Why do muslims have higher unemployment rates Abu,can you give us your thoughts on this


Quote:

In 2006, only 57% of muslim males were employed. The unemployment rate for muslim males was more than double that of the total population of working age. The labor force experience of muslim females was even more divergent since almost two thirds of muslim women 63.3% were not in the labor force Muslim women experienced a much higher rate of unemployment at over 15.1% compared to 5.3% for the total female population. This study also shows muslim women born in Australia have a much higher employment rate compared to muslim women born overseas Labor force status 2006- Muslim males Employed- 69,931 Unemployed- 10,081 Not in labor force -42,075 Muslim females Employed- 34,310 Unemployed -6083 Not in Labor force- 69,599 Total Employed- 104,241 Unemployed- 16,164 Not in labor force-111,674 The study is of those of working age, those who are not in the labor force would be on a disability pension or a self funded retiree. Source-http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/muslim-jobseekers.pdf

Its a fair question, and it deserves an honest and open discussion. But it should be discussed calmly and rationally - something which I regret to say, I have serious doubts such a discussion can be made on this forum.

Anyway, I don't know the full answer, but I have studied the first generation Lebanese community in Sydney - which is by far the largest muslim group in Australia. What I can say about this group is they arrived in Australia fleeing war, they were mostly unskilled, and for a variety of reasons (including not being classed as refugees and not getting the perks that come with that, and the neo-liberal "self help" policies of the Fraser government), they did not get the government assistance that they otherwise would have. This group has undeniably stagnated in terms of social mobility as a result. Studies have shown also that the 2nd and 3rd generations of these migrants have not improved much.

Thats just one group of many - and I'd be interested to know if this one group is whats pushing up the unemployment, or if the high unemployment rates are high across the board.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 15^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Why do muslims have higher unemployment rates Abu,can you give us your thoughts on this

Your own link suggests some reasons why:


Quote:

In August 2010, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern reports from Australia that highlighted ‘ongoing issues of discrimination and inequity …experienced by members of certain minority communities including African communities, people of Asian, Middle Eastern and Muslim background, and in particular Muslim women’ (United Nations, 2010:3).

Quote:

Muslims are often viewed as ‘other’ by employers, fellow workers or customers, resulting in discrimination. Muslims are more likely to be unemployed than jobseekers of other faiths.

Interestingly those whining the most about unemployed Muslims are probably also of the same ilk that would like to deny them jobs and discriminate against them.

I'd be interested in comparing studies between Muslims and non-Muslims from the same immigrant background, as well as looking at the wider issue of employment of refugees in general.

Also your highlighted text regarding women born here and not born here says a lot doesn't it? It's got very little to do with being Muslim at all.

I honestly don't see what benefit there is in linking one's religious beliefs to one's employment status. I am a Muslim, I work hard, and for me that's all that matters. Do you feel you should be answering for all the Yobbo dole bludgers who sit at home and drink piss and smoke dope all day at my expense? Based on the fact you share a cultural/religious affiliation with them?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

Its a fair question, and it deserves an honest and open discussion.

No it's not. It's an idiotic question that deserves to be ridiculed for the nonsensical bigoted agenda it is based around.

Quote:

No it's not. It's an idiotic question that deserves to be ridiculed for the nonsensical bigoted agenda it is based around.

righto then. Continue the inane cycle of invectives that sadly characterises this forum, and throw any attempt at generating actual constructive discussion. I know there are some bigots who frequent here, but honestly, your constant feeding of the trolls by stooping to their level is just as much to blame for the sorry state of this forum. One wonders why you even bother running this forum other than to score cheap points and indulge in endless ad-homs.The point is, the question in this thread is a worthwhile topic - notwithstanding the obvious prejudicial overtones that motivated the questioner. That shouldn't matter - a legitimate question should be answered on its own merits. 

If you give oxygen to fire then you bear some responsibility for its destruction.

This thread is nothing but pure flame, there is no sincerity in these questions at all, there's no aim of making Australia a better place and all this crap, it's purely an attempt to attack Muslims, and to assign any negative aspect about any sub-set of Muslims to the whole.

If you'd like to feed such low level trash, then that's your perogative, I personally prefer not to.

If you honestly believe this thread is going to be a place for constructive discussion, then all I can say is you are naive.

Its pretty obvious why. Because employers are victims of the media fear campaign and are being prejudice.

SOB

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 15th, 2012 at 8:41pm: Why do muslims have higher unemployment rates Abu,can you give us your thoughts on this Your own link suggests some reasons why: Quote: In August 2010, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted with concern reports from Australia that highlighted ‘ongoing issues of discrimination and inequity …experienced by members of certain minority communities including African communities, people of Asian, Middle Eastern and Muslim background, and in particular Muslim women’ (United Nations, 2010:3). [quote]Muslims are often viewed as ‘other’ by employers, fellow workers or customers, resulting in discrimination. Muslims are more likely to be unemployed than jobseekers of other faiths.

I'd be interested in comparing studies between Muslims and non-Muslims from the same immigrant background, as well as looking at the wider issue of employment of refugees in general.

Also your highlighted text regarding women born here and not born here says a lot doesn't it? It's got very little to do with being Muslim at all.

I am a Muslim, I work hard, and for me that's all that matters. Do you feel you should be answering for all the Yobbo dole bludgers who sit at home and drink piss and smoke dope all day at my expense?[/quote]

The UN made a mistake in claiming muslims suffer from racial discrimination, since when did muslims become a race?
Muslims are not a race of people in fact muslims come from all races even white people like Jihad Jane, there are many hadeeth that say Muhammad was white.

Islam is not a race either it is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims, the report did have about half of the muslims saying racism was not a factor in why they didnt get the job

Do you think it is pathetic to play the race card when muslims are not even a race of people, they come from all races?

As for immigrants from the same country with differing religions we could look at the muslim and maronite christian Lebanese to see which one integrates better,Sheikh Hilaly represents the sunni Lebanese and we know all about the strife they have been in.

As for boat people refugees the government has already done a study on refugees and employment,83.5% of them are still on centrelink up to 5 years after arriving in Australia for some reason they did not mention how many are on the pension(page 20)
Those who do not speak english have a 100% unemployment rate, many even said there were not enough hours in the day to learn english despite being unemployed.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

I work and even if i lost my job i would not qualify for the dole due to having considerably more than $3K in the bank as well as dividends from the stockmarket.
If you look at the threads in this forum with those asking for the dole to be raised you might discover i suggest getting a job and remind people the dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice.

So what percentage of muslims in the cited survey said they have no desire to work did you read that part?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 4:57am:

Its pretty obvious why. Because employers are victims of the media fear campaign and are being prejudice. SOB

Ah of course.  It's obviously solely due to discrimination.  Isn't it always?

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

since when did muslims become a race?

modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:14pm: since when did muslims become a race? modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term.

Still falls into the same ingroup/outgroup dichotomy everyone draws.  And yes, I do mean everyone. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:14pm: since when did muslims become a race? modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term.

Muslims are not a race of people, muslims come from every race including white people.

Muslims follow Islam which is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims it has nothing to do with genetics.

Muslims are unable to counter critics so they claim racism to shut down any debates on Islam.

Islamophobia is another word that does not appear in any medical journals despite the fact phobias are a medical condition.
Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs.

As for defining words you could use a dictionary.

Hey Baron its the same in the UK. I think its built into their psyche because they were so used to invading and stealing what they wanted. If you have ever been to Dubai you notice nearly all the workers are imported. Don't know how they will get on when the oil runs out.


"Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 that 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed - rise from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004. Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability (2001 figures). Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures). As if this is not enough, the total prison population in the UK amongst category A and B criminals (the worse crimes) is now 35-39% Muslim".

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/uk-britain-sinking-under-weight-of-welfare-costs-while-unproductive-muslims-cost-a-staggering-18-billion-a-year/

Coming home from work on a friday (which is about 1.30pm) my brother and I always say this same  thing when we pass our local mosque- It's packed, they must not work. Seriously though , if you neglect your schooling because it's kafir rubbish then what do they expect. I'd put money on it that Abu is a dole bludger too.

This is a great stat that all muslim apologists will ignore like the plague. Hey Abu Rashid it is from Wiki leaks too so it has to be true!

"According to a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at thirty universities throughout the UK conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), as reported ref B, 32 percent of Muslims on UK campuses believe killing in the name of religion is justified",

Well F Me look at the scum we let through!

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/statistics/uk-muslim-statistics/

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Muslims are not a race of people, muslims come from every race including white people.

thats not the point. The mechanisms behind prejudice and racism are well known, and they don't just exist between groups we might term as different "races" in the traditional sense. They also exist between different ethnics and different religions (for example).

[Muslims are unable to counter critics so they claim racism to shut down any debates on Islam.[/quote]

That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists.
Big Dave wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Coming home from work on a friday (which is about 1.30pm) my brother and I always say this same  thing when we pass our local mosque- It's packed, they must not work.

Its called a lunch break. The Friday khutbah generally lasts between 1pm and 2pm, which is perfectly reasonable for someone on their lunch break.

And adamant, can we stay on topic please? This is supposed to be about muslim unemployment, not an excuse to start hurling any random vitriol at muslims. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists.

Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone.

Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind. 

So what's the problem?

If prejudice is a reason for high unemployment then why is the workforce full of lots of other migrant groups like Asians for instance? Most migrant groups have come to Australia and prospered.
 

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

If prejudice is a reason for high unemployment then why is the workforce full of lots of other migrant groups like Asians for instance? Most migrant groups have come to Australia and prospered.

You have in reality answered your own question.

They, people of other religious beliefs want to work.

Muslims, in general do not!

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

The UN made a mistake in claiming muslims suffer from racial discrimination, since when did muslims become a race?

Where does it say Muslims suffer from racial discrimination?

Besides, as far as most ignorant rednecks who discriminate against Muslims are concerned, Islam is a country and Muslims are the race of people from there.


Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

As for immigrants from the same country with differing religions we could look at the muslim and maronite christian Lebanese to see which one integrates better,Sheikh Hilaly represents the sunni Lebanese and we know all about the strife they have been in.

So where's the stats?


Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

As for boat people refugees the government has already done a study on refugees and employment,83.5% of them are still on centrelink up to 5 years after arriving in Australia for some reason they did not mention how many are on the pension(page 20)

So it's more related to them being refugees than it is to them being Muslims you mean?

... wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 4:57am: Its pretty obvious why. Because employers are victims of the media fear campaign and are being prejudice. SOB Ah of course.  It's obviously solely due to discrimination.  Isn't it always?

Mainly not ALL .. . . . did you see the other threads with ppl saying "i wouldn't employ a muslim" crapola? Its not so much muslims though because they arent allowed to ask your religion. Its anybody that looks anything like the stereotype is going to have trouble getting work.

SOB

... wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:32pm: That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists. Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone. Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind.  So what's the problem?

Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this because they cant imagine anyone else NOT being like they are. Prejudice is learned. Children are not prejudiced until they are taught to be by their parents etc. Some arent taught and so arent prejudice and they dont understand the kind of ppl that think everyone is because they are.

SOB

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 10:41pm:

Baronvonrort wrote Yesterday at 12:14pm: As for immigrants from the same country with differing religions we could look at the muslim and maronite christian Lebanese to see which one integrates better,Sheikh Hilaly represents the sunni Lebanese and we know all about the strife they have been in. So where's the stats?

Depends on how you want to define integrate, but if it means unemployment and/or lower household income, then the difference between the Lebanese Christians and Lebanese Muslims is stark, and well documented.

There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable.

Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate.

Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society.

The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues.
The prejudice argument is just rubbish.

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

If prejudice is a reason for high unemployment then why is the workforce full of lots of other migrant groups like Asians for instance? Most migrant groups have come to Australia and prospered.

