. The princip;le of 'cultural diversity' is replaced, in the law, with the principle of commitment to Australia. Advocacy of a Caliphate to rule Australia would be an unlawful stance, just to give one example that immediately springs to mind.

But that, of course, is a fundamental tenet of Muslims like Abu, so once this law is proclaimed, he and his Hizb ul Tahtrir brovvers will not have multiculturalist law to hide behind when advocating foreign rule in a future Australia.

Point of the matter is, only about 1.7% (2006 census, certainly a little larger now) of Australians are Muslims, and the majority of immigrants to Australia are not Muslims. If there is ever going to be a future non-European majority in this country, Muslims will not get there first, and actually getting Sharia Law institutionalized would require at least that. The situation is different in Europe.

There's another 'frog in the pot' here; it, not Muslims, is the primary concern. They are just far more visible, overtly hostile and obnoxious than other groups.

These laws are only as useful as the willingness of the people underneath to be regulated according to them. As cowardly as White people are, they would never accept Sharia law as long as they are a majority. Laws like this would have no control if Whites did not have the numbers to impose them.

Lol, my comment on that Daily Telegraph board wasn't accepted. Yet poo like this is allowed:


Quote:

Aboriginal people are the only real Australians, There people have been here for 60,000 prior prior to anglos deporting there convicted crimals here between 1788 & 1858...They just sailed in and claimed the land... Get a grip on you inbred view of who is truely australian....All whites out of Australia..

oh, only 1.7 %

and some are already talking sharia law, some wanna be terrorists, muslim enclaves.

AND -
Quote:

................just far more visible, overtly hostile and obnoxious than other groups.......

you see what some of us are concerned about then ?

Why would you think I'm not concerned with them either? I don't want them here. I'm just saying that given the current situation in Australia, Muslims are not the likely group to end up the supreme rulers and inheritors of this country. Focusing on them entirely misses the big picture.

Deep breaths, everybody. Deep breaths.

Has no one here heard of the Rule of Law? Last I checked, it still applied in Australia.

Just calm down, take a few deep breaths, put your nooses down and step away from the pitchfork.

Yes, laws are like the physical constants of the universe; completely unchangable and not subject to the whims of social attitudes.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

well done. I'ld like to see that any intending immigrant OR resident immigrant vow to never attempt to install any other legal system over the westminster system.

This is a bit vague sprint. It is democracy that matters. not westminster. I am promoting some fundamental changes to our democracy.

Put the noose DOWN Impotium ... just put it down and step away.

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/0/00/Lynchings-graph.png

>:(

Is the decrease in the annual number of lynchings correlated with the decline of Western Civilization?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your point is?

Paella doesn't get jokes :o

Especially the type of joke that requires its teller to point out that it was a joke after the telling.

But seriously, how could anyone distinguish a joke from one of your standard posts?

Quote:

Especially the type of joke that requires its teller to point out that it was a joke after the telling.

I know, you don't get jokes Paella. So I would assume you need the joke explained to you frequently.

It's pretty easy Paella. Take note at the extreme absurdity of the previous statement made -- that lynching, an insigificant act of retributive justice, could have any impact on the enormity of Western Civilization in total. Not to mention this silly little guy: >:(

Sounds like reductum ad absurdum. If you break anything down into small enough pieces, each piece is insignificant.

What are we talking about again?

I was arguing with the guy with the openly seditious avatar, but apart from that I forget.

Aww, gee Impotium ... thanks for explaining that. The ... ummm ... logic (?) completely escaped me there. I must be silly.

Actually, the logic still completely escapes me.

And thanks also to freediver for explaining "reductum ad absurdum". Who'd have thought that although it looks and sounds so much like reductio ad absurdum, that it would mean something completely different!

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 9:12pm:

I was arguing with the guy with the openly seditious avatar.

;D  :D ;D :D

It says I like danish. It doesn't say I'm dying for one...
ANd just be careful or I'll get the forces of light to make Kierkegaard compulsory reading. Then there'll be real trouble.

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 10th, 2010 at 9:12pm: I was arguing with the guy with the openly seditious avatar. ;D  :D ;D :D It says I like danish. It doesn't say I'm dying for one... ANd just be careful or I'll get the forces of light to make Kierkegaard compulsory reading. Then there'll be real trouble.

I was talking about Pooella's avatar ;D

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 10th, 2010 at 9:12pm: I was arguing with the guy with the openly seditious avatar. ;D  :D ;D :D It says I like danish. It doesn't say I'm dying for one... ANd just be careful or I'll get the forces of light to make Kierkegaard compulsory reading. Then there'll be real trouble.

Yeah - we'd all fall asleep.

Actually, I don't get the lynching thing either. What is it - some KKK inside joke?

Or an absurdly impossible-to-take-seriously statement that for some reason was taken seriously.

I don't think anyone took it seriously Impotium, because no one could figure out what the hell it has to do with ... anything really.

And, like I said ... it's not exactly easy to distinguish your "jokes" from all of your other posts. They're all pretty funny.

shut up doofus

stop trying to rationalize what really is just the internal failings of your congenital doke-brain

Hmmm, "shut up doofus". How long did it take you to conjure up that one?

Real sharp.

Perhaps I misunderstood freediver's earlier coment. I think now that his reference to "reductum [sic] ab adsurdum" was a reference to your line of reasoning since posting that ridiculous chart.

And you still haven't explained how it had anything at all to do with this conversation, so I will: it doesn't.

lol the fact that you keep assuming that i was attempting to  reason properly with that dumb post proves that you are a donk brain of the highest order

the post was in response to you saying "put the noose down"; i assumed you were talking about lynching, but i recognized that you were just being a joker so i responded with an equally stupid post

also like .5 of a second btw why does every insult have to be elaborate

dont be a try hard you goon

Impotium, I accept that you were not attempting to reason seriously by posting that chart.

However I am still at a complete loss to understand what your reason actually was for posting it.

Yes, there's a common theme: lynch mobs. But how is that chart relevant to my reference to the rest of you carrying on like a crazed mob?

It's not.

That was the only relation - it was intended as a factitious, irrelevant response, not something to become the focus of this thread on a whole. I'll admit it was quirky and a little odd, but I'm quirky and a little odd as a person. Really, I don't see why your characterisation of us and our mild mannered discussion as a crazed mob warranted a serious response at all (and you were clearly being somewhat playful yourself), so I just posted some garbage. The thread was about to die anyway.

Interesting that you consider these comments, by yourself, as "mild mannered":

"They are just far more visible, overtly hostile and obnoxious than other groups."

and

"I don't want them here."

Then there was sprintcyclist's "and some are already talking sharia law, some wanna be terrorists, muslim enclaves."

Mild mannered indeed.

aikmann4 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

That was the only relation - it was intended as a factitious, irrelevant response, not something to become the focus of this thread on a whole. I'll admit it was quirky and a little odd, but I'm quirky and a little odd as a person. Really, I don't see why your characterisation of us and our mild mannered discussion as a crazed mob warranted a serious response at all (and you were clearly being somewhat playful yourself), so I just posted some garbage. The thread was about to die anyway.

There was something in that post - there was a point in there somewhere...

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

Deep breaths, everybody. Deep breaths. Has no one here heard of the Rule of Law? Last I checked, it still applied in Australia. Just calm down, take a few deep breaths, put your nooses down and step away from the pitchfork.

You'll give up too sooner or later ;D

Quote:

"They are just far more visible, overtly hostile and obnoxious than other groups."

Aren't they? They certainly are visible and as a group, quite hostile, or more so than any other. Whether that's obnoxious or not is a matter of opinion; it certainly is to me, and a great many Australians.  Just making this statement does not imply that the conversation I was having is one that can be suitably characterised as brimming with boiling anger, animus and a desire to inflict bodily harm on anybody.


Quote:

"I don't want them here."

Can such a statement, or any sort of conversation that discusses the value of the introduction of a particular group of people into a nation, not be expressed without calmness? If not, why not? Was the way that I expressed myself indicative of extreme emotion?

I'll admit Sprint can be a little fervent sometimes, but his words and attitudes (perhaps at least in this thread) require a little exaggeration on your behalf to be painted into what you suggest. There's no crazed mob here; though it is difficult to ascertain whether you're joking or not.


Quote:

There was something in that post - there was a point in there somewhere...

Now I'm not getting it.