Getting and holding down a job is as good a sign of integration as any, especially when unemployment is around 5%.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 5:41am:

... wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:32pm: That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists. Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone. Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind.  So what's the problem? Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this because they cant imagine anyone else NOT being like they are. Prejudice is learned. Children are not prejudiced until they are taught to be by their parents etc. Some arent taught and so arent prejudice and they dont understand the kind of ppl that think everyone is because they are. SOB

So you're not prejudice against anyone?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 5:41am:

... wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:32pm: That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists. Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone. Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind.  So what's the problem? Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this because they cant imagine anyone else NOT being like they are. Prejudice is learned. Children are not prejudiced until they are taught to be by their parents etc. Some arent taught and so arent prejudice and they dont understand the kind of ppl that think everyone is because they are. SOB

Of course prejudices are learned.  It's impossible - not just difficult - IMPOSSIBLE not to learn it.  It's not so much taught, it is a 'shortcut' that enables the human brain to assess situations faster than any supercomputer.  Maybe that's where I'm going wrong - I assumed you had one.  Working to "stamp out prejudice" is as stupid and futile as working to stamp out heartbeats, or respiration. 

I think your assessment that "Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this" has some merit, but is a little off base.  It's always the people who actually think - not groupthink - who appear the most judgemental and prejudiced.  Understanding biology and related fields doesn't make someone any more "prejudiced and judgemental" anymore than a lack of understanding of thes fields makes someon "compassionate" or "tolerant".  It just makes them more able to understand the inherent qualities and limitataions of human beings, and therefore embraces the truth, rather than regurgiatating vapid, untruthful slogans to ingratiate themself to the herd.   

Prejudices are inevitable, discriminating against people based on them is not.

... wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 5:41am: ... wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:32pm: That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists. Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone. Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind.  So what's the problem? Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this because they cant imagine anyone else NOT being like they are. Prejudice is learned. Children are not prejudiced until they are taught to be by their parents etc. Some arent taught and so arent prejudice and they dont understand the kind of ppl that think everyone is because they are. SOB Of course prejudices are learned.  It's impossible - not just difficult - IMPOSSIBLE not to learn it.  It's not so much taught, it is a 'shortcut' that enables the human brain to assess situations faster than any supercomputer.  Maybe that's where I'm going wrong - I assumed you had one.  Working to "stamp out prejudice" is as stupid and futile as working to stamp out heartbeats, or respiration.  I think your assessment that "Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this" has some merit, but is a little off base.  It's always the people who actually think - not groupthink - who appear the most judgemental and prejudiced.  Understanding biology and related fields doesn't make someone any more "prejudiced and judgemental" anymore than a lack of understanding of thes fields makes someon "compassionate" or "tolerant".  It just makes them more able to understand the inherent qualities and limitataions of human beings, and therefore embraces the truth, rather than regurgiatating vapid, untruthful slogans to ingratiate themself to the herd.

Yeah that makes sense. Thing is that different ppl judge on different attributes. Theres the ppl that judge on dress (which gets outdated fast) and theres the ppl that judge on color (we know those ones) and theres the ones that judge on what those ppl do or say.

SOB

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Prejudices are inevitable, discriminating against people based on them is not.

Yeah that is a point too. IMO it depends what you are basing those prejudices on. If its from their past (resume) or how they look or what you think they believe . . . .

I used to hire about 60 ppl a day in Darwin for labouring jobs. I mostly took the aboriginals first because I knew they would work the entire day and not complain. The tourists were last because they were the ones that didnt really want to work and were always whining. Usually german tourists came looking for work because the beer costs more than they thought it would and they just wanted a few more dollars and they invariably used to disappear into the pub @ lunchtime.

i have no idea whatsoever whether i ever hired a muslim. I never asked anyone their religion and nobody ever told me their religion.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

... wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 5:41am: ... wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 7:32pm: That is sadly partly true - if we were honest about it. However it also can't be denied that real prejudice against muslims exists. Absolutely, but if were honest about it, it can't be denied that real prejudice exists against everyone, and by everyone. Muslims, christians, jews, white people, black people, yellow people, redheads, blondes, brunettes, men, women, long haired, short haired, thong wearers, sandal wearers, high heel wearers - we're even prejudiced by where we see them, the context of it as well as what we see.  Preconceptions about people, objects, animals, situations cannot be avoided - for the most part it's not even under the control of the conscious mind.  So what's the problem? Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this because they cant imagine anyone else NOT being like they are. Prejudice is learned. Children are not prejudiced until they are taught to be by their parents etc. Some arent taught and so arent prejudice and they dont understand the kind of ppl that think everyone is because they are. SOB Of course prejudices are learned.  It's impossible - not just difficult - IMPOSSIBLE not to learn it.  It's not so much taught, it is a 'shortcut' that enables the human brain to assess situations faster than any supercomputer.  Maybe that's where I'm going wrong - I assumed you had one.  Working to "stamp out prejudice" is as stupid and futile as working to stamp out heartbeats, or respiration.  I think your assessment that "Its always the most judgemental and prejudiced ppl that say this" has some merit, but is a little off base.  It's always the people who actually think - not groupthink - who appear the most judgemental and prejudiced.  Understanding biology and related fields doesn't make someone any more "prejudiced and judgemental" anymore than a lack of understanding of thes fields makes someon "compassionate" or "tolerant".  It just makes them more able to understand the inherent qualities and limitataions of human beings, and therefore embraces the truth, rather than regurgiatating vapid, untruthful slogans to ingratiate themself to the herd.    Yeah that makes sense. Thing is that different ppl judge on different attributes. Theres the ppl that judge on dress (which gets outdated fast) and theres the ppl that judge on color (we know those ones) and theres the ones that judge on what those ppl do or say. SOB

I think you'll find everyone judges by a million different criteria, including the ones you mentioned.  The weighting they give to each will vary depending on the individuals own knowledge and experience. 

But imploring people to disregard that knowledge and experience by "stamping out prejudice" is doomed to failure, and all you get is a bunch of lies.  People can say all the right things - but their body language betrays their true feelings every time. 

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:54am: abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:40am: Prejudices are inevitable, discriminating against people based on them is not. Yeah that is a point too. IMO it depends what you are basing those prejudices on. If its from their past (resume) or how they look or what you think they believe . . . . I used to hire about 60 ppl a day in Darwin for labouring jobs. I mostly took the aboriginals first because I knew they would work the entire day and not complain. The tourists were last because they were the ones that didnt really want to work and were always whining. Usually german tourists came looking for work because the beer costs more than they thought it would and they just wanted a few more dollars and they invariably used to disappear into the pub @ lunchtime. i have no idea whatsoever whether i ever hired a muslim. I never asked anyone their religion and nobody ever told me their religion. SOB :D :D :D So you were prejudiced and discriminatory against Germans!

Well german TOURISTS . .. . not germans altogether.

SOB

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:54am: abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:40am: Prejudices are inevitable, discriminating against people based on them is not. Yeah that is a point too. IMO it depends what you are basing those prejudices on. If its from their past (resume) or how they look or what you think they believe . . . . I used to hire about 60 ppl a day in Darwin for labouring jobs. I mostly took the aboriginals first because I knew they would work the entire day and not complain. The tourists were last because they were the ones that didnt really want to work and were always whining. Usually german tourists came looking for work because the beer costs more than they thought it would and they just wanted a few more dollars and they invariably used to disappear into the pub @ lunchtime. i have no idea whatsoever whether i ever hired a muslim. I never asked anyone their religion and nobody ever told me their religion. SOB :D :D :D So you were prejudiced and discriminatory against Germans!

Not only that, he's prejudiced and discrimnatory in favour of aboriginals.  Thats fine if that's what his experiences told him - but you can't expect everyone to have the same experiences.  I also had the 'pleasure' of hiring an abo - he made it till smoko on his first day when we sent him to the shop with our money - he took the money and never came back.  Can't blame me that this, and other experiences colour my view. 

... wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

Soren wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 11:00am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:54am: abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 10:40am: Prejudices are inevitable, discriminating against people based on them is not. Yeah that is a point too. IMO it depends what you are basing those prejudices on. If its from their past (resume) or how they look or what you think they believe . . . . I used to hire about 60 ppl a day in Darwin for labouring jobs. I mostly took the aboriginals first because I knew they would work the entire day and not complain. The tourists were last because they were the ones that didnt really want to work and were always whining. Usually german tourists came looking for work because the beer costs more than they thought it would and they just wanted a few more dollars and they invariably used to disappear into the pub @ lunchtime. i have no idea whatsoever whether i ever hired a muslim. I never asked anyone their religion and nobody ever told me their religion. SOB :D :D :D So you were prejudiced and discriminatory against Germans! Not only that, he's prejudiced and discrimnatory in favour of aboriginals.  Thats fine if that's what his experiences told him - but you can't expect everyone to have the same experiences.  I also had the 'pleasure' of hiring an abo - he made it till smoko on his first day when we sent him to the shop with our money - he took the money and never came back.  Can't blame me that this, and other experiences colour my view.

Well that was my point. I still hired the tourists sometimes. Nearly always got burned though. 60 labourers a day isnt easy to get in a place like darwin in the 80s so I had to take what I could get mostly.

SOB

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 8:40am:

There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable. Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate. Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society. The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues. The prejudice argument is just rubbish.

I'll post this again because the whole thread got derailed. How about we talk about some of the issues I mentioned like how muslim women aren't allowed to work. How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications. But the same do-gooders on here will blame australian society as usual.

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 8:40am: There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable. Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate. Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society. The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues. The prejudice argument is just rubbish. I'll post this again because the whole thread got derailed. How about we talk about some of the issues I mentioned like how muslim women aren't allowed to work. How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications. But the same do-gooders on here will blame australian society as usual.

And it's just as full of bovine faeces now as it was when you first posted it.

If a mother/wife wishes to stay at home and look after her family, what's your problem with that? It's none of your business.

I'm a Muslim man and have no problem speaking English nor a poor education nor a bad attitude towards Australian society.

I also attend Friday prayer each week, and work 9-5... no problem for me, and never has been. Are there actually jobs that don't permit a lunch hour?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 12:53pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 8:40am: There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable. Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate. Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society. The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues. The prejudice argument is just rubbish. I'll post this again because the whole thread got derailed. How about we talk about some of the issues I mentioned like how muslim women aren't allowed to work. How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications. But the same do-gooders on here will blame australian society as usual. And it's just as full of bovine faeces now as it was when you first posted it. If a mother/wife wishes to stay at home and look after her family, what's your problem with that? It's none of your business. I'm a Muslim man and have no problem speaking English nor a poor education nor a bad attitude towards Australian society. I also attend Friday prayer each week, and work 9-5... no problem for me, and never has been. Are there actually jobs that don't permit a lunch hour?

Abu's comedy routine continues.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 12:53pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 8:40am: There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable. Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate. Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society. The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues. The prejudice argument is just rubbish. I'll post this again because the whole thread got derailed. How about we talk about some of the issues I mentioned like how muslim women aren't allowed to work. How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications. But the same do-gooders on here will blame australian society as usual. And it's just as full of bovine faeces now as it was when you first posted it. If a mother/wife wishes to stay at home and look after her family, what's your problem with that? It's none of your business. I'm a Muslim man and have no problem speaking English nor a poor education nor a bad attitude towards Australian society. I also attend Friday prayer each week, and work 9-5... no problem for me, and never has been. Are there actually jobs that don't permit a lunch hour? Abu's comedy routine continues.

How is it a comedy routine? Looks legit to me . . . .

SOB

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 12:53pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 8:40am: There's 2 reasons why people  are unemployed in australia- 1 you don't wanna OR 2- you are unemployable. Muslim women are mostly not allowed to work. Her sole duties include having kids and serving her family. That explains their high unemployment rate. Muslim men on the other hand have such issues as not being about to speak english and  poor education. Plus the bad attitudes towards being part of Australian society. The religion must get in the way of working also. When you have religious meetings that fall during the week it must affect their ability to hold a 9 to 5 job. There's a tonne of issues. The prejudice argument is just rubbish. I'll post this again because the whole thread got derailed. How about we talk about some of the issues I mentioned like how muslim women aren't allowed to work. How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications. But the same do-gooders on here will blame australian society as usual. And it's just as full of bovine faeces now as it was when you first posted it. If a mother/wife wishes to stay at home and look after her family, what's your problem with that? It's none of your business. I'm a Muslim man and have no problem speaking English nor a poor education nor a bad attitude towards Australian society. I also attend Friday prayer each week, and work 9-5... no problem for me, and never has been. Are there actually jobs that don't permit a lunch hour?

Why the high unemployment rates then?

Big Dave wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Why the high unemployment rates then?

I've already highlighted above what I think the statistics are a result of.

I think it's refugees who have a high unemployment rate (not surprisingly), not Muslims. Just so happens quite a few Muslims are refugees.

I personally don't know of any adult Muslim male in my circles who is unemployed, and I know very few without a university education. Then again, I don't know a lot of refugees, most Muslims I know were born here or at least raised for a significant portion of their lives here, or were recent arrivals for professional reasons (ie. came specifically for a certain job).

And regardless of all this, it's still completely irrelevant to me. All that's important to me is my own employment, I am no more responsible for the employment of people I never met, nor control, than I am for your employment. Only a very simple but twisted mind would think otherwise.

I'll tell you something about me Abu, your blue blood australian like Allan Jones  have never did anything for me. I don't feel any connection to them at all and I'm a blonde haired australian male. In the time of my youth they had this idea that  some people would run the show while everybody else filled the factories. Many naturally intelligent people fell through the cracks because of education inequity. Even the dummies from good schools ended up in power. It's changing now luckily.The people that have migrated to australia don't follow any of that . Many  speak to you on their level and their manners are amazing. Those people be it aboriginal, muslim or whatever are strong and worthy of respect. But followers are all the same no matter the religon or race.

Dave,

That's all good and well, but what does it have to do with you quizzing me about unemployed Muslims?

And in response to your points there, the simple fact is there's always going to be followers and leaders, that's the way society works. I don't understand your gripe with that. Yes sometimes people make it into positions of leadership based on criteria other than their intelligence or suitability for leadership, that's life.

Now back to the actual topic..

Do you recognise that when refugees come here, they usually know little/no English, usually have no education and usually have been through very traumatic experiences? Therefore finding work is not as simple for them as it is for you or I. Now I'm sure it's really important that our society does something to get them working and integrated into the workforce, but sitting around blaming it on their particular religious background, and by extension attempting to relate that to all people of the same religious beliefs, really ain't what needs to be done. No matter how much you think it helps, it does not.

Fact is Abu certain groups in Australia have high unemployment rates. Muslim migrant groups feature highly while other migrant groups have low rates. It's not only refugees either. Crime rates are alarming too. Instead of arguing about it with me how about offering some reasons. That's what the thread is about. I've got to say, after reading Aussiemuslim I'm not surprised. I think many just don't want to. Blind followers like I alluded to in my last rant.

Can you show some statistics to prove it is not mostly refugees?

Why would I need to offer reasons? Again this simple and twisted mentality, that as a Muslim, I'm somehow responsible for someone elses unemployment. I'm employed, not my problem, sorry.

So from reading Aussiemuslims, you think you can determine the employment status of people? You're a simpleton, seriously.

You're twisting it all up again. You just can't give a straight answer can you. This thread is about high muslim unemployment. If you can't offer something then kafur off somewhere else! I can't help it if lebbo's don't like working.

Big Dave wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 5:55pm:

I can't help it if lebbo's don't like working.

But I could.. right?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

Can you show some statistics to prove it is not mostly refugees?

Unemployment amongst muslims is across the board. Refugees constitute only a small proportion of the total muslim population - you simply wouldn't get the unemployment figures cited in the report if it was predominantly only amongst the refugees.

Big Dave:

Quote:

How about the issue of poor english skills and poor educational qualifications.

Quote:

if you neglect your schooling because it's kafir rubbish

Australian muslims are on average better educated than Australians. Its in the report.


Quote:

Instead of arguing about it with me how about offering some reasons.

He has given you his reasons - you just choose not to listen.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Unemployment amongst muslims is across the board. Refugees constitute only a small proportion of the total muslim population - you simply wouldn't get the unemployment figures cited in the report if it was predominantly only amongst the refugees.

I very much doubt it. It may be particular to certain ethnicites/sub-communities, because I really do not know of any unemployed Muslims personally.

Refugees may not have been a large part of the Muslim population a decade ago, but I think they are now.

Australian muslims are on average better educated than Australians. Its in the report.

By Gandalf.


Let's see some stats sfb.

I very much doubt it. It may be particular to certain ethnicites/sub-communities, because I really do not know of any unemployed Muslims personally.

By Abu.

Ooooh, I don't know any unemployed muslims so the report must be wrong then ;D ;D. Get out in the street in SW Sydney and ask around . That's if you survive.

Big Dave wrote on Oct 19^th, 2012 at 4:28am:

Let's see some stats sfb.

For crying out loud, I repeat - its in the report.

Figure 1 page 22 to be precise.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Unemployment amongst muslims is across the board. Refugees constitute only a small proportion of the total muslim population - you simply wouldn't get the unemployment figures cited in the report Australian muslims are on average better educated than Australians. Its in the report.

They were 2 separate reports, there are others yet i chose to cite  government websites.
There is another study on queensland muslims which pretty much says the same thing.

The report also says Buddhists are more educated than muslims on average, the buddhists dont seem to get into much strife in Australia.
The buddhists outperform the muslims for university degrees, they dont have the same unemployment problems as muslims.

Falah is a muslim who posted here, he has university degrees in Arabic and Islamic studies,i will let those who have read his posts decide on Falah's intelligence which would be boosting the numbers of muslims with degrees.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 19^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 19th, 2012 at 4:28am: Let's see some stats sfb. For crying out loud, I repeat - its in the report. Figure 1 page 22 to be precise.

I'll read the report if you bend over like my servant and suck on my sweaty balls. Amen!!

Abu, why is it that most muslim nations are backward tips, honestly look at Egypt, Irag, Iran Pakistan, Afghanistan.

These countries really haven't move dout of the stone age why is that??

Would Islam be the factor in keeping these countries backwards??

Never seen an islamic country invent a computer chip or anything remotely modern??

woof woof wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Abu, why is it that most muslim nations are backward tips, honestly look at Egypt, Irag, Iran Pakistan, Afghanistan. These countries really haven't move dout of the stone age why is that?? Would Islam be the factor in keeping these countries backwards?? Never seen an islamic country invent a computer chip or anything remotely modern??

woof woof,

It is because all of these nations have been the 'client states' of Western powers.

And not one of them, consequently, has ever had any autonomous control over their own governance.

These nations have always been under the heel of Western powers, who have subjugated them, and ruined their ISLAMIC societies.

This is true!!!!
/sarc off

I'm sure that is the excuse Abu will proffer, anyway.i
What is the primary cause, for the failings of ISLAMIC society, everywhere ???

Its cause, is those corrupting and dastardly infidels!!!

Who are ruining us poor, taken advantage of, virtuous moslems......      :'(      :'(      :'(      :'(

"O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse....."
Koran 3.118

woof woof wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Abu, why is it that most muslim nations are backward tips, honestly look at Egypt, Irag, Iran Pakistan, Afghanistan. These countries really haven't move dout of the stone age why is that?? Would Islam be the factor in keeping these countries backwards?? Never seen an islamic country invent a computer chip or anything remotely modern??

Did you actually dedicate any though processes to this post? Your logic is flawed on so many different levels. Firstly, it is off topic. Secondly, there is no such country as "Irag". Thirdly, define "stone age" - it means nothing. If you want to talk about economies, then Iran and Egypt are regional powerhouses. Fourthly, regarding islam, in Egypt until 2011 islam has been repressed by successive secular regimes for decades - in Iraq it was suppressed for around 40 years by the baathists. There are very strong secular traditions in just about all the countries you mention - even in Iran it hasn't fully been extinguished even after 30 years of Ayatollah rule. In any case, Iran under the Ayatollahs is a regional power with relatively high standards of living.

Of all the countries you mention, Afghanistan is literally the only country that comes close to your description of "stone age".

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 8:14pm:

woof woof wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 9:24pm: Abu, why is it that most muslim nations are backward tips, honestly look at Egypt, Irag, Iran Pakistan, Afghanistan. These countries really haven't move dout of the stone age why is that?? Would Islam be the factor in keeping these countries backwards?? Never seen an islamic country invent a computer chip or anything remotely modern?? Did you actually dedicate any though processes to this post? Your logic is flawed on so many different levels. Firstly, it is off topic. Secondly, there is no such country as "Irag". Thirdly, define "stone age" - it means nothing. If you want to talk about economies, then Iran and Egypt are regional powerhouses. Fourthly, regarding islam, in Egypt until 2011 islam has been repressed by successive secular regimes for decades - in Iraq it was suppressed for around 40 years by the baathists. There are very strong secular traditions in just about all the countries you mention - even in Iran it hasn't fully been extinguished even after 30 years of Ayatollah rule. In any case, Iran under the Ayatollahs is a regional power with relatively high standards of living. Of all the countries you mention, Afghanistan is literally the only country that comes close to your description of "stone age".

You wanted an example of "stone age" ?

In, for example, Egypt ?

How about the first item, in this list ???



Muslim cleric [Egypt]: "It is permissible for the girl at the age of 9 or 10 to marry"

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi joins preacher in prayer for destruction of the Jews

Egypt: Prosecutor summons poet for interrogation over insults to Islam

Egypt: 110 injured as secularists and Islamic supremacists clash in Cairo

Egypt: Muslim prosecutor and sons break into church, partially demolish it

Egypt: Muslims open fire on Christian's home hours after Morsi promises to protect Christians

Sharia in action in Egypt: Christian boys, 9 and 10, taken from parents, arrested after accused of desecrating Qur’an

Muslim Brotherhood preacher: "If anyone tells you that he is liberal, tell him directly that he is infidel."

Misunderstanders of Islam order Christians to leave their village within 48 hours or be killed

Egypt: Muslims distribute leaflets telling Christians to leave city or have their property destroyed


And those are just a small sample of news items coming out of today's 'Arab spring' Egypt.



Q.
Why aren't teh MSM in the West, reporting on some of these stories, on the nightly TV news ???

Where is our 'multicultural' ABC and SBS ?????

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 8:14pm:

Secondly, there is no such country as "Irag".

Actually in Iraqi Arabic that's how you say it. q -> g in Iraqi Arabic.

;D

Muslims are taught to use and abuse systems like the dole.

Arabs never build.

That is why Islamic countries are pits

St George of the Garden wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2012 at 4:19pm:

Muslims are taught to use and abuse systems like the dole.

It's true. They go to secret classes held at 3am at the local mosque and study a particular curriculum that offers courses like Cert ll in Rorting the System and Cert lll in How to Seduce the Fat Chick at Centrelink. I've heard they even offer diplomas. It's obscene, really. Gillard must do something to stop the education of Muslims.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 24^th, 2012 at 7:45am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 4:19pm: Muslims are taught to use and abuse systems like the dole. It's true. They go to secret classes held at 3am at the local mosque and study a particular curriculum that offers courses like Cert ll in Rorting the System and Cert lll in How to Seduce the Fat Chick at Centrelink. I've heard they even offer diplomas. It's obscene, really. Gillard must do something to stop the education of Muslims.

Don't forget the drama classes for polishing up on your compo claiming skills (complimentary neck brace included).

i KNEW IT!

Maybe we better tell them we were joking? I have a feeling some of these crackpots could be on their way to Canberra to confront Gillard as we speak  ;D

lol.