Anyway, getting back to the point of this thread - I'm not sure if anyone here understands what Shariah law really is. It's a legal system based on civil and criminal courts.

Many think our own legal system was based on Shariah law.

The Westminster system is a parliamentary system and, although it includes a separation of powers, it's about government, not the courts.

The Shariah law some Muslims want to follow is the civil system for settling disputes. This would free up the courts - particularly the family courts, as Shariah law includes divorce and custody.

Basically, anyone can consent to any decision-making body they want. You just need to sign a contract. Anyone seen Judge Judy? People opt not to go to court, go on TV, and consent to carry out what she says.

I wonder if they do.

But my point is this: there's nothing to stop anyone going off to some priest, having mediation, and following what they say. Basically, you can't FORBID Shariah civil law - criminal law, certainly.

Each nation state that uses Shariah law has its own laws and penalties. There is nothing in Sharia law that says anyone has to be beheaded, for example. Shariah law is a process - like our own courts - not a list of rules and regulations.

Correction to the above (15/3/10): there are penalities listed for certain offenses in the Koran, on which Shariah is based. However, not all states that follow Shariah carry out such penalties. I believe there is a state in Malaysia which now practices Shariah law, however it does not carry out amputations for theft or stoning for adultery. This may be because Malaysia's legal system is constitutionally based on the English legal system, and such penalties have not been legislated. I believe that whipping, however, is a penalty in this state.

no.
sharia law is based on the koran and hadiths
its got nothing to do with courts. its about a religion that abhors freedom.

noone thinks our legal system is based on sharia
everyone in aussie must come under our laws jurisdiction.
sharia can bugger off.

there is a lot wrong with sharia . it is incompatible with a free society.

Can you tell us why, SC?

theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites.

basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive.

Sprint cyclist you are talking about Islam generally rather than the specific point at hand: being a proposal (one that has not and will not be taken seriously) by a local Islamic figure to have elements of Sharia law considered by Australian courts when handing down decisions.

Now I'm not defending Islam, nor am I discriminating between religions: I hold all to be equally ridiculous, but at the same time people have the right to believe whatever they want, no matter how irrational or deluded it may be.

Honestly, since this proposal has no legs we should just stop talking about it. It's not going to fly, there's nothing to say. The only way to keep this discussion going is to digress in to the type of outrageous racism that was prevailing up until we were distracted by that rather strange chart about ... I dunno, the decline of pirates and global warming was it?

Normally i would agree with you Paella, but muslims are notoriously pushy baskets.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, (blow some shite up, then) try again, is their motto.

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors. In fact, religion itself is simply a response to economic realities, and in this context it can even be a rational response.

Wherever there is poverty, there is fundamentalism, and all of the other things that the popular western mindset associates with "Islam". You can put the same religious group in to a wealthy, politically stable environment and the anti-social behaviour will mostly disappear. Actually, the religion will disappear too, after a while.

Please, before anyone tries to tell me that there are no stable, wealthy "Islamic" countries, do some research.

And if we want the unstable, poor "Islamic" countries to stop causing trouble then maybe we should stop misappropriating their raw materials and firing cruise missiles at their industrial estates.

Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors. In fact, religion itself is simply a response to economic realities, and in this context it can even be a rational response. Wherever there is poverty, there is fundamentalism, and all of the other things that the popular western mindset associates with "Islam". You can put the same religious group in to a wealthy, politically stable environment and the anti-social behaviour will mostly disappear. Actually, the religion will disappear too, after a while. Please, before anyone tries to tell me that there are no stable, wealthy "Islamic" countries, do some research. And if we want the unstable, poor "Islamic" countries to stop causing trouble then maybe we should stop misappropriating their raw materials and firing cruise missiles at their industrial estates.

Multiculturally impeccable.

Why did islam, at the height of its power and wealth, wage war against the west? Because it was strong.
Now that it's weak, it also swears for the destruction of the west.

Rich or poor - Islam's aim is the same. The one constant is Islam and its animus against the west.

Please explain.

Quote:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors.

What about stoning little girls to death?


Quote:

Wherever there is poverty, there is fundamentalism, and all of the other things that the popular western mindset associates with "Islam". You can put the same religious group in to a wealthy, politically stable environment and the anti-social behaviour will mostly disappear.

Were the London bombers poor? Is Abu poor? This is a pretty naive analysis of the motive for violence.


Quote:

The Shariah law some Muslims want to follow is the civil system for settling disputes. This would free up the courts - particularly the family courts, as Shariah law includes divorce and custody.

So we could save money by discarding the rights of children?


Quote:

Basically, anyone can consent to any decision-making body they want.

True, but then it is not law, is it? Law is by definition those rules you don't have a choice about. These people want to impose Shariah law because people will not freely choose it.


Quote:

You just need to sign a contract.

Wrong. A contract is automatically invalid if it involves something illegal - like selling or giving away the rights of a child, or anyone's fundmental human rights. Shariah law props up slavery, yet our society forbids slavery - even if you enter into it willingly.


Quote:

There is nothing in Sharia law that says anyone has to be beheaded, for example.

According to Abu there is. Gays for instance.


Quote:

Now I'm not defending Islam, nor am I discriminating between religions: I hold all to be equally ridiculous, but at the same time people have the right to believe whatever they want, no matter how irrational or deluded it may be.

Paella now you are missing the point. This is not about freedom of religion. This is about law.

Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

And if we want the unstable, poor "Islamic" countries to stop causing trouble then maybe we should stop misappropriating their raw materials and firing cruise missiles at their industrial estates.

Their raw materials are not misappropriated. They are bought on the open market. They are welcome to sell them all to Upper Volta. As a metter of fact, the positive side of the AGW caper is that one day the only country that will still be interetsed in whatever the Muslims have to sell will be Upper Volta.

LOL. It's going to absolutely suck for those countries when we stop buying oil from them. It's difficult to imagine how much worse they're going to become after that. That desert monstrosity of Dubai is just going to sink back into the sand.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 3:53pm:

theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive.

Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this?

Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors. In fact, religion itself is simply a response to economic realities, and in this context it can even be a rational response. Wherever there is poverty, there is fundamentalism, and all of the other things that the popular western mindset associates with "Islam". You can put the same religious group in to a wealthy, politically stable environment and the anti-social behaviour will mostly disappear. Actually, the religion will disappear too, after a while.

Your post has really made me think, Paella. I agree that economic factors are the cause of religious and other values. But how do we explain the fact that many radicalised Muslims come from rich Western countries?

Or Osama coming from one of the richest families in the world?

Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors.

Where are the Haitian terrorists blowing stuff up (equally misguidedly) in the name of woodoo??

I am afraid you are too stupid to catch yourself uttering stupid stuff. But you have the numbers on your side. You may well prevail, god help us.

Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors. In fact, religion itself is simply a response to economic realities, and in this context it can even be a rational response.

Naaah... it's psycho-sexual..


Rai shop found selling male genital toys

KUWAIT CITY, March 10: Acting on information and armed with a search and arrest warrant issued by the Public Prosecution, personnel from the Consumers Protection Department of the Kuwait Municipality raided a shop selling women’s garments in Al-Rai area and seized a large number of male genital toys, reports Al-Shahed daily.
During interrogation the salesman said he was selling each toy for KD 100.
The owner of the shop has been summoned for interrogation.


From he Arab Times

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/150752/reftab/96/t/Rai-shop-found-selling-male-genital-toys/Default.aspx


WHile the bearded jihadis are off plotting and carrying out murder under the banner of Allan, the ladies are busy saluting a completely different  set of flagpoles.

karnal - have a google abot what islamic countries have banned - or ask abu. but he'll avoid the question.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 1:54am:

karnal - have a google abot what islamic countries have banned - or ask abu. but he'll avoid the question.

It doesn't matter about Islamic countries - we're talking about the model of Shariah law. Many US states have the electric chair, but this isn't inherent in their legal system.  

If you make a statement, it's up to you to provide proof. Otherwise, you won't be believed.

And therefore, what would be the point of saying anything at all?

Of course I've Googled Shariah law. Have you?

In London's historic "Inns of Court", barristers practise law in the shadow of the distinctive medieval Temple Church. But does English law really owe a debt to Muslim law?

For some scholars, a historical connection to Islam is a "missing link" that explains why English common law is so different from classical Roman legal systems that hold sway across much of the rest of Europe.
It's a controversial idea. Common law has inspired legal systems across the world. What's more, calls for the UK to accommodate Islamic Sharia law have caused public outcry.
The first port of call when looking for an eastern link in the common law is London's Inns of Court. "You are now leaving London, and entering Jerusalem," says Robin Griffith-Jones, the Master of the Temple Church, as he walks around its spectacular rotunda.
The church stands in the heart of the legal district and was built by the Knights Templar, the fierce order of monks-turned-warriors who fought Muslim armies in the Crusades.
London's historic legal district, with its professional class of independent lawyers, has parallels with the way medieval Islamic law was organised.
In Sunni Islam there were four great schools of legal theory, which were often housed in "madrassas" around mosques. Scholars debated each other on obscure points of law, in much the same way as English barristers do.
There is a theory that the Templars modelled the Inns of Court on Muslim ideas. But Mr Griffith-Jones suggests it is pretty unlikely the Templars imported the madrassa system to England. They were suppressed after 1314 - yet lawyers only started congregating in the Inns of Court after the 1360s.

Perpetual endowment
This doesn't necessarily rule out the Templars' role altogether. Medieval Muslim centres of learning were governed under a special legal device called the "waqf" under which trustees guaranteed their independence.
In an oak-panelled room in Oxford, historian Dr Paul Brand explains the significance of the 1264 statute that Walter De Merton used to establish Merton College. He was a businessman with connections to the Knights Templar.
The original 1264 document that established Merton has parallels with the waqf because it is a "perpetual endowment" - a system where trustees keep the college running through the ages. It's been used as a template across the Western world.
Dr Brand says many branches of Western learning, from mathematics to philosophy, owe a debt of gratitude to Islamic influence.
Advanced Arabic texts were translated into European languages in the Middle Ages. But there's no record of Islamic legal texts being among those influencing English lawyers.
And Dr Brand pointed out the Knights Templar were, after all, crusaders. They wanted to fight Muslims, not to learn from them, and they were rarely close enough to observe their institutions at work.
But the fact remains that England in the Middle Ages had very distinct legal principles, like jury trial and the notion that "possession is nine tenths of the law". And there was one other place in Europe that had similar legal principles on the books in the 12th Century.

Jury trial
From the end of the 9th to the middle of the 11th Century, Sicily had Muslim rulers. Many Sicilians were Muslims and followed the Maliki school of legal thought in Sunni Islam.
Maliki law has certain provisions which resemble English legal principles, such as jury trial and land possession. Sicily represented a gateway into western Europe for Islamic ideas but it's unclear how these ideas are meant to have travelled to England.
Norman barons first invaded Sicily in 1061 - five years before William the Conqueror invaded England. The Norman leaders in Sicily went on to develop close cultural affinities with the Arabs, and these Normans were blood relations of Henry II, the English king credited with founding the common law.
But does that mean medieval England somehow adopted Muslim legal ideas? There is no definitive proof, because very few documents survive from the period. All we have is the stories of people like Thomas Brown - an Englishman who was part of the Sicilian government, where he was known in Arabic as "Qaid Brun".
He later returned to England and worked for the king during the period when common law came into being.
There is proof he brought Islamic knowledge back to England, especially in mathematics. But no particular proof he brought legal concepts.
There are clear parallels between Islamic legal history and English law, but unless new historical evidence comes to light, the link remains unproven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7631388.stm

karnal - so all the islamic countries in the world bear no reflection on islam ?
they just happend to be populated entirely by muslims who have banned any other religion and say they folow the arbitrary laws set down by some creep.

Well, what can I say? Muso was right: I would give up soon enough. I had briefly entertained the notion that we could perhaps have some sort of informed and informative debate on this topic, but I see that the thread will continue to be dominated by the ever growing frothy-mouthed online majority.

And oh yes ... I will save you all the trouble, and admit that the only reason I am departing this thread is because I have succumbed to the internal logic of the arguments, the overwhelming empirical evidence presented in support of them, and the clear superior intellect (not to mention education) of my opponents.

Karnal: you will give up soon enough.

I will leave you with a quote from the comedian David Cross:

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he f**ing said!"

Paella wrote on Mar 15^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:

I will leave you with a quote from the comedian David Cross: "I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he f**ing said!"

See?? Even a comedian you quote thinks you are wrong.



Paella wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

The behaviours associated with muslims are driven by economic factors, not religious factors.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2010 at 9:51pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

Freediver, your link was about general Islamic ideas.

Some of it was crap. Circumcision of women, for example, is not required in Islam.

And it's not even required for men - I don't think there's anything in the Koran about it. Still, it's become a Muslim cultural practice and Muslims all do it, but this is not Shariah law.

typical islamics response.
did abu and you go to the same training camp ?

look at your idioticy "muslims do it, it occurs in islamic countries - but it's not islam"

fkwt, it is, muslims in those countries say it is. go and tell them they are wrong.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 15^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

karnal - so all the islamic countries in the world bear no reflection on islam ? they just happend to be populated entirely by muslims who have banned any other religion and say they folow the arbitrary laws set down by some creep.

Yes. I think you'll find most Muslim countries have European legal systems set up by the ex-European colonial powers.

Indonesia (the largest Muslim nation) has a Roman-Dutch model. Malaysia has an English model.

If you read my post above, you'll see that a difference exists between Roman (European) and English legal systems that the writer attributes to contact - via the Crusades - with Islam.

Napoleon reformed the French legal system after the revolution and they have another model, but based on the Roman. The Americans based their legal system on this.

I think you'll find most gulf states have European or English legal systems.

I think you will find all the muslim countries are poo.
that's why they are coming to the west.
Only thing is, they want to bring their loser regressive ideas too !!!!!!!

according to islamic idiots like you and abu, islam has not existed anywhere for centuries.
but you desire it !!!!!!!!!!
it failed because it was crap. same as living in caves.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 2:06pm:

I think you will find all the muslim countries are poo. that's why they are coming to the west. Only thing is, they want to bring their loser regressive ideas too !!!!!!! according to islamic idiots like you and abu, islam has not existed anywhere for centuries. but you desire it !!!!!!!!!! it failed because it was crap. same as living in caves.

Living in caves failed? That's news to me.

It's hard to respond to such a powerful and resonating statement like "all the Muslim countries are poo." Paella's smart for giving up.

You probably haven't heard that the richest country (per capita) is also a Muslim country. God knows how Brunei ever managed to keep all that oil for themselves.

But why would they want to escape universal health care, education,  housing subsidies and parenting payments, and move over here?

Dick Cheney once commented how God had placed all the ground with the oil under "evil" hands.

God works in mysterious ways, I suppose.

But before someone butts in with how Australia, as opposed to all the oil-rich poo Muslim countries, is some centre for innovation and excellence - our economy is also based on the fossil fuels that come from our ground. Just like the developed Muslim countries that live off their oil subsidies, Australia is living off its coal and iron ore.

We might live in McMansions now, but our wealth comes from the "caves."

The reason the US are even in Afghanistan and Iraq, is what lies under their ground. Iraq, by the way, is also a secular Muslim country with a European legal system.

A great nation? Freedom? Democracy? Hardly. The Iraqis and Afghanis we get over here are escaping war.

They might indeed bring a few loser regressive ideas with them. But largely, I'd suggest that these have been forged in a continual state of trauma and war.

Which war? The war to secure what God has placed under their ground.

It's lucky for us God placed all our coal into good Christian hands.

Karnal has raised an interesting point about the Australian economy that may actually have some support. Our endowment of natural resources really is a blessing..

Big Donger wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2010 at 9:51pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Freediver, your link was about general Islamic ideas. Some of it was crap. Circumcision of women, for example, is not required in Islam. And it's not even required for men - I don't think there's anything in the Koran about it. Still, it's become a Muslim cultural practice and Muslims all do it, but this is not Shariah law.

According to Malik it is (just not the 'mutilation' bit), but I will happily correct it if it is wrong. Abu has stopped answering my questions about Islam, so I haven't been making many corrections lately.

As for being general, well you were asking a very general question.

karnal - yes, living in caves failed.
we now live in houses !!!!!!!!!

something better was invented.

in case you have lived in a cave, the most desirable countries to live in are secular democratic capitalistic ones.
Has been that way for a long time.
eg, australia, america, sweden, denmark, japan.

where do muslim countries rank ?
in the lowest percentile

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 7:28pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 16th, 2010 at 12:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2010 at 9:51pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Freediver, your link was about general Islamic ideas. Some of it was crap. Circumcision of women, for example, is not required in Islam. And it's not even required for men - I don't think there's anything in the Koran about it. Still, it's become a Muslim cultural practice and Muslims all do it, but this is not Shariah law. As for being general, well you were asking a very general question.