(we were kidding)

It's too late for thsat.  the cat is out of the bag.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 24^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 24th, 2012 at 7:45am: St George of the Garden wrote on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 4:19pm: Muslims are taught to use and abuse systems like the dole. It's true. They go to secret classes held at 3am at the local mosque and study a particular curriculum that offers courses like Cert ll in Rorting the System and Cert lll in How to Seduce the Fat Chick at Centrelink. I've heard they even offer diplomas. It's obscene, really. Gillard must do something to stop the education of Muslims. Don't forget the drama classes for polishing up on your compo claiming skills (complimentary neck brace included).

  That's an old Lebbo scam going back to the 1980's. My sister worked at GIO and she used joke  about it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 24^th, 2012 at 7:45am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 4:19pm: Muslims are taught to use and abuse systems like the dole. It's true. They go to secret classes held at 3am at the local mosque and study a particular curriculum that offers courses like Cert ll in Rorting the System and Cert lll in How to Seduce the Fat Chick at Centrelink. I've heard they even offer diplomas. It's obscene, really. Gillard must do something to stop the education of Muslims.

Hahaha, it is to laugh.



Annie,

I see that you are still dismissing and ridiculing that which is true, but which is too 'uncomfortable' for you to confront with candour and frankness.




Quote:

Inside the sect that loves terror August 07, 2005 A Sunday Times reporter spent two months as a recruit inside the Saviour Sect to reveal for the first time how the extremist group promotes hatred of “non-believers” and encourages its followers to commit acts of violence including suicide bombings. The reporter witnessed one of the sect’s leading figures, Sheikh Omar Brooks, telling a young audience, including children, that it was the duty of Muslims to be terrorists and boasting, just days before the July 7 attacks, that he wanted to die as a suicide bomber. After the [London] attacks that claimed 52 lives, another key figure, Zachariah, justified them by saying that the victims were not “innocent” people because they did not abide by strict Islamic laws. In the immediate aftermath the sect’s leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, said: “For the past 48 hours I’m very happy.” Two weeks later he referred to the bombers as the “fantastic four”. .....The Saviour Sect was established 10 months ago......They are so opposed to the British state that they see it as their duty to make no economic contribution to the nation. One member warned our undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system. Instead, the young follower, Nasser, who receives £44 job seekers’ allowance a week, said it was permissible to “live off benefits”, just as the prophet Mohammed had lived off the state while attacking it at the same time. Even paying car insurance was seen as supporting the system. “All the (Saviour Sect) brothers drive without insurance,” he said.

at a http://www.timesonline.co.uk/  link that is now dead

Google it

another dead link,

a dead link, to an old ABC news story, which shows Australian moslem in a bad light, how strange [that it is now dead].....
/sarc off


Quote:

January  7, 2003 Mufti arrested after police struggle Police will summons the spiritual leader of Australia's Muslim community, following a struggle with a highway patrol officer in Sydney's west yesterday morning. "The police officer, he try to do his job but not the Australian way," the Mufti said. "I think he try the Chicago way, not Australian way." Police say the car was found to be unregistered and uninsured and a struggle followed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200301/s758587.htm

The Mufti involved, was none other than 'cat meat' Hilali.



+++

And, a 'live' one.....


Quote:

Hardline clerics urge tax cheating Richard Kerbaj March 13, 2007 HARDLINE Muslim clerics are encouraging their followers to cheat the tax system because they consider paying income tax contrary to Islamic law. [read...paying Kuffar taxes is supporting the non-ISLAMIC political system] Muslim leaders have warned that fundamentalist imams who put sharia law ahead of Australian law are also condoning welfare fraud and the cash economy as tax-evasion methods. Sydney-based Islamic leader Fadi Rahman told The Australian that the extremist clerics who were preaching messages against paying income taxes were also staunchly opposed to Western ideologies, including the Australian way of life. He said he had heard hardline clerics at Friday sermons in Sydney highlight the importance of cheating the tax system. "I mean, just like how you've got clerics (with) extreme views who are telling the Muslims in the Western world to declare war against the very country that they live in and the very country that is paying for their day-to-day life, you'll find that these are the clerics who are telling them to dodge the tax system," said Mr Rahman, a youth leader and the president of the Independent Centre for Research Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hardline-clerics-urge-tax-cheating/story-e6frg6nf-1111113144101

Trust me, when the racists successfully drive off the people in other cultures, they will come back to races.

Don't forget these words

In Germany, they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me，
but by that time， there was no one left to speak up.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:14pm: since when did muslims become a race? modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term.

Don't forget these words

In Australia, they first came for the abos,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an abo.
Then they came for the capitalists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a capitalist.
Then they came for the racists,
and I didn't speak up because I was an enlightened anti-racist
Then they came for the sexists,
and I didn't speak up because I was a mangina.
Then they came for me，
but by that time， there was no one left to speak up.

by Rev. Wesley the great , 2012

Bowen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

Trust me, when the racists successfully drive off the people in other cultures, they will come back to races.

Why would we trust you on that? China isn't the most multicultural nation in the world....

I just asked the people who are not racists to trust me.

I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures.


The main problem of China is about politics not cultures.



... wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:16am:

Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 8:39am: Trust me, when the racists successfully drive off the people in other cultures, they will come back to races. Why would we trust you on that? China isn't the most multicultural nation in the world....

Bowen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures.

I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that. 

When your forefather were burning pagans hundreds years ago, there were different religions spreading in China.

You do not believe because you are a part of the dark side of the culture.


... wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:41am:

Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:40am: I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures. I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that.

Quote:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups, the largest of which are Han, who constitute 91.51% of the total population in 2010. Ethnic minorities constitute 8.49% or 113.8 million of China's population in 2010. During the past decades ethnic minorities have experienced higher growth rates than the majority Han population, because they are not under the one-child policy. Their proportion of the population in China has grown from 6.1% in 1953, to 8.04% in 1990, 8.41% in 2000 and 8.49% in 2010. Large ethnic minorities (data according to the 2000 census) include the Zhuang (16 million, 1.28%), Manchu (10 million, 0.84%), Uyghur (9 million, 0.78%), Hui (9 million, 0.71%), Miao (8 million, 0.71%), Yi (7 million, 0.61%), Tujia (5.75 million, 0.63%), Mongols (5 million, 0.46%), Tibetan (5 million, 0.43%), Buyi (3 million, 0.23%), and Korean (2 million, 0.15%).

Doesn't seem very diverse to me. 

Bowen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:43am:

When your forefather were burning pagans hundreds years ago, there were different religions spreading in China. You do not believe because you are a part of the dark side of the culture. ... wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:41am: Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:40am: I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures. I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that.

What the f*ck is it with immigrants coming here and doing their best to sh*t on the people that allows them in and to flourish.
It's little wonder people become suspicious of newly arrived immigrants when they spend most of their time telling the people who live here how horrible they and their past are.

It's a bit of a vicious circle. New arrivals are faced with an ingrained racist attitude that exists in so many Australians. It's normal to react with a similar rejection or to hold tighter to their own cultural values.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:27am:

It's a bit of a vicious circle. New arrivals are faced with an ingrained racist attitude that exists in so many Australians.

Yes all Australians are racist, nobody else is a racist its just the white aussies.

Do you think it could be racist to say Australians are ingrained racists?

Muslims are unemployed- not the fault of muslims its the racist aussies.

I didn't say all Australians.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:14pm: since when did muslims become a race? modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term.

Therefore Racism is an outdated 19th century term and the real issues pertain to prejudice and cultural conflict.

What I said is truth. Isn't it?

Why not you admitted the violence in the history? Because you want to do it again?

Facing the truth, facing the history. It will lead to a healthy society.

What I want to tell you is every culture have the bad part. You should learn the good part from any cultures and abandon the bad part of any culture including your own.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:43am: When your forefather were burning pagans hundreds years ago, there were different religions spreading in China. You do not believe because you are a part of the dark side of the culture. ... wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:41am: Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:40am: I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures. I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that.  What the f*ck is it with immigrants coming here and doing their best to sh*t on the people that allows them in and to flourish. It's little wonder people become suspicious of newly arrived immigrants when they spend most of their time telling the people who live here how horrible they and their past are.

Actually, I don't think the culture conflict is necessary.

I have no any problem to live with people from different cultures.

The culture conflict is generated by only some of the people.



Sappho wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 12:14pm: since when did muslims become a race? modern day racism is not about race. There has been a lot of literature in recent years exploring the  behaviour that mirrors racism, but is not actually directed against any particular "race" of people - and yes, this includes against muslims. Not that anyone can really define what race actually means anyway. Its an outdated 19th century term. Therefore Racism is an outdated 19th century term and the real issues pertain to prejudice and cultural conflict.

Bowen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures.

I think that any person from any Nation who will not, or merely do not embrace multiculturalism politically and legally are divisive and bigoted and have no business pointing the finger at those nations and their peoples who do strive in multiculturalism.

That includes your Chinese culture.

Bowen wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

What I said is truth. Isn't it? Why not you admitted the violence in the history? Because you want to do it again? Facing the truth, facing the history. It will lead to a healthy society. What I want to tell you is every culture have the bad part. You should learn the good part from any cultures and abandon the bad part of any culture including your own. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 11:20am: Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:43am: When your forefather were burning pagans hundreds years ago, there were different religions spreading in China. You do not believe because you are a part of the dark side of the culture. ... wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:41am: Bowen wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 10:40am: I think Chinese culture is far more kindly then your culture to accept different cultures. I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that.  What the f*ck is it with immigrants coming here and doing their best to sh*t on the people that allows them in and to flourish. It's little wonder people become suspicious of newly arrived immigrants when they spend most of their time telling the people who live here how horrible they and their past are.

Everyone who has read a bit of history knows about the church's horrific punishments. What is the point of bringing it up? Easy, to make people feel guilt, to make us feel shame. It's all been rectified. The church has been separated from the state, capital punishment is outlawed (something that is not in China; the country that executes more people than every other country combined).
Maybe you could drag up all the good stuff the West has done? If it wasn't for the West's influence millions of Chinese would probably still be illiterate rice paddy workers.

I fully admit. The history of the West was brutal. Yet, every country that has adopted the modern world owes it all to the European states who sacrificed so many of their men when the states were competing against each other trying to outdo each other. This competition led to advancement; the European states constantly tried to keep the edge over the other by inventing new technology. We all live today off the capital (I mean cultural and technological capital and not just economic capital) that Europe created.

European advancements weren't created by being nice. Very little ever gets created by being nice. Advancements, in any discipline, takes competition, intellect, experimentation, pain, will, vigour, strength, and domination.

To create a civilization irrespective of your ethnicity or creed is a violent act. There is no exception to this so far as history can say. Therefore, every civilization that exists today, or that has ever existed, has a history of violence at its core.

The most successful nations also happen to be the most violent. Rome and The West are examples of that... Primacy then comes at a cost. But it is a cost that many nations are willing to pay.

Now... Enter the Dragon. Pay attention to the need for violence as they further their Civilization.

I would argue that without great violence, a Civilization cannot progress.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Islamophobia is another word that does not appear in any medical journals despite the fact phobias are a medical condition. Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs. As for defining words you could use a dictionary.

Oh dear   ::)

It doesn't have to appear in any medical journal. 

Languages constantly change, in a variety of ways.

As a result the Collins Dictionary, for example, now has ...

"Islamophobia: hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture"

This is 2012, not 1812.  Try to keep up.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

I don't believe you.  Noone could really think that.

[/quote]


What the f*ck is it with immigrants coming here and doing their best to sh*t on the people that allows them in and to flourish.
It's little wonder people become suspicious of newly arrived immigrants when they spend most of their time telling the people who live here how horrible they and their past are.[/quote][/quote]


Everyone who has read a bit of history knows about the church's horrific punishments. What is the point of bringing it up? Easy, to make people feel guilt, to make us feel shame. It's all been rectified. The church has been separated from the state, capital punishment is outlawed (something that is not in China; the country that executes more people than every other country combined).
Maybe you could drag up all the good stuff the West has done? If it wasn't for the West's influence millions of Chinese would probably still be illiterate rice paddy workers.