Freediver, the thread's about Shariah law - not any old Muslim idea/cultural practice that's evolved since the 8th Century.

It's like Muslims saying prostitution and child pornography is enshrined in our constitution.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 12:05am:

where do muslim countries rank ? in the lowest percentile

Do they? You haven't been doing your Google search, SC.

You mustn't have heard of OPEC either.

Incidentally, the Lonely Planet published its list of the 5 most friendly countries to visit a few weeks ago.

I was suprised. Number one was Turkey.

Very High Human Development
Norway
Australia
Iceland
Canada
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
France
Switzerland
Japan
Luxembourg
Finland
United States
Austria
Spain
Denmark
Belgium
Italy
Liechtenstein
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Germany
Singapore
Hong Kong, China (SAR)
Greece
Korea (Republic of)
Israel
Andorra
Slovenia
Brunei Darussalam
Kuwait
Cyprus
Qatar
Portugal
United Arab Emirates
Czech Republic
Barbados
Malta


read it and weep islamic liar

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Excellent work, SC. Thanks for posting some useful research.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 12:50pm:

read it and weep islamic liar

Two questions:
1. Who's supposed to be weeping?
2. Did you read it yourself?

(I've still given up, but it made me laugh to see sprint posting stuff that contradicts his own position.)

Paella wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 5:05pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 17th, 2010 at 12:50pm: read it and weep islamic liar Two questions: 1. Who's supposed to be weeping? 2. Did you read it yourself? (I've still given up, but it made me laugh to see sprint posting stuff that contradicts his own position.)

I read it, Paella, and I respect SC's contribution.

When I mentioned Brunei, I was referring to Gross Domestic Product.

What SC's report discusses is a "happiness" index based on average lifespan, emmigration (people getting out), immigration (people coming in - difficult to accommodate), etc, etc - along with GDP as a measure of economic output.

I couldn't see a "provision of welfare" category in this report. You'd think free healthcare, education, etc, would count too, but I couldn't find this.

The interesting thing about SC's report is that it's by a Pakistani national.

And guess what religion he is.

Quote:

read it and weep islamic liar

More relevant to you sprint should be the fact that in the "Low Human Development" column 12 out of the 24 countries are Christian majority countries. Of the other 12, 1 is evenly split Muslims and Christians, with a Christian head of state, and the other 11 are Muslim majority. Of those 11 Muslim-majority countries, 6 of them have Christian heads of state.

So 19/24 of the world's worst countries are run by Christians, in 6 of them a Muslim majority is suffering under the mismanagement of Christian rulers.

So if we're going to base this on religion, then Christians are going to come out much worse off.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 9:34am:

Quote: read it and weep islamic liar More relevant to you sprint should be the fact that in the "Low Human Development" column 12 out of the 24 countries are Christian majority countries. Of the other 12, 1 is evenly split Muslims and Christians, with a Christian head of state, and the other 11 are Muslim majority. Of those 11 Muslim-majority countries, 6 of them have Christian heads of state. So 19/24 of the world's worst countries are run by Christians, in 6 of them a Muslim majority is suffering under the mismanagement of Christian rulers. So if we're going to base this on religion, then Christians are going to come out much worse off.

Yeah. The report shows what we might have guessed already. It shows that the "three worlds" model of development is still alive and well today.

1st world: OECD countries
2nd world: OPEC and Soviet bloc countries.
3rd world: Asian and African developing countries/ex-cash crop colonies.

It's interesting that some 2nd world countries have gone up since the fall of the cold war.

What's predictable is that most 3rd world countries have stayed where they were.

I'm sure religion is a factor in national "happiness" levels and -perhaps - even in GDP. The report, however, doesn't mention it.

What it shows is that the developing world has pretty-much stayed the same over the last 40 years or so, despite a few fluctuations, and despite SC's definition of market-driven, Western style democracies.

After all, the IMF and World Bank have imposed this political-economic model onto many developing countries - without success.

Perhaps we need to re-think SC's definition of successful societies.

Either that, or include Brunei, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates among them.

SC?

karnal - good on any country that progresses for its inhahitants.
I don't care what form of govt or religion they follow, if it works it is good.

fact is, secular democratic capitalistic ones do best.
Sure, other countries may be good too. But that model is the best.

I know this is rare coming from me, but I tend to agree more with Karnal more than anything regarding this subject. The argument that Islam itself is a primary factor in determining the socioeconomic outcomes of certain nations is a silly one. At least socioeconomically speaking, I think there is a legitimate case to be made that many Muslim nations are far more pleasant places of residence than a great deal of Christian nations (remember that a sizable percentage of the world's Christian population resides in Latin American pestholes.) According to a major global economic index measuring GDP per capita, five of the top twenty nations on the list are Muslim nations, including the very first nation on the list. These places certaninly aren't "pooholes", though as a White, Anglo-Saxon Westerner they're certainly not desirable places of living from my perspective.

There's still a lot more to it than this which I think is worth broaching. Observing these five Muslim states that fall into the top twenty of this list, an obvious pattern emerges that is shared by every one. They're all relatively tiny countries (the UAE being the largest), and they're all mega-oil rich. For the size of the territories which contain their small populations, there's enough oil to sustain the lot of them with extremely comfortable existences for many generations to come. The moment I saw Qatar was the first nation listed on the GDP per capita index I immediately knew what was going on there without even having to look it up. These nations sustain themselves through their surfeit of unrefined petroleum; as in, they use their resources to bring in by the boatload a tonne of skilled and unskilled labour to run their countries for them. The situation is particularly severe in little Qatar, with an estimated four fifths of the population of foreign origin. The Qataris are actually pretty sensible about how they handle this; the nation remains firmly within Qatari, Arabic hands. This is made possible by the instituted reality that if one is not Qatari, one is not a citizen.

It's also pretty amusing to note where native Qataris end up working as well. Apparently about 71% of Qatari natives are working in the public sector (surprise!) I'm assuming these are positions the government tucks away for the natives, the bulk of which I assume are neither inclined to carry out serious work or have the aptitude to do so. The internet seems to be swarming with amusing comments from presumably foreign workers in Qatar concerning what they think about the native population there:


Quote:

i am surprised you as a "qatari" can even use a computer or did you use your maid to write this for you inbreed fag... let me see it is ok to hold another mans hand and kiss him but you cannot hold your wife's hand.. what else if it is not for the slave labor your "international airport" will still be a sand lot.... arent you supposed to treat everybody with respect according to your kuran.... if you had maybe of 1/100 brain as your "slaves" you would be in space ...oh i forgot you have no brains and thats why you have others doing everything for you.... china, india and the rest of asia is built on brains and you guys are built by oh i forgot south asians you are truely idiots .... one more thing if it wasnt for gas you also will be just like africa...... oh soon they will have alternate fuel and then you will be collecting camel poo..... cant wait ..... one more thing it is so much to watch the israelis kicking your sorry arab ass (-:

Quote:

Oil will run out one day. Just remember that. Then what will you uneducated uncouth Qataris do? Drive your Landcruisers with your feet stuck out the window(How in the world is that done?) and go back to your Bedouin roots? Or shove those innumerable Nokia phones that you seem to have where the sun don't shine to fulfill your homosexual cravings?

Quote:

Just few facts from my year and a bit of experience living in qatar: Without the foreigners qataries would starve to death. They can't cook anything. Their indian maids do the cooking for them, no wonder their cuisine is mostly indian. Their indian drivers take them around. And when they drive, they drive like idiots. Their indian and philipino maids look after their children. That's why their arabic sucks ass.

Quote:

You have oil, that is why so many suckers are there. You have oil, that is why you can live like you do. You know something that is better than oil? Brain. I can almost guarantee, you guys have no brain (with a statistic like only less than 3% of your highschool graduates are able to even qualify for university, it is funny) Also, you guys have no brain. You guys take things literally. Speed cameras are to deter accident. But guess what the smacking Qataris are doing with the speed cameras in Qatar? They make sure that you get fined even if you exceed the limit by 1 kmph. That is the stupidest implementation of speed cameras I have ever seen. You will cause more accidents because drivers are looking at their speedometer to make sure they don't exceed by 1 kmph.