I fully admit. The history of the West was brutal. Yet, every country that has adopted the modern world owes it all to the European states who sacrificed so many of their men when the states were competing against each other trying to outdo each other. This competition led to advancement; the European states constantly tried to keep the edge over the other by inventing new technology. We all live today off the capital (I mean cultural and technological capital and not just economic capital) that Europe created.

European advancements weren't created by being nice. Very little ever gets created by being nice. Advancements, in any discipline, takes competition, intellect, experimentation, pain, will, vigour, strength, and domination.[/quote]

Yeah well no reason to keep bringing up germany's past atrocities either

SOB

Sappho wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

To create a civilization irrespective of your ethnicity or creed is a violent act. There is no exception to this so far as history can say. Therefore, every civilization that exists today, or that has ever existed, has a history of violence at its core. The most successful nations also happen to be the most violent. Rome and The West are examples of that... Primacy then comes at a cost. But it is a cost that many nations are willing to pay. Now... Enter the Dragon. Pay attention to the need for violence as they further their Civilization. I would argue that without great violence, a Civilization cannot progress.

This is indeed the cold harsh reality Sappho, but I think different civilisations have varied on how that violence played out. Most civilisations use this violence to expand their dominance purely for greed's sake, whilst others have used it for strengthening themselves and those who choose to join them. I'd say the Islamic civilisation and the Chinese civilisation for instance were examples of the latter, as opposed to Rome and Britain->America.

I'd say the Islamic civilisation and the Chinese civilisation for instance were examples of the latter, as opposed to Rome and Britain->America.
By Abu



Don't you ever tell the truth dude! Both China and Persia and every other civilisation on earth (both past and present)uses or has used the sword. You should think before you write. Civilisations don't come about through the use of nice words.

Ok, now how about you go back and actually read my post, and try to find where I said any civilisation existed except through violence.

I did re-read your post and I do concede that I didn't pay enough attention. I still believe you and your mates have nothing to offer  but suspicion and turmoil . You and the other misfits are turning your community against the beauty that Australia is. You'll get yours .
abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 5:35am:

Ok, now how about you go back and actually read my post, and try to find where I said any civilisation existed except through violence.

Suspicion is about right. Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign".

Look, Aussie Muslims are like any other Australian citizen with respect to the law and societal harmony. You'll always have many law abiding citizens as well as some who aren't so. You'll have those who just do their bit for society, and those who bludge. These characteristics exist across the entire religious, social and political spectrum. To suggest one particular group is a grave danger in regards to such things is nothing but irrational alarmism, of the kind that leads people to do unimaginable things to innocent people. You as an individual are a danger to Australian society in my opinion because of your ideology of hatred to certain peoples.

People like you who describe the citizens of australia as kafur  benefit nobody.
abu_rashid wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 6:51am:

Suspicion is about right. Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign". Look, Aussie Muslims are like any other Australian citizen with respect to the law and societal harmony. You'll always have many law abiding citizens as well as some who aren't so. You'll have those who just do their bit for society, and those who bludge. These characteristics exist across the entire religious, social and political spectrum. To suggest one particular group is a grave danger in regards to such things is nothing but irrational alarmism, of the kind that leads people to do unimaginable things to innocent people. You as an individual are a danger to Australian society in my opinion because of your ideology of hatred to certain peoples.

Big Dave wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

You'll get yours.

Care to elaborate?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 6:51am:

Suspicion is about right. Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign".

Too true.

The wonderful TISM summed it up nicely in 'Yob', with:

"If it's different Punch"

In fact, that song sums up the attitudes of a lot of members in this forum:

If it's different, punch
If it's lager, lunch
If it moves, root
If it quacks, shoot
If it's mates, protect
If it's wife, neglect
If it's wages, bet
If it's vicious, pet
If it's American, ape
If it's a blonde, gape
If it's boobs, inflate
If it's V8, venerate

If it's a party, fight
If it's winning, skite
If it's politics, right
If it's flatulence, light
If it's tabloid, believe it
If it's broadsheet, don't read it
If it's music, rock
If it's casino, flock

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/3337.jpg

Ever heard of karma square pants.

Big Dave wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

Ever heard of karma square pants.

Karma Square Pants?  Is he an Indian chappy?

People like you who describe the citizens of Australia as kafur  benefit nobody. To Osama Bin Abu Rashid.

Look, Aussie Muslims are like any other Australian citizen with respect to the law and societal harmony.

Look folks, here is the joke of the day from Abu.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

Too true. The wonderful TISM summed it up nicely in 'Yob', with: "If it's different Punch" In fact, that song sums up the attitudes of a lot of members in this forum: If it's different, punch If it's lager, lunch If it moves, root If it quacks, shoot If it's mates, protect If it's wife, neglect If it's wages, bet If it's vicious, pet If it's American, ape If it's a blonde, gape If it's boobs, inflate If it's V8, venerate If it's a party, fight If it's winning, skite If it's politics, right If it's flatulence, light If it's tabloid, believe it If it's broadsheet, don't read it If it's music, rock If it's casino, flock http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/3337.jpg

What a surprise to see you defending the wonderful Abu and his 7th century religion.
You trendies get in so much trouble when you vigorously defend anything foreign against Australians. You end up siding with with barbarians who like to stone women to death for adultery.

See, you're unthinking idiocy of one-lined slogans will land you in deep sh*t. By the grace of your own idiocy of responding to legitimate criticisms with nothing but retorts of "fear," "ignorance," and "xenophobe," you end up siding with murderers and the like.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

What a surprise to see you defending the wonderful Abu and his 7th century religion. You trendies get in so much trouble when you vigorously defend anything foreign against Australians. You end up siding with with barbarians who like to stone women to death for adultery. See, you're unthinking idiocy of one-lined slogans will land you in deep sh*t. By the grace of your own idiocy of responding to legitimate criticisms with nothing but retorts of "fear," "ignorance," and "xenophobe," you end up siding with murderers and the like.

You do have a real problem focusing, don't you my boy? (and reading the English language).  Subsequently, you make all sorts of wild assumptions and end up making a proper little goose of yourself.  Tsk Tsk.

I said 'too true' in response to: 'Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign" '.

No mention of religion at all, 7th century or otherwise.

Oh well, better luck next time chum   ;)

Islam is foreign. And people have every right to be suspicious of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWqS275vjg

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Islam is foreign. And people have every right to be suspicious of it.

ISLAM is off the planet, imo !!!

ISLAM is insanity incarnate, imo.



Dictionary;
incarnate = =
1 (of a deity or spirit) embodied in flesh; in human form.
2 represented in the ultimate or most extreme form

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWqS275vjg

No response huh. Well I guess stoning women to death for adultery is a good thing for you. So you're not only dumb as a doorknob, you're a sadist as well. Nice combination.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Islam is foreign. And people have every right to be suspicious of it.

ISLAM is evil, imo.

ISLAM is evil incarnate, imo.



Dictionary;
incarnate = =
1 (of a deity or spirit) embodied in flesh; in human form.
2 represented in the ultimate or most extreme form




Evil incarnate....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Aldawsari.jpg
'Religiously' motivated, CONVICTED, wanna-be mass murderer.


IMAGE source......
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/texas-muslim-gets-life-of-prison-dawah-for-jihad-mass-murder-plot.html

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Well I guess stoning women to death for adultery is a good thing for you.

Nope. Not at all.

What else you got, my confused little friend?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Islam is foreign.

Yes, to most Australians it certainly is.  Well spotted detective Misty.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

And people have every right to be suspicious of it.

Yes, they most certainly do.  Well spotted again.  You'll make Senior Detective in no time.

However, did you forget the quote I was responding to?
If you want to make Senior Detective you'll have to improve your memory and reading skills.

Here, I'll give it to you again:

' Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign". '

Seems legit.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

' Nutters like you are suspicious of anything "foreign". ' Seems legit.

Hey genius greggerypeccary,



In a world that is often both very violent and full of predatory 'creatures', it would be dumb not to be suspicious of the 'new' unknown and unfamiliar stranger.

Caution, is a healthy attribute, in a dangerous and violent world.

Yadda wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 2:24pm:

Hey genius greggerypeccary, In a world that is often both very violent and full of predatory 'creatures', it would be dumb not to be suspicious of the 'new' unknown and unfamiliar stranger. Caution, is a healthy attribute, in a dangerous and violent world.

Some people lives their lives in fear.  Some don't.

I'll take the latter option.

What you choose is up to you.

http://dir.coolclips.com/Business/Metaphors_E_to_N/Investigation_and_Research/eyes_peeking_through_blinds_CoolClips_peop0162.jpg


Seems like some of Howard's fear based control is still working.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1qmggKm6e1rrimczo1_1280.png

Just another day in paradise     ......an ISLAMIC dominated hell hole !!!

IMAGE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/lebanon-car-bomb.jpg
Some of 'the people of Syria and Iran are', also to be found in Lebanon, sharing their, 'rich diverse cultural heritage' with others.


But nothing to worry about, according to genius greggerypeccary.

Lebanon, where greggerypeccary's 'brothers', are raping and murdering those who do not believe what they believe.



Yes, they ARE your brothers.

Yadda wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

But nothing to worry about, according to genius greggerypeccary.

I don't live in Lebanon, my nervous little friend.

Do you have a little night-light by your bed?  Plastic sheet, just in case?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yKKu9MtkWh8/TMVViYlR80I/AAAAAAAABF4/HJ0hYedKtwY/s1600/NightLight-Yellow.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

I don't live in Lebanon, my nervous little friend.

Hey genius greggerypeccary,


The same people who live in Lebanon [and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, etc, etc], and are killing people, also live in Sydney, and in every other Australian state too.

And, imo, they should not,
......be living among us, here in Australia.

IMO, moslems should be compelled to live in those states, which are the creation of their own evil, sick minds.

i.e.
THOSE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO CREATE SOCIETIES WHICH ARE LUNATIC ASYLUMS, SHOULD THEMSELVES, BE FORCED TO LIVE IN THEM.
[...and their fate, is that they are going to be forced to live in such an environment.    ;)   ]






IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
'Demonstrating' just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslem really are.






IMAGE...
http://imageshack.us/a/img526/8945/kidfi.jpg
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Undeniable >> PROOF << that even here in Australia, moslems are teaching their children the basics about ISLAM. Teaching their children intolerance, and the hatred of those, who dare to reject what moslems believe.






+++


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Yadda wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

And, imo, they should not, ......be living among us, here in Australia.

Yes, I'm certainly not too happy that the people in those photos are living in Australia either.  They appear to be violent, irrational idiots.  Australia would be much better off without violent, irrational idiots.

However, I don't live my life in fear of 1.6 billion people because of the actions of a few lunatics.

Similarly, I don't live my life in fear of 2.2 billion people because of the actions of a few bad Christians.

I don't support any religion, however, I'm not frightened of any of their followers either.

Well, maybe this guy ... a little:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/CruiseScieno.jpg



(although, my biggest fear is that he'll make Cocktail 2)

One thing I've noticed about you Greggerypeccary is that you are pretty dull and boring. I'm not saying you are dumb but somewhere in the middle.

Big Dave wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

One thing I've noticed about you Greggerypeccary is that you are pretty dull and boring. I'm not saying you are dumb but somewhere in the middle.

Hmmm, I'm blushing.

It's called rational, open-mindedness.  Not something you're likely to find on an internet forum like this all too often. 

Many of the nongs on this forum only see things in black & white.  e.g. you either love Muslims or you hate them; you like all of the ALP's policies or none of them; you believe humans are causing global warming or you're a "climate denier" (whatever that is).

Some people just can't stand the fact that I keep an open-mind on many issues and thus have a balanced, rational view on the topics I've mentioned. This usually leads to them making crazy assumptions.