I think we can all make an educated guess about what's going on in Qatar, though I would also venture that the situation in the other hyper-wealthy Muslim nations isn't that different either. Still, it doesn't really say anything about Islam perse.  :D

imperium - well done on agreeing on what is the best idea, not who suggested it.

to repeat
Quote:

Norway Australia Iceland Canada Ireland Netherlands Sweden France Switzerland Japan Luxembourg Finland United States Austria Spain Denmark Belgium Italy Liechtenstein New Zealand United Kingdom Germany Singapore

about the top 20 countries, not one islamic one there.
I notice sweden, netherland ans france have slipped and muslims become more populace there.

christianity is NOT a political system, there are NO christian countries.
save the vatican maybe, which is a weird thing.

what is the islamic ones did NOT have oil ?
few countries at the top of the list do have natural resources to sell off

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:44am:

christianity is NOT a political system, there are NO christian countries. save the vatican maybe, which is a weird thing.

You could argue that Elizabeth II by law the head of the Church of England (and its "fidei defensor") makes Britain a Christian country in that its Head of State must be a protestant Christian.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19th, 2010 at 8:44am: christianity is NOT a political system, there are NO christian countries. save the vatican maybe, which is a weird thing. You could argue that Elizabeth II by law the head of the Church of England (and its "fidei defensor") makes Britain a Christian country in that its Head of State must be a protestant Christian.

Not to mention that it makes Australia a Christian country, too.
So if you betray Christianity, you betray the Head of State, and thus the State itself. That makes Abu a traitor to Australia.
Abu, off with your head.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:44am:

christianity is NOT a political system, there are NO christian countries. save the vatican maybe, which is a weird thing. what is the islamic ones did NOT have oil ? few countries at the top of the list do have natural resources to sell off

So you're saying that there are no Christian countries - but that there are plenty of Muslim countries. I wonder what you'd call a country with "in God we trust" on their coinage. Or a country (Germany) where the Christian Democrats have occupied power for most of the last 50 years.

But getting back to the debate, there are only a handful of countries which have enshrined Shariah law:

"(M)any parts of the Sharia have no or little importance in most Muslim societies, except in those that have gone through a phase of Islamization (Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Libya). But the Sharia has much importance in domestic judicial fields like family, marriage and inheritance."

http://i-cias.com/e.o/sharia.htm

And herein lies my point: if couples can go off to a Christian counsellor for advice on family matters, why shouldn't Muslims?

The British decision to respond to Shariah law in certain civil matters was a response to what was already happening. Likewise, the Australian decision to allow Aboriginal "payback" laws in desert and top-north communities was a way to allow this to happen with respect to existing culture/law, and within a framework of harm-minimization.

Legalising the spearing of someone's leg or arm sounds much more radical than allowing a religious group to make decisions on family separation and child custody.

And I know what some are thinking: all this represents the chipping away of the rule of law.

But it's not about stoning anyone or amputating their limbs. Unless anyone here would like to introduce this?

Law is not some immutable, top-down way to keep people in line. It's always changing based on new government policy, legal precedent, and let's not forget media hysteria.

helian - yes that could be a theoretical point and could be argued.

jesus makes no mention of gaining political control, there are no laws/guidelines in the NT to run a country.
judges do not refer back to the NT to give sentencing
lawmakers do not confer with the NT to make laws.
In no country are people forced to go to church or to tithe.

that's how I like it.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 9:06am:

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2010 at 7:28pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 16th, 2010 at 12:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2010 at 9:51pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Freediver, your link was about general Islamic ideas. Some of it was crap. Circumcision of women, for example, is not required in Islam. And it's not even required for men - I don't think there's anything in the Koran about it. Still, it's become a Muslim cultural practice and Muslims all do it, but this is not Shariah law. As for being general, well you were asking a very general question. Freediver, the thread's about Shariah law - not any old Muslim idea/cultural practice that's evolved since the 8th Century. It's like Muslims saying prostitution and child pornography is enshrined in our constitution.

Yes Karnal, I realise that, and I was told by a Muslim that it was part of Shariah law.

Jesus Christ don't quote that again!

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2010 at 8:46pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 17th, 2010 at 9:06am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2010 at 7:28pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 16th, 2010 at 12:57pm: freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2010 at 9:51pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 13th, 2010 at 4:34pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 12th, 2010 at 3:53pm: theres the bits about killing homos, having multiple wives, divorcing at will, the dad having the say about the kids, killing those that leave islam, women not driving, no drawings of moh the chief paedophile, cutting hands off thieves, public hangings, whipping, banning alcohol, in some areas banning music and the flying of kites. basically, its arbitratry, violent, sexist and repressive. Justto prove you're not making this up - can you provide a link with proof of this? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Freediver, your link was about general Islamic ideas. Some of it was crap. Circumcision of women, for example, is not required in Islam. And it's not even required for men - I don't think there's anything in the Koran about it. Still, it's become a Muslim cultural practice and Muslims all do it, but this is not Shariah law. As for being general, well you were asking a very general question. Freediver, the thread's about Shariah law - not any old Muslim idea/cultural practice that's evolved since the 8th Century. It's like Muslims saying prostitution and child pornography is enshrined in our constitution. Yes Karnal, I realise that, and I was told by a Muslim that it was part of Shariah law.

Male circumcision might be, but female circumcison isn't. Anyway, there's nothing in the Koran about any of this - I've been told this, mind you, I haven't read the whole Koran.

There's a whole lot of rules and regulations that some follow and some don't. I honestly don't know how you could make people clip their nails or shave their body hair - even if this does appear in Shariah law (and I don't know if it does). Many Muslims don't have beards, for example. Evil!

If anyone really believes that there's a Muslim list of rules for every area of life that every muslim follows without question, then I'd say you're dreaming.

Same with Shariah law. No state that practices it follows exactly the same regulations.

Yes - there are some abhorent practices such as amputation and stoning. I can't see any humanity or compassion in this, but I believe these practices are rare. I hope they are, anyway. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, I also believe that they occur in mainly poor African states.

The reason for this? Not sure, but perhaps there's a link between poverty and brutality. However, Saudi Arabia is quite clearly an exception.

Abu seems to think there is one set of rules, and the differences between what states do is down to them not actually following Shariah law.

The stoning bit seems to be universally considered to be part of Shariah law.

and treating women like 2nd class citizens is a given.
dominating any kaffir is a must.
jail for public kissing, no sunbathing, o alcohokl, correct music.


the whiole islam is so buggered it's easy to see whu even islamics say it no longer exists.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 6:18pm:

Abu seems to think there is one set of rules, and the differences between what states do is down to them not actually following Shariah law. The stoning bit seems to be universally considered to be part of Shariah law.

Yes - I believe it's in the koran. And Abu may well be right.

But to use another analogy, which state has a purely lassez fairre economy? No one does because - with the exception, perhaps, of the Wild West - it doesn't gell with democracy.

I'd say the same is probably true of Shariah law in the modern world. In Iran, for example, stoning was recently banned because of legal difficulties over the burden of proof and popular outcries.

What's also important to note with the practice of stoning, is that it was first prescribed in Leviticus for crimes such as breaking the Sabbath.

Islam sees itself as the successor of Judeo-Christianity (without reference, I guess, to whomever has not sinned should cast the first stone). Stoning is certainly not a common practice within Muslim countries. The worst, most barbarous country I can think of is Saudi Arabia, which seems to follow a very purist form of Shariah law.

But it's an American ally, so it's safe.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

The worst, most barbarous country I can think of is Saudi Arabia, which seems to follow a very purist form of Shariah law. But it's an American ally, so it's safe.

Are we to understand that an American policy of outright elimination of every single odious regime would meet your approval? Are you saying that America's role ought to be to allow only liberal democracies to exist?

Big Donger wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 6:18pm: Abu seems to think there is one set of rules, and the differences between what states do is down to them not actually following Shariah law. The stoning bit seems to be universally considered to be part of Shariah law. Yes - I believe it's in the koran. And Abu may well be right. But to use another analogy, which state has a purely lassez fairre economy? No one does because - with the exception, perhaps, of the Wild West - it doesn't gell with democracy. I'd say the same is probably true of Shariah law in the modern world. In Iran, for example, stoning was recently banned because of legal difficulties over the burden of proof and popular outcries. What's also important to note with the practice of stoning, is that it was first prescribed in Leviticus for crimes such as breaking the Sabbath. Islam sees itself as the successor of Judeo-Christianity (without reference, I guess, to whomever has not sinned should cast the first stone). Stoning is certainly not a common practice within Muslim countries. The worst, most barbarous country I can think of is Saudi Arabia, which seems to follow a very purist form of Shariah law. But it's an American ally, so it's safe.