For example, because I'm not scared of Islam and not prepared to condemn all 1.6 billion Muslims for the atrocities of some they think that means I'm a supporter of Islam.  That couldn't be further from the truth: I don't support any religion, and if I did, Islam would be last on my list.

Sorry if I bore you, however, I won't let myself be dragged down to the level of members such as Misty and Wes.  I'm far too intelligent and far too open-minded to be wallowing in the shallows with pond scum.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZISqsnVOwyM/TXBNp3-V9fI/AAAAAAAABCY/mcRVu9ahzIE/baited-hook.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

Hmmm, I'm blushing. It's called rational, open-mindedness.  Not something you're likely to find on an internet forum like this all too often.  Many of the nongs on this forum only see things in black & white.  e.g. you either love Muslims or you hate them; you like all of the ALP's policies or none of them; you believe humans are causing global warming or you're a "climate denier" (whatever that is). Some people just can't stand the fact that I keep an open-mind on many issues and thus have a balanced, rational view on the topics I've mentioned. This usually leads to them making crazy assumptions. For example, because I'm not scared of Islam and not prepared to condemn all 1.6 billion Muslims for the atrocities of some they think that means I'm a supporter of Islam.  That couldn't be further from the truth: I don't support any religion, and if I did, Islam would be last on my list. Sorry if I bore you, however, I won't let myself be dragged down to the level of members such as Misty and Wes.  I'm far too intelligent and far too open-minded to be wallowing in the shallows with pond scum. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZISqsnVOwyM/TXBNp3-V9fI/AAAAAAAABCY/mcRVu9ahzIE/baited-hook.jpg

Absolute gold! You condemn others for supposedly seeing in black and white, yet 99% of your responses to those you disagree with are: "you're in fear," you're ignorant," or "you're a xenophobe." No discussion, no counter-argument, just fear, ignorance or a xenophobe!
I don't even think you can argue beyond those slogans; that's all you have! 

Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age.


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg


Quote:

A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833

So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg Quote: A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833 So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension?

His mother is also his cousin.

Because he lives in Lebkemba.

Goes to a Leb doctor.

His case worker at Centrlink is Leb.

His mother is also his cousin.

That's exactly right. They are all inbred retards. Those little villages in Lebanon screw their own cousins to the extent that they can't put 2 words together. THAT'S FULLY SICK BRO DERRRRRRR!!!!!!! :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

I wouldn't employ a muslim. I am on safe ground by saying that. Our holy book the Naruq says we are not to mingle with traditional muslims. Also I have my dog 'Roger' sitting on the interview panel. If he barks at an applicant and that applicant happens to be a traditional muslim Roger is saying that the muslim is unclean.

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 4:35pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 21st, 2013 at 4:26pm: Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg Quote: A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833 So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension? His mother is also his cousin. Because he lives in Lebkemba. Goes to a Leb doctor. His case worker at Centrlink is Leb.

That’s true. KJT. When Matty was in Darwin he only associated with Anglo Saxon people. Actually, it’s the
same now he’s in Dunedin. He just doesn’t seem to meet other types. Mother wants him to meet a nice girl like Pauline, but Matty seems to only meet men like Alan.

Juliar was a disaster. Don’t even ask about it. I wish he could meet someone like Lynn, but she’s over 60.

It’s a pity because they have so much in common.

Can’t string more than two words together, eh Big Dave?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

Big Dave wrote on Nov 14th, 2012 at 5:26pm: One thing I've noticed about you Greggerypeccary is that you are pretty dull and boring. I'm not saying you are dumb but somewhere in the middle. Hmmm, I'm blushing. It's called rational, open-mindedness.  Not something you're likely to find on an internet forum like this all too often.  Many of the nongs on this forum only see things in black & white.  e.g. you either love Muslims or you hate them; you like all of the ALP's policies or none of them; you believe humans are causing global warming or you're a "climate denier" (whatever that is). Some people just can't stand the fact that I keep an open-mind on many issues and thus have a balanced, rational view on the topics I've mentioned. This usually leads to them making crazy assumptions. For example, because I'm not scared of Islam and not prepared to condemn all 1.6 billion Muslims for the atrocities of some they think that means I'm a supporter of Islam.  That couldn't be further from the truth: I don't support any religion, and if I did, Islam would be last on my list. Sorry if I bore you, however, I won't let myself be dragged down to the level of members such as Misty and Wes.  I'm far too intelligent and far too open-minded to be wallowing in the shallows with pond scum. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZISqsnVOwyM/TXBNp3-V9fI/AAAAAAAABCY/mcRVu9ahzIE/baited-hook.jpg

Good on you. Of course you know that makes you a muslim dont you?

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg Quote: A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833 So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension?

You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 5:31am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 21st, 2013 at 4:26pm: Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg Quote: A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833 So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension? You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl. SOB

Well he is  an inbred  muslim so there is your disability Miss Borg. But hey he is still able to pick up a milk crate and smash a car windscreen.

Would your disability allow you to do that Miss Borg?

We used to have a poster here called Blackadder, KJT. He once called David Oldfield and said the Muslims should be sent to a muslim country and we should only have Christians here.

David Oldfield didn’t like the Christian idea, but he agreed with the Muslims. Matty met Pauline at the pro-carbon rally and said it was the best day of his life. He used to be a Green, but became frustrated with their socialist tendencies. He said they’re like a watermelon - pink on the inside.

David Oldfield was a nationalist socialist. Like Blackadder, he wants this country to be great again.

Matty's pretty-much been forced into exile in New Zealand because of the carbon tax. That's the sort of things governments do when they impose restrictive taxes and try to control people. We lose our best talent.

If we could have one person in this country like Matty, we could afford to lose the entire Muslim race - food for thought.

Thoughts?

KJT1981 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 7:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 22nd, 2013 at 5:31am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 21st, 2013 at 4:26pm: Lots of muslims on the disability pension like this one who was fit enough to break a windscreen of a police car yet for some reason that only leftists could understand he is on the disability pension at 19 years of age. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8553/omaruu.jpg Quote: A teen who smashed the windscreen of a police car and attacked a TV crew member during violent muslim protests in Sydney last year has apologised for bringing the Islamic community into disrepute with his stupid and reckless actions. ( he apologised for making Islam look bad?) Omar Halaby,19 pleaded guilty,Downing centre local court was told Halaby who was on the disability pension had literacy issues http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/teen-rioter-omar-halaby-gets-good-behaviour-for-his-role-in-muslim-protests/story-fncvk70o-1226556692833 So why is a fit young man like this on the disability pension? You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl. SOB Well he is  an inbred  muslim so there is your disability Miss Borg. But hey he is still able to pick up a milk crate and smash a car windscreen. Would your disability allow you to do that Miss Borg?

Go away troll

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 5:31am:

You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl. SOB

But we can tell by your posts that there is something seriously wrong with you. 

Anyone who can pick up a milk crate and smash a car windscreen is fully capable of scanning milk at the local Coles or wrapping burgers at the local maccas. Saying that have a disability and can't work is bullcrap. Another lazy arse scumbag who lives off of the government yet has no respect for the law. Probably argued by idiot progressives that it is his human right to do whatever he wants at everyone else's expense.   

Quantum wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 9:31am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 22nd, 2013 at 5:31am: You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl. SOB But we can tell by your posts that there is something seriously wrong with you.  Anyone who can pick up a milk crate and smash a car windscreen is fully capable of scanning milk at the local Coles or wrapping burgers at the local maccas. Saying that have a disability and can't work is bullcrap.

So you know from a picture what every Centrelink caseworker and Commonwealth Medical Officer has previously overlooked. Your powers of detection, Quantum, are unsurpassed.

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 9:49am:

Quantum wrote on Jan 22nd, 2013 at 9:31am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 22nd, 2013 at 5:31am: You cant tell by appearances whats wrong with ppl. SOB But we can tell by your posts that there is something seriously wrong with you.  Anyone who can pick up a milk crate and smash a car windscreen is fully capable of scanning milk at the local Coles or wrapping burgers at the local maccas. Saying that have a disability and can't work is bullcrap. So you know from a picture what every Centrelink caseworker and Commonwealth Medical Officer has previously overlooked. Your powers of detection, Quantum, are unsurpassed.

The problem then is the Government departments you named that class this jerk as disabled. Too many people get through the system because it is either too lenient in its approval or too lazy in its investigation of claims.

You can see this issue at every shopping centre when someone gets out of a car with a disabled sticker. Once upon a time you had to be paralysed or have very limited mobility. Now you see people in their prime get straight out the car and walk with no sign of disability. If they do, then it is little more than a slight limp. Of course the real disabled person then has to park 200 meters away in a small and tight spot because all the disabled spots are full.

If this person is able to smash a car windscreen (not as easy as many people think, so he must of given it a good hit) and then run from the police, how the hell can he not work? His arms work; his legs work; his back works. He can't scan a packet of biscuits at the supermarket?    

Quantum wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 10:21am:

If this person is able to smash a car windscreen (not as easy as many people think, so he must of given it a good hit) and then run from the police, how the hell can he not work? His arms work; his legs work; his back works.

True, Quantum. Given that his disability is most likely that his brain doesn't work, maybe Centrelink could reprogram him to do things with his arms, legs and back.

If, as you say, the problem is the government departments and their contracted employment, training and rehab agencies, maybe we should get cracking on them too. Look at all the mental health services - do they fix people with schizophrenia and bi-polar?

Useless. Let's reprogram them as well. In fact, I think we should take advice from all the people who are able to interpret the Tele's photos to put things right. Maybe they could choose someone to come in and fix all the departments, agencies and services.

We could let them choose between two people and their teams of qualified photo and news fixers. Give them each a hard hat and a safety vest, and they could have their own photos taken too. On the job as it were - hard at work.

You know? I have a feeling that this will happen soon. In fact, I'm predicting the photo interpreters will choose Mr Abbott. Don't worry, before long, Mr Abbott will come in, have a look at all those departments, agencies and services, change a few things here and there, and leave them largely as they were.

Who knows? If Mr Abbott's smart, he could put his own photos out there for us to interpret. It's been done before. The photo interpreters' fixers, Mr Reith and Mr Howard, gave out a whole lot of photos of children swimming in the sea. For some reason, the photo interpreters thought their parents were throwing them into the water to let them drown.

Thankfully, the photo interpreters chose Mr Reith and Mr Howard to come back and fix this problem.

In order to provide a safe workplace it would be impossible to employ female muslims. I will not employ any female muslims.

salad in wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

In order to provide a safe workplace it would be impossible to employ female muslims.

why is that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

salad in wrote on Jan 28th, 2013 at 1:28pm: In order to provide a safe workplace it would be impossible to employ female muslims. why is that?

As you know all employers must provide a safe working environment. According to muslim folklore if a male spots any hair on a female muslim he becomes a slobbering, lascivious sexual predator who would seek out life's carnal pleasures. That would be an unsafe work environment with the females being hunted down in the staff cafeteria, at the water cooler, or even in the staff car park. Rapes and other sex crimes would be reported daily. The male staff would get about the place with raging erections and we know what that might lead to.

So in the interests of a safe working environment, and a big 'thank you' to the muslim community for the warning, I would not employ any female muslims.

Quote:

And He says in Surat al-Ahzab, ayah 59: Oh Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments close around them. That will be better, that they may be known and so not be bothered. And Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. From these two ayat of the Noble Qur'an and from the authentic sources of guidance provided for us, we can derive the following principles of proper dress and adornment for Muslim women: 1. The outer garment worn in public must cover all of the body except the face and hands. Surat an-Noor, ayah 31 (quoted above) contains a clear command that a woman's natural beauty and her adornment are to be concealed from strangers, except that which might show unintentionally (i.e. parts of the dress or ornaments) or which show as a matter of course because it is not prohibited that they be shown (i.e. the face and the hands).