So what's your point? Shariah law is bad, but it's OK because it's so bad that rational people reject it? There are a lot of people dieing in the process of ridding their societies of shariah.

Soren wrote on Mar 20^th, 2010 at 8:20pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 20th, 2010 at 7:55pm: The worst, most barbarous country I can think of is Saudi Arabia, which seems to follow a very purist form of Shariah law. But it's an American ally, so it's safe. Are we to understand that an American policy of outright elimination of every single odious regime would meet your approval? Are you saying that America's role ought to be to allow only liberal democracies to exist?

No. America under George Bush said this - with qualifications for their buddies. The two countries that have more to do with the funding, training and supplying of terrorists than anyone else are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And America brought "Democracy" to Iraq.

But let me put the question to you: are we to understand that you want the outright elimination of everything Islamic?

Freediver, my point's in the post: Shariah law does not necessarily include stoning.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

Freediver, my point's in the post: Shariah law does not necessarily include stoning.

"Not necessarily"?!

No bloody political/legal system should include it at all.

Actually Karnal, the fault here is with the Muslims who talk about implementing Shari'ah law. This is not Shari'ah law at all. It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean. They shouldn't use the word Shari'ah law, knowing how susceptible Westerners are to basing their opinions about things on very little knowledge of them.

It's like Aboriginal tribal laws in parts of Australia or Jewish Halachic laws in Britain, they are not actually implementing those law systems, but merely some non-binding parts of them used amongst mutually agreeing parties and having recognition under the common law.

Like with everything else regarding Islam though, we only hear about the supposed mountain, never the molehill that better fits the reality.

Ignorant people are usually ignorant for a reason, because they don't have the capacity to think beyond a very limited scope.

I should have written rarely, Helian, but I can't come to terms with stoning either.

I certainly can't defend this one.

Quote:

It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean.

If it isn't Sharia law, where are these rulings coming from?

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

Actually Karnal, the fault here is with the Muslims who talk about implementing Shari'ah law. This is not Shari'ah law at all. It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean. They shouldn't use the word Shari'ah law, knowing how susceptible Westerners are to basing their opinions about things on very little knowledge of them.

That is human nature, Abu. Most (if not all) people (Muslims as well) have strong opinions on a range of subjects (particularly politics) based on the little information available to them. The responsibility is on the informers to inform and not make it a "Western ignorance thing" when they fail to communicate (and no one should imagine the job should be easy).

We all know how susceptible Muslims are to this very human trait themselves and how some are prepared to load themselves up with explosives to demonstrate their opinion.

Jordan,

Does Australia implement Aboriginal Tribal law? Does Britain implement Jewish Halachic law? No. Just because you take a few non-binding things from a law system doesn't mean you're implementing that law system, it's just ludicrous to claim it is. This is nothing but a "scare campaign".

helian,


Quote:

That is human nature, Abu. Most (if not all) people (Muslims as well) have strong opinions on a range of subjects (particularly politics) based on the little information available to them.

If that were the case, then we'd think they'd have the same strong opinions about Jewish Halachic law or Aboriginal Tribal law, but they don't. In Halachic law for instance did you know that if a man rapes a girl, and it's outside the city limits, then he simply has to marry her, can never divorce her, and must pay her father 50 shekels. Now I don't think anyone believes this part of Halachic law will ever be implemented in Britain, yet they are convinced that Muslims will implement stoning. It's just ridiculous really, and I'm shocked someone such as yourself would be subscribing to and proliferating this garbage.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

…. We all know how susceptible Muslims are to this very human trait themselves and how some are prepared to load themselves up with explosives to demonstrate their opinion.

I just hope that OUR, WESTERN way of life is protected from being run over by fast breeding members of any religious order bent on taking over the World.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 11:26am:

If that were the case, then we'd think they'd have the same strong opinions about Jewish Halachic law or Aboriginal Tribal law, but they don't. In Halachic law for instance did you know that if a man rapes a girl, and it's outside the city limits, then he simply has to marry her, can never divorce her, and must pay her father 50 shekels. Now I don't think anyone believes this part of Halachic law will ever be implemented in Britain, yet they are convinced that Muslims will implement stoning. It's just ridiculous really, and I'm shocked someone such as yourself would be subscribing to and proliferating this garbage.

Enough of the mock shock and outrage, Abu, we're not kids. I am not proliferating anything about Sharia law.

Fear of Muslims is clearly the reason people are inclined to believe the more outlandish claims about Muslims and Islam. Something that is not helped by Muslims' demanding that cartoonists who dare to depict Muhammad should die, should be murdered.

Quote:

Does Australia implement Aboriginal Tribal law? Does Britain implement Jewish Halachic law? No. Just because you take a few non-binding things from a law system doesn't mean you're implementing that law system, it's just ludicrous to claim it is. This is nothing but a "scare campaign".

Don't avoid my question by asking other questions. Do me the courtesy of answering me first, then I will do you the courtesy of answering your questions.

If these rulings do not come from Sharia law, where do they come from?

So are just as docile as the rest here helian. I held out some hope for you, but not anymore.

Jordan, lots of things "come from other things" but they are not those things. Panadeine comes from Opium, but it is not opium, hundreds of medicines come from urine but they are not urine.

I have answered you already, you simply don't get it, because you're just too simple.

Just as a side comment, abu moans about westerners ignorance towards Islam, I've just got to add he is a terrible steward of his chosen religion, if nothing else he has pushed people further away from understanding and accepting Islam and muslims as part of western society and has increased the fear and suspicion surrounding it. He is doing more damage to Islam and being extremely divisive between muslims and non-muslims. This is the type of person who we need to watch out for, and who needs to be silenced not only for the good of Australian muslims, but for the good of Australia as a whole.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 12:46pm:

Jordan, lots of things "come from other things" but they are not those things. Panadeine comes from Opium, but it is not opium, hundreds of medicines come from urine but they are not urine. I have answered you already, you simply don't get it, because you're just too simple.

It's not a hard question, abu. I think it's you who are simple if you cannot answer it. And if you have, please direct to where.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 12:44pm:

So are just as docile as the rest here helian. I held out some hope for you, but not anymore.

Abu, don't be a baby.

When dealing with a pack of infantile half-wits, one is not left with much of a choice. As they say argue with idiots and eventually they'll drag you down to their own level and beat you from experience.

Anyway I'm done on this topic, I'm not going to waste the laser-etched letters on my keys anymore than I already have here.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 12:34pm:

Fear of Muslims is clearly the reason people are inclined to believe the more outlandish claims about Muslims and Islam. Something that is not helped by Muslims' demanding that cartoonists who dare to depict Muhammad should die, should be murdered.

Sure, but fear of Muslims has been carefully crafted. We didn't have this fear en masse before September 11.

The Danish cartoon thing is the biggest media hype there is. Doctors doing abortions in the US get more death threats than the Danish cartoonist. The cartoonist has no security and, from what he says, no fear. People are getting murdered every day, but this guy's doing fine.

But the outcry was profound.

The fear of Muslims has been propagated to create a climate where the US could directly intervene in the oil countries. The fear of Islam is a direct result of the world's dwindling oil supply.

That, and the vacuum created by the fall of the USSR.

It is no suprise that the biggest fear of Islam comes from the greatest proponents of US hegemony. They also scream the loudest (especially on this board).

Oh!

I agree with you that Muslims shoot themselves in the foot by fanning the flames. And many of them are more reactionary than Fox News viewers. More us-versus-them in world where real bombs get dropped.

Or detonated from within an explosives vest.

This whole Shariah law thing is complete hype - bought by the hapless consumers of News Corp publications and TV, and then filtered into the internet as rumours. Or even more likely, vice-versa: trickled into columns like Piers Akerman's from unchecked internet rumours.

Once, the news sought to give the facts - hold it right there - no it didn't!

The news is there to create consumers. The more fear, the more sales, the more advertising.

If a handful of Muslims want their own system to settle their own disputes, let them have it.