Verily, it is written. Blessings be upon Halla the most high.

salad in wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28th, 2013 at 3:37pm: salad in wrote on Jan 28th, 2013 at 1:28pm: In order to provide a safe workplace it would be impossible to employ female muslims. why is that? As you know all employers must provide a safe working environment. According to muslim folklore if a male spots any hair on a female muslim he becomes a slobbering, lascivious sexual predator who would seek out life's carnal pleasures. That would be an unsafe work environment with the females being hunted down in the staff cafeteria, at the water cooler, or even in the staff car park. Rapes and other sex crimes would be reported daily. The male staff would get about the place with raging erections and we know what that might lead to. So in the interests of a safe working environment, and a big 'thank you' to the muslim community for the warning, I would not employ any female muslims.

Why? Female muslims arent likely to show any hair. Its the males you shouldn't employ from your example.

SOB

salad in wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

As you know all employers must provide a safe working environment. According to muslim folklore if a male spots any hair on a female muslim he becomes a slobbering, lascivious sexual predator who would seek out life's carnal pleasures. That would be an unsafe work environment with the females being hunted down in the staff cafeteria, at the water cooler, or even in the staff car park. Rapes and other sex crimes would be reported daily. The male staff would get about the place with raging erections and we know what that might lead to.

Well you obviously don't believe that, so why would that deter you from hiring muslimas?

Also the Australian workforce is literally full of muslimas who don't even wear headscarfs - and incidentally, is also full of muslimas who do wear headscarfs, but don't cause the problems you describe.

So it leads me to only one conclusion, your decision would be based on nothing other than good ol' fashioned prejudice.


salad in wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Verily, it is written. Blessings be upon Halla the most high.

Whoever made that commentary on the ayat you quoted, is arrogantly making a false conclusion of the intent of the ayat IMO. Notice the word is "adornments" - nowhere is the word "hair" specifically mentioned. It should be fairly obvious that the issue is modesty in general, and common sense dictates what that involves.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

salad in wrote on Jan 28th, 2013 at 3:51pm: As you know all employers must provide a safe working environment. According to muslim folklore if a male spots any hair on a female muslim he becomes a slobbering, lascivious sexual predator who would seek out life's carnal pleasures. That would be an unsafe work environment with the females being hunted down in the staff cafeteria, at the water cooler, or even in the staff car park. Rapes and other sex crimes would be reported daily. The male staff would get about the place with raging erections and we know what that might lead to. Well you obviously don't believe that, so why would that deter you from hiring muslimas? Also the Australian workforce is literally full of muslimas who don't even wear headscarfs - and incidentally, is also full of muslimas who do wear headscarfs, but don't cause the problems you describe. So it leads me to only one conclusion, your decision would be based on nothing other than good ol' fashioned prejudice. salad in wrote on Jan 28th, 2013 at 4:01pm: Verily, it is written. Blessings be upon Halla the most high. Whoever made that commentary on the ayat you quoted, is arrogantly making a false conclusion of the intent of the ayat IMO. Notice the word is "adornments" - nowhere is the word "hair" specifically mentioned. It should be fairly obvious that the issue is modesty in general, and common sense dictates what that involves.

I can't answer for other employers.


Quote:

Whoever made that commentary on the ayat you quoted, is arrogantly making a false conclusion of the intent of the ayat IMO. Notice the word is "adornments" - nowhere is the word "hair" specifically mentioned. It should be fairly obvious that the issue is modesty in general, and common sense dictates what that involves.

Do I have to remind you that the qur'an is not open to interpretation. The qur'an is the immutable word of allah so the words mean what they say.

Thank you Saladin for your timely reminder. I might add this:-


Quote:

Since laws governing transactions between men are directly linked to their beliefs, such a book can obviously not be annulled or changed with the passage of time. As He says in XVII:105, "We have revealed the Qur'an with Truth and it has descended with the Truth," meaning that the revelations and their ongoing validity are inseparable from the Truth. Thus in X:32, "After the Truth what is there except error, " and in XLI:41-42, "In truth it is an unpenetrable book, error may not enter in it from before it or behind it. " In other words the Qur'an repulses, by its own perfection and completeness, any attempt to alter it; and neither now nor later can it be annulled or superseded. Many studies have been made of the permanence of the validity of the laws given in the Qur'an.

Thanks again Saladin. Here, muslims are left in no doubt about what is written:


Quote:

2.2 This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

salad in wrote on Jan 29^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Do I have to remind you that the qur'an is not open to interpretation. The qur'an is the immutable word of allah so the words mean what they say.

not open to interpretation? - hmmm and here you are quoting from an English interpretation of the original arabic. Actually, its even worse than that - you're quoting a guy who is making an interpretion of the English interpretation of the original arabic.  :D

salad in wrote on Jan 30^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

Thanks again Saladin. Here, muslims are left in no doubt about what is written: Quote: 2.2 This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

When Allah revealed this verse there was no book,The Quran was made into a book about 23 years after Mohammad died.

Muslims claim the quran has divine origins yet it was the caliph Uthman who decided what verses would go into the quran and which verses would be left out 23 years after Mohammad died.
Gandalf- who gave Uthman authority to edit the quran which muslims incorrectly claim has never been altered?

Falah has pointed out muslims cannot pick and choose what parts of the quran to believe in this is where Islam differs from christianity,Allah even mentions this in sura 2/85.

Quote:

Allah speaking listen up gullible fools- So do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? No virgins for you off to the hellfire. www.quran.com/2/85

please get your facts straight Baron:


Quote:

Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which produced multiple copies of the text of the Qur'an as it exists today. The reason was that various Muslim centres, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting the Qur'an and writing it down with stylistic differences. This copy of the Qur'an is believed to be one of the oldest, compiled during Caliph Uthman's reign. During the time of Uthman, by which time Islam had spread far and wide, differences in reading the Quran in different dialects of Arabic language became obvious. A group of companions, headed by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was then stationed in Iraq, came to Uthman and urged him to "save the Muslim ummah before they differ about the Quran" . Uthman obtained the complete manuscript of the Qur'an from Hafsah, one of the wives of the Islamic prophet Muhammad who had been entrusted to keep the manuscript ever since the Qur'an was comprehensively compiled by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr . Uthman then again summoned the leading compiling authority, Zayd ibn Thabit, and some other companions to make copies of the manuscript. Zayd was put in charge of the task. The style of Arabic dialect used was that of the Quraysh tribe to which the Prophet Muhammad belonged. Hence this style was emphasized over all others. Zayd and his assistants produced several copies of the manuscript of the Qur'an. One of each was sent to every Muslim province with the order that all other Quranic materials, whether fragmentary or complete copies, be destroyed. As such, when the standard copies were made widely available to the Muslim community everywhere, then all other material was burnt voluntarily by the Muslim community themselves. The annihilation of these extra-Qur'anic documents remained essential in order to eradicate scriptural incongruities, contradictions of consequence or differences in the dialect from the customary text of the Qur'an. The Caliph Uthman kept a copy for himself and returned the original manuscript to Hafsah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn_Affan#Qur.27an

Uthman didn't pick and choose which verses would be included and which would be left out - he went back to the source - the original manuscript compiled by the first caliph, and kept safe by the prophet's widow. He then ordered copies of that original manuscript to be made and become the official standard version -  and any versions that differed from the original to be destroyed.

So the first great Islamic scholar was also a book burner?

[quoteUthman didn't pick and choose which verses would be included and which would be left out - he went back to the source - the original manuscript compiled by the first caliph, and kept safe by the prophet's widow. He then ordered copies of that original manuscript to be made and become the official standard version -  and any versions that differed from the original to be destroyed. ][/quote]

He did pick what he wanted the original manual of hatred differs from today's version. Check out an earlier version here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript.  Also peoples opinions were sought on what Mo man said so the quran cannot be the true word of god can it Gandalf.

Adamant wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:36am:

He did pick what he wanted the original manual of hatred differs from today's version. Check out an earlier version here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript.

There is no evidence that the Sana manuscript is the original if that's what you are implying. In fact its almost certainly one of those unauthentic "copies" that Uthman ordered to be destroyed. As one guy in the wiki article stated:


Quote:

Lester admits that so far the manuscripts show some unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. However, the past existence of such manuscripts is well known to Muslims and those that did not completely agree with the Uthmanic text were eliminated in various ways. The recovery of an ancient manuscript dating back to the earliest history of Islam that differs in minor ways from the Uthmanic text and that was eliminated from circulation will hardly cause Muslims to feel the need to rewrite their history; if anything, it will only confirm it for them

Adamant wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:36am:

Also peoples opinions were sought on what Mo man said so the quran cannot be the true word of god can it Gandalf.

please provide evidence. Are you confusing the quran with the hadith?

The quran was recorded by scribes as it was revealed by the prophet. These manuscripts were stored safely in the prophets house, and after his death it was held by his widow. Evidently, over the years many copies were circulated that were not true to the original. So when Uthman came to power, he ordered the creation of the "official" version copied directly from the original manuscripts. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed. My guess is that this sanna version slipped through the cracks.

The faded writing on the parchment is the oldest. The newest is the little black book you use today. Unless your Mo man was not the first prophet of Islam I suggest the little black book you hold so dear and are told is from god  actually is a fake.

“Perhaps the action which caused the most controversy for Uthman during his reign, however, was his attempt to develop a definitive text of the Qur'an at the expense of all others. His aim was simply to establish one true text of the revelation, in order for all Muslims to know of what the Qur'an consisted, what order it should be in, and how it should be written. Despite the controversy, Uthman was able to complete this task, which has since been recognised as a significant achievement in Islamic history. He reduced the number and frequency of disagreements over dogma, but many devout believers at the time accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book. In 656, crowds protested his compilation of the new Qu'ran outside his home. Uthman refused help from his old friends, and the siege ended when protesters broke into his house, and assassinated Uthman”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Uthman_Affan.html

No I do not mean Hadith

Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh Is the poor chappie your on about I believe Mo man sure knew how to look after smarter people than himself did he not.
During Muhammad's 23 years of prophetic ministry, Muhammad claimed to receive revelations from God, given to him by an angel. Muhammad used many men, functioning as scribes, to write down these assumed revelations. Different scribes wrote down different revelations. `Abdullah Sarh was one of Muhammad's scribes. Evidently, Sarh had some literary skills, sometimes suggesting improvements to Muhammad in the wording of the recited Qur'an. Muhammad often agreed with Sarh's improvements, and allowed the changes to be made.
Sarh eventually left Islam because he knew that no mere scribe should be allowed to change something that was proclaimed to be the word of God. The changes were frequent enough that it caused Sarh to realize that something was amiss. Upon leaving Islam, Sarh became a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. It would no longer be believed to be the word of God if a man had been allowed to edit and change it. Sarh's threat to the credibility of the Qur'an was also a threat to Muhammad's credibility. No real prophet would allow the word of God to be changed.
Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Sometime later, Muhammad and his army moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. On that day, Muhammad ordered the murder of 10 people living in Mecca. Muhammad said "God forbid killing in Mecca, except for this one day." Sarh was one of the people Muhammad ordered to be murdered. His crime? He had left Islam, and he constituted a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an and the prophethood of Muhammad. No wonder then that Muhammad wanted him dead.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/sarh.html

Got any tips for the Quady in Melbourne as I could use a bit of divine (man made) intervention.

Quote:

and the siege ended when protesters broke into his house, and assassinated Uthman

Ironic.

Adamant wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:25am:

The faded writing on the parchment is the oldest. The newest is the little black book you use today. Unless your Mo man was not the first prophet of Islam I suggest the little black book you hold so dear and are told is from god  actually is a fake.

Ummm... interesting leap in logic you have there.

You *SEEM* to be saying that the quran we have today is more recent than the oldest part of the Sana text - and therefore it is somehow unauthentic.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

How does "older" mean more authentic? You seem to assume that the oldest part of the Sana manuscript must be the very first quranic text. Flawed logic I'm afraid.