After all, until a cop or a civilian gets hit, we never interfere with the gangsters.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 1:21pm:

Anyway I'm done on this topic, I'm not going to waste the laser-etched letters on my keys anymore than I already have here.

weak

Quote:

If a handful of Muslims want their own system to settle their own disputes, let them have it.

Slippery slope, my friend.

jordan484 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 1:33pm:

Quote: If a handful of Muslims want their own system to settle their own disputes, let them have it. Slippery slope, my friend.

You think so? Well, who was it that encouraged all that multicultural folk dancing in the 1970s? Al Grasby?

If I see one more group of men in frilly shirts, black britches and their old school shoes doing the thigh slapping thing, I'll...

No, hang on. I'm used to it now. In fact, it's all rather quaint really, isn't it?

So 1970s.

We should have ONE LAW and definitely not theirs.

Happy wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 1:43pm:

We should have ONE LAW and definitely not theirs.

You should turn this into a song, Happy.

But make it a happy song.

karnals krap knows no bounds.

docctors doing abortions do it legally and at request. they do not want to take over the world and make everyone have an abortion.
unlike islamics.

ALL the religious wars involve islam. it ie islam against everyone else - as mohammad told you buggerers do.


want your own system - go and live in your own stinking backward repressed sexist country.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 2:59pm:

karnals krap knows no bounds. docctors doing abortions do it legally and at request. they do not want to take over the world and make everyone have an abortion. unlike islamics. ALL the religious wars involve islam. it ie islam against everyone else - as mohammad told you buggerers do. want your own system - go and live in your own stinking backward repressed sexist country.

Now here's a marvellous example of this genre of duped, hysterical, and almost drugged hyperbole. It's almost cult-like in its groupthink. You can see how people in Iran can get caught up in protests burning US flags with this sort of unquestioning fervour.

Death to Iran! Death to Islam! Invade! Attack! Raise to the ground!

What Sprint ignores is history. Most of our wars have been between Catholics and protestants. Who ever heard of a Muslim 50 years ago? Back in the 1980s, the terrorists were the IRA and UDA.

The Muslims were either mustachioed plane hijackers who said "take me to Havana", or those rich oil sheiks shopping in Harrods. Even then, they weren't Muslims, they were Palestinians. Or Saudis.

Somewhere along the way the trope changed to become an Islamic assault on the rest of the world.

He's right, of course. My krapp knows no bounds.

One last thing: I did used to live in a stinking backward repressed sexist country. Fortunately, we changed it. Now we have to work to save it from reactionary bigots.

Allah Akbar!

Quote:

docctors doing abortions do it legally and at request. they do not want to take over the world and make everyone have an abortion.

You're really not playing with a full deck of cards are you sprint?

He meant abortionist-performing doctors have more to fear from Christian extremists trying to kill them than cartoonists do from Muslims.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

Quote: docctors doing abortions do it legally and at request. they do not want to take over the world and make everyone have an abortion. You're really not playing with a full deck of cards are you sprint? He meant abortionist-performing doctors have more to fear from Christian extremists trying to kill them than cartoonists do from Muslims.

At least he got as far as the second paragraph before he hit the standard death-to-all-Muslims reply button.

I sometimes wonder if they get read at all.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

Actually Karnal, the fault here is with the Muslims who talk about implementing Shari'ah law. This is not Shari'ah law at all. It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean. They shouldn't use the word Shari'ah law, knowing how susceptible Westerners are to basing their opinions about things on very little knowledge of them. It's like Aboriginal tribal laws in parts of Australia or Jewish Halachic laws in Britain, they are not actually implementing those law systems, but merely some non-binding parts of them used amongst mutually agreeing parties and having recognition under the common law. Like with everything else regarding Islam though, we only hear about the supposed mountain, never the molehill that better fits the reality. Ignorant people are usually ignorant for a reason, because they don't have the capacity to think beyond a very limited scope.

The mountain is this - there is a non-negotiable, fundamental inequality built into every aspect of Islamic law: a woman is only half a man. Apply islamic principles (don't even call the sharia) to family law, civil disputes about property, inheritance matters, neighbourhood disputes, anything, and see if it is compatible with Western law. ANd that's just one incompatible element.

The aspect of voluntary use of Islamic courts, and therefore its supposed acceptability to women is spurious because in Islamic families, patriarchy rules (just like it did everywhere a 100 years ago). But now is now, not a 100 years ago. Back than, it may have not bee so different but now, Islamic legal thinking is hoopelessly incompatible with Western law, especially in domestic matters. 500 years ago Islam did not have to resort to appeals to 'minority rights' or some such weepy subterfuge - they marched in, cut your balls off if you were luck, you head if you weren't and bingo! It was Sharia law all round.

Who hasn't heard of the Trojan horse or salami tactics? It is no secret that islam wants to dominate and has a much longer view of such things than the kiddies today who think history started 50 years ago when hirsute Arabs were only known for their love of shopping at Harrods.

Soren wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24th, 2010 at 9:31am: Actually Karnal, the fault here is with the Muslims who talk about implementing Shari'ah law. This is not Shari'ah law at all. It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean. They shouldn't use the word Shari'ah law, knowing how susceptible Westerners are to basing their opinions about things on very little knowledge of them. It's like Aboriginal tribal laws in parts of Australia or Jewish Halachic laws in Britain, they are not actually implementing those law systems, but merely some non-binding parts of them used amongst mutually agreeing parties and having recognition under the common law. Like with everything else regarding Islam though, we only hear about the supposed mountain, never the molehill that better fits the reality. Ignorant people are usually ignorant for a reason, because they don't have the capacity to think beyond a very limited scope. The mountain is this - there is a non-negotiable, fundamental inequality built into every aspect of Islamic law: a woman is only half a man. Apply islamic principles (don't even call the sharia) to family law, civil disputes about property, inheritance matters, neighbourhood disputes, anything, and see if it is compatible with Western law. ANd that's just one incompatible element. The aspect of voluntary use of Islamic courts, and therefore its supposed acceptability to women is spurious because in Islamic families, patriarchy rules (just like it did everywhere a 100 years ago). But now is now, not a 100 years ago. Back than, it may have not bee so different but now, Islamic legal thinking is hoopelessly incompatible with Western law, especially in domestic matters. 500 years ago Islam did not have to resort to appeals to 'minority rights' or some such weepy subterfuge - they marched in, cut your balls off if you were luck, you head if you weren't and bingo! It was Sharia law all round. Who hasn't heard of the Trojan horse or salami tactics? It is no secret that islam wants to dominate and has a much longer view of such things than the kiddies today who think history started 50 years ago when hirsute Arabs were only known for their love of shopping at Harrods.

I'm assuming you were around in the hirsute 1980s, Soren, so I'll ask you this:

When did you come to the conclusion that Islam was the enemy of the Western world?

karnal - i'll ask you this:
what the bugger are you scum doing in any land of free speecha nd democracy?
you swine are opposed to either, why live here?
we don't like you.
Why not go to a backward ideolgical repressive country where yoou can oppress your wives and any infidels who are idiotic to go there ?

please answer these, deflective muslim

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 9:41am:

karnal - i'll ask you this: what the bugger are you scum doing in any land of free speecha nd democracy? you swine are opposed to either, why live here? we don't like you. Why not go to a backward ideolgical repressive country where yoou can oppress your wives and any infidels who are idiotic to go there ? please answer these, deflective muslim

We love you, my sister, that is why we are here. We come to make peace in your beautiful land and bring you all to Allah and His prophet, peace be upon him.

Soon, this radiant land will shine with the fear of God and His holy law. We will cleanse you of your evil ways so that you may enter paradise when you are taken by the sword of jihad.

Look upon your words, oh infidel, they are of hatred and fear. Come to Allah and know only fear of God, insh'alla. Learn from the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, and rise against your evil ways.

Abbah Nilahtah!

sorry karnal,
i don't like paedophiles, let alone follow them.
mohammad was an illiterate sex addicted war lord.
he offers a straightjacket of laws, no freedom of spirituality.

read the koran, then read the bible. the two books are mutually exclusive.
the NT and OT are inextricably linked in many ways.
the koran regresses and has no mentioning of many of the values in the bible

the koran just a piece of poo, it shows no relationships or emotions, states no places, times, geneology, is VERY badly written and shown in a chaotic timeline.
it shows violence as being correct and the most extreme the best.

so, go suck poo

Big Donger wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

Soren wrote on Mar 24th, 2010 at 9:29pm: abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24th, 2010 at 9:31am: Actually Karnal, the fault here is with the Muslims who talk about implementing Shari'ah law. This is not Shari'ah law at all. It's merely a few aspects of family and contract law that they mean. They shouldn't use the word Shari'ah law, knowing how susceptible Westerners are to basing their opinions about things on very little knowledge of them. It's like Aboriginal tribal laws in parts of Australia or Jewish Halachic laws in Britain, they are not actually implementing those law systems, but merely some non-binding parts of them used amongst mutually agreeing parties and having recognition under the common law. Like with everything else regarding Islam though, we only hear about the supposed mountain, never the molehill that better fits the reality. Ignorant people are usually ignorant for a reason, because they don't have the capacity to think beyond a very limited scope. The mountain is this - there is a non-negotiable, fundamental inequality built into every aspect of Islamic law: a woman is only half a man. Apply islamic principles (don't even call the sharia) to family law, civil disputes about property, inheritance matters, neighbourhood disputes, anything, and see if it is compatible with Western law. ANd that's just one incompatible element. The aspect of voluntary use of Islamic courts, and therefore its supposed acceptability to women is spurious because in Islamic families, patriarchy rules (just like it did everywhere a 100 years ago). But now is now, not a 100 years ago. Back than, it may have not bee so different but now, Islamic legal thinking is hoopelessly incompatible with Western law, especially in domestic matters. 500 years ago Islam did not have to resort to appeals to 'minority rights' or some such weepy subterfuge - they marched in, cut your balls off if you were luck, you head if you weren't and bingo! It was Sharia law all round. Who hasn't heard of the Trojan horse or salami tactics? It is no secret that islam wants to dominate and has a much longer view of such things than the kiddies today who think history started 50 years ago when hirsute Arabs were only known for their love of shopping at Harrods. I'm assuming you were around in the hirsute 1980s, Soren, so I'll ask you this: When did you come to the conclusion that Islam was the enemy of the Western world?

It has never been anything but the enemy of the West in its 1400 years history.

It has never been anyything but the enemy of the non-muslim world, if that 'inclusiveness' makes you feel bnetter.

Soren wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 11:17am:

It has never been anything but the enemy of the West in its 1400 years history. It has never been anyything but the enemy of the non-muslim world, if that 'inclusiveness' makes you feel bnetter.

Yes, but that wasn't what I asked, was it?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

sorry karnal, i don't like paedophiles, let alone follow them. mohammad was an illiterate sex addicted war lord. he offers a straightjacket of laws, no freedom of spirituality. read the koran, then read the bible. the two books are mutually exclusive. the NT and OT are inextricably linked in many ways. the koran regresses and has no mentioning of many of the values in the bible the koran just a piece of poo, it shows no relationships or emotions, states no places, times, geneology, is VERY badly written and shown in a chaotic timeline. it shows violence as being correct and the most extreme the best. so, go suck poo

Thank you for your compliments, my sister. Poo is a delicacy in our religion - may you have much poo to eat as well!

It does not matter if you are not yet a paedophile. You can learn this with time, by the grace and fear of God. Obey the will of God and you too can love the little children, insh'alla.

You are a very wise aunt, habibi.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 11:33am:

Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:17am: It has never been anything but the enemy of the West in its 1400 years history. It has never been anyything but the enemy of the non-muslim world, if that 'inclusiveness' makes you feel bnetter. Yes, but that wasn't what I asked, was it?

You should have asked "when did you have an opportunity to conclude that Islam is NOT the enemy of the West?" I haven't had that opportunity.  That it is has been always the enemy of the west is a conclusion everyone draws at the end of the firtst history lesson about it in middle school. That's when I also drew that conclusion, so that's my answer to your question.

Soren wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 4:29pm:

Big Donger wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:17am: It has never been anything but the enemy of the West in its 1400 years history. It has never been anyything but the enemy of the non-muslim world, if that 'inclusiveness' makes you feel bnetter. Yes, but that wasn't what I asked, was it? You should have asked "when did you have an opportunity to conclude that Islam is NOT the enemy of the West?" I haven't had that opportunity.  That it is has been always the enemy of the west is a conclusion everyone draws at the end of the firtst history lesson about it in middle school. That's when I also drew that conclusion, so that's my answer to your question.

That first history lesson must have covered quite a bit, Soren. You've always hated Islam? Have you come into contact with many Muslims? It doesn't sound like there would have been many in a Danish middle school, anyway.

Big Donger wrote on Mar 26^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 4:29pm: Big Donger wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:33am: Soren wrote on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:17am: It has never been anything but the enemy of the West in its 1400 years history. It has never been anyything but the enemy of the non-muslim world, if that 'inclusiveness' makes you feel bnetter. Yes, but that wasn't what I asked, was it? You should have asked "when did you have an opportunity to conclude that Islam is NOT the enemy of the West?" I haven't had that opportunity.  That it is has been always the enemy of the west is a conclusion everyone draws at the end of the first history lesson about it in middle school. That's when I also drew that conclusion, so that's my answer to your question. That first history lesson must have covered quite a bit, Soren. You've always hated Islam? Have you come into contact with many Muslims? It doesn't sound like there would have been many in a Danish middle school, anyway.

" first history lesson about it ", I said. Anyway, do I need to meet actual nazis to learn about their ideology and aims?
And no matter how nice individual muslims may be, the aims of Islam do not change.

Please don't be so militantly thick.

Quote:

You've always hated Islam? Have you come into contact with many Muslims? It doesn't sound like there would have been many in a Danish middle school, anyway.

Don't underestimate our soren. He really loves hanging around Muslims, he's quite the groupie. Prior to moving to OzPolitic, he actually used to spend most of his time endearing himself to the Muslims on Aussiemuslims.

He just likes to act all Islamophobic so the others don't think he's a pansey.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

Quote: docctors doing abortions do it legally and at request. they do not want to take over the world and make everyone have an abortion. You're really not playing with a full deck of cards are you sprint? He meant abortionist-performing doctors have more to fear from Christian extremists trying to kill them than cartoonists do from Muslims.

Unless of course they work in the twin towers. Or anywhere in the middle east.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 26^th, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Quote: You've always hated Islam? Have you come into contact with many Muslims? It doesn't sound like there would have been many in a Danish middle school, anyway. Don't underestimate our soren. He really loves hanging around Muslims, he's quite the groupie. Prior to moving to OzPolitic, he actually used to spend most of his time endearing himself to the Muslims on Aussiemuslims. He just likes to act all Islamophobic so the others don't think he's a pansey.

Just doin' my patriotic duty - annoying you back...

Actually, it is a service to you, too, proding you along the path of reform. You can benefit from asking yourselves 'why do we Muslims p!ss them off so much, even the intelligent ones? What do they expect from us'. I am helping you to formulate an answer to that for yourselves.

Soren wrote on Mar 26^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 26th, 2010 at 10:10pm: Quote: You've always hated Islam? Have you come into contact with many Muslims? It doesn't sound like there would have been many in a Danish middle school, anyway. Don't underestimate our soren. He really loves hanging around Muslims, he's quite the groupie. Prior to moving to OzPolitic, he actually used to spend most of his time endearing himself to the Muslims on Aussiemuslims. He just likes to act all Islamophobic so the others don't think he's a pansey. Just doin' my patriotic duty - annoying you back... Actually, it is a service to you, too, proding you along the path of reform. You can benefit from asking yourselves 'why do we Muslims p!ss them off so much, even the intelligent ones? What do they expect from us'. I am helping you to formulate an answer to that for yourselves.

Yes - gentle service along the path to reform - lightly guiding and prodding the Muselmen along the path to civilized Enlightenment values. A freelance consultant lending his voice.

I'm assuming from your post that you don't know any Muslims. I'm also assuming that you haven't read the Koran (beyond the odd passage) or any other Muslim text (with any attempt at understanding).

I know you've read a few things ABOUT Islam, but given your distance, how could you possibly know the aims of Islam?

1.Assume away pal.

2. I do come across muslims daily. But it's never been about people, it's always been about the ideology.

3.The Koran - I have tried many, many times. It is absolutely unreadable. It is a complete parody, a complete misunderstanding of everything it addresses. It's Ula from Fat Pizza, for hundreds of pages,  'fully sick, swear to god'. It's fascinating that Mohammed lived in an environment where this sort of thing had legs. Those pre-Isamic Arabs were unbeliavably credulous.