Seems you have trouble understanding the sequence of events, so I'll explain it for you: First came the oral revelation, which was transcribed at the time by scribes on to parchments. These were approved by the prophet, and put away for safe keeping. Second came the first compilation of these revelations into the one book under Abu Bakr. Between this first compilation and the time of Uthman, several versions of the book were created - most it seems came from those who had memorised the revelation, rather than from the original transcripts. Finally, Uthman came along and said these different version must go, and a new version must be created using the original transcripts - still safely kept away by the prophet's widow. Evidently at least one of these pre-Uthman versions survived - ie the sanna manuscript.

So yes, the quran we know today was written later than many of the other versions that were still in existence - but it was copied from the original. Sorry your attempts to smeer islam was such a spectacular fail.

Why do you describe it as being written later than the other versions?

please reread my *VERY* simple explanation FD - the answer is right there.

If it was copied directly from the very first transcript by Abu, wouldn't that mean it was written earlier? Or are you referring to the date it came off the printers? Or was it not actually copied properly from Abu's version?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

If it was copied directly from the very first transcript by Abu, wouldn't that mean it was written earlier?

who is Abu - Abu Bakr, the first caliph?

Abu's version was written earlier - yes - whats your point?

Also I don't know whether that first version was entirely from the original manuscripts, or if at least some of it came from the narrations of those who had memorised it.

Many version were created in different dialects right after the prophet died. Uthman came along after these were made and said a new version that was true to the original manuscripts must be made. The original manuscripts were still kept safe and intact by the (still alive) prophet's widow. The sana manuscript (at least the oldest part of it) is presumably one of the earlier, slightly less reliable versions.

My point is that it does not make sense to refer to it as a 'later' version if it was copied directly from the original version - in that case it is still the original version.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:31pm:

My point is that it does not make sense to refer to it as a 'later' version if it was copied directly from the original version - in that case it is still the original version.

well yes...

but the point being discussed with adamant related to its physical age - that through carbon dating, the passages in the sanna manuscript that matches the current quran, was physically written later than the other passages. He seemed to think that because there exists records that were written earlier than the current version - records which are slightly different to the current version - then that necessarily means the current version is fabricated. That of course is flawed logic, since I already explained why those non-standardised versions are older.

So yes, you are absolutely right that the current version is an accurate copy of the original - and thats precisely my point.

Islam is a misunderstanding, a parody and a farce because it insists on not being a human interpretation, a human longing, grappling, bafflement, the human side of a dialogue, as imagined by humans with ears, eyes and hearts for discerning meaning.

Islam is stupid because it takes what is obviously human, in a very pedestrian and primitive way (Mohammed) to be the unchanging and unchangeable word of god, the Oriental Potentate. There has never been a better case of painting yourself into a corner from which there is no way out.

Islam simply doesn't allow for that essential human element in religion: poetic, imaginative licence. It will kill you for anything like that. This is why it is a parody of  religion and is, rather, an essentially political movement of domination and conquest.

Quite right, old chap. Sufi mystics simply don’t exist. Persian and Moghul poets.- never ever. Moor and Moghul architecture, musical instruments - like the prototype for the guitar, wind instruments - like the bagpipes, and complex musical scores,  intricate carving,  tiles, carpets, tapestries - never happened.

Thank heavens for that. Grappling, bafflement and human dialogue are not in your list of favourite things, eh? As for a changing understanding of things, well.

Lets just leave that to the postmodern numpties, shall we?

Shurely shome mishtake, old chap. You imagined for a second that you were all those things you think the Muselmen isn’t. Humans with ears, eyes and hearts discerning for meaning, eh?

Thanks for the chuckle, dear boy. Jolly good show. I’ll have to pass that one onto Sir Reggie and the chaps down at the embassy.

;D ;D well said Karnal - nicely pwn3d Soren.

Yes - poetry and imaginative license in islam is simply unheard of  ::)

Add to your list the preservation of classical literature, advancement in maths - including the numerals we use today, our understanding of human anatomy etc etc...

the supposed stifling of learning and creativity in islam has nothing on the stifling that went on in middle age christian Europe. And even beyond - when Galileo was imprisoned for his discoveries. 


Soren wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 6:29pm:

Islam is stupid because it takes what is obviously human, in a very pedestrian and primitive way (Mohammed) to be the unchanging and unchangeable word of god, the Oriental Potentate. There has never been a better case of painting yourself into a corner from which there is no way out.

I can't think of any area of human knowledge and philosophy whose pursuit is blocked by the doctrine of islam. Sure there have been individual rulers who take it upon themselves to outlaw this or that - but as I said, this has nothing on the oppression of medieval Europe. And speaking of fundamentalist christianity - just as an example, evolution is off limits because Genesis states the world was created in 6 days - along with all life. Muslims are not leading the charge for creationism to be taught in schools and evolution to be abolished now are they? Galileo was persecuted because he dared suggest that the earth revolved around the sun and not vise versa - and before him people like Columbus were attacked because they thought the world wasn't flat (earth needed to be flat for a literal hell and heaven to exist below and above). Islam had never been hindered by these beliefs. Christian Europe was only able to advance scientifically and philosophically after abandoning the core teachings of christianity. Islam never had this cognitive dissonance - because there was far more flexibility built in to the text (eg no timescale for the creation of earth and life is specified).

Quote:

I can't think of any area of human knowledge and philosophy whose pursuit is blocked by the doctrine of islam.

Most of the Muslims I have spoken to here say that apostasy is punishable by death under Islam. Does that count?

Also, the basic sciences seemed to suffer under Islam, and still do. Abu countered this with examples from a Saudi University of research into the medicinal benefits of camel urine.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 8:46am:

Christian Europe was only able to advance scientifically and philosophically after abandoning the core teachings of christianity. Islam never had this cognitive dissonance - because there was far more flexibility built in to the text (eg no timescale for the creation of earth and life is specified).

What, then, explains the phenomenon of Islamic countries creating nothing in 800 years?

It's all about what values are proclaimed as the most important. Islam has submission to Allah as more important than any social or political reform and advances in the arts and sciences. This is why it has produced nothing. Ironically, it is only after Islam abandons its core teachings will it reform and advance into the modern world.

It is easy to paint the whole history of European science as a clash between the church and academia - if you are satisfied with one or two examples as evidence, as gandalf appears to. But the facts show a completely different picture.

See for example this list of religious people who contributed to fundamental scientific research.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Abu liked to counter this with a list that includes the guy who supposedly made a fundamental contribution to our understanding of flight by jumping of a tall building with feathers glued to his arms.

Yes, pretty much all the early thinkers and scientists in medieval Europe were Christians.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:

Most of the Muslims I have spoken to here say that apostasy is punishable by death under Islam. Does that count?

no. That doesn't even make sense FD.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:

Also, the basic sciences seemed to suffer under Islam, and still do. Abu countered this with examples from a Saudi University of research into the medicinal benefits of camel urine.

And you have evidence that camel urine has no medicinal benefits - or that this theory/belief has been arrived at unscientifically? Show me the studies and/or the scientific debate (if any exists). Seems a pretty bizarre example to demonstrate how science suffers under islam.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:55am:

What, then, explains the phenomenon of Islamic countries creating nothing in 800 years?

As I argued in the other thread, islam has been going through a dark age - just like christianity did. What happened in western (christian) Europe between circa 500AD and 1400? Wasn't exactly an age of enlightenment and learning was it? This is the period in which the church ruled, and actively suppressed the scientific and artistic pursuits that didn't strictly conform to the church's world view. Whats happening in islam today - and for the last 800 years or so isn't nearly as bad as what happened to christianity, but there is no denying it is a relatively closed-minded period. But lets not forget this period proceeded a period  of some 500 years of great cultural and scientific enlightenment under islam. But like all great civilizations, they eventually enter a period of decline - just as christianity and western civilization is entering now - and its lasted about the same time as Islam's golden age.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:55am:

Islam has submission to Allah as more important than any social or political reform and advances in the arts and sciences.

yes you've said this before, and as Karnal explained to you before, artistic, scientific, social and political reforms are not considered less important than submission to Allah - when these things are seen as the very expression of submitting to Allah. In fact, Islam demands the pursuit of knowledge - and as I said in my last post, I can't think of any sort of scientific or artistic field that is contradictory to islam such that it must be suppressed.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

It is easy to paint the whole history of European science as a clash between the church and academia - if you are satisfied with one or two examples as evidence, as gandalf appears to. But the facts show a completely different picture.

The entire medieval period - nearly a whole millenium - is just one gigantic case study of the suppression of scientific knowledge and artistic pursuit. They don't call it the dark ages for nothing.

Of course scientific and artistic advancements came about only when western Europe began to rebel against the church's crippling hold on society, and committed acts which previously were condemned as heresy.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:

Yes, pretty much all the early thinkers and scientists in medieval Europe were Christians.

um yeah - could that possibly be because medieval Europe was christian?  ;D

In any case, your statement is still bullshit:


Quote:

Córdoba was the cultural centre of al-Andalus.[12] Mosques, such as The Great Mosque, were the focal point of many Caliphs' attentions. Also found in Córdoba is the Caliph's large palace found on the outskirts of the city. This palace had many rooms filled with riches and prizes from the East. Córdoba was the intellectual centre of al-Andalus, with translations of ancient Greek texts to Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. The 10th-century library of Al-Ḥakam II was one of the largest libraries in the world, housing at least 400,000 volumes. Throughout the period of al-Andalus civilization, Jews and Arabs lived in harmony: Jewish stonemasons have left their marks incised into many columns of the great Mosque at Córdoba. It was not until the fall of al-Andalus in 1492 that the incoming Christians banished the Jews from Spain. Appreciable advances in science, history, geography, philosophy and grammar occurred during the Caliphate.[13] Al-Andalus became susceptible to eastern cultural influences as well. Ziryab is credited on bringing hair and clothing styles to the Iberian peninsula (as well as toothpaste and deodorant).

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

Quote:

no. That doesn't even make sense FD.

The death penalty for a thought crime counts as blocking areas of human knowledge and philosophy. Even today many wealthy westerners have their minds blocked by Islam to the extent that they support the death penalty for even trivial deviation from the correct version of Islam. We have seen enough examples right here.


Quote:

And you have evidence that camel urine has no medicinal benefits - or that this theory/belief has been arrived at unscientifically?

You are kind of missing the point here gandalf. Like the guy jumping off the building with feathers glued to his arms, it may contribute to knowledge in a narrow sense, but the fact that it is even mentioned as an example of Muslims contributing to knowledge is yet another symptom of Islam as a barrier to the acquisition of new knowledge. The fact that it is also directly related to Muhammed extolling the virtues of drinking camel piss just adds to the irony. It's like the guy who left the cheese sandwich out overnight and discovered mould on it claiming to be an equal to the guy who invented penicillan. You just have to find a religious reference to the benefits of eating mouldy food to complete the example.


Quote:

Seems a pretty bizarre example to demonstrate how science suffers under islam.

It is also a bizarre example of how Islam contributes.


Quote:

But lets not forget this period proceeded a period  of some 500 years of great cultural and scientific enlightenment under islam.

I would concede that there was enlightenment, especially in comparison to pre-Islamic Arabia, but genuine contributions to basic science were few and far between. The real contributions were mare more useful in an immediate sense. Warfare and agriculture come to mind as examples.


Quote:

Whats happening in islam today - and for the last 800 years or so isn't nearly as bad as what happened to christianity, but there is no denying it is a relatively closed-minded period.

Who do you think this Islamic dark age continues today, even when so many other cultures around the world are jumping ahead? BTW, it is only a dark age compared to the advances made by other cultures. Compared to Islam's history, the modern condition in even the most backwards of Muslim countries is still a great leap forward. They cannot help but be dragged along with the rest of the world, even if it is kicking and screaming.


Quote:

yes you've said this before, and as Karnal explained to you before, artistic, scientific, social and political reforms are not considered less important than submission to Allah - when these things are seen as the very expression of submitting to Allah.

So long as you do it Muhammed's way. Otherwise you get your head chopped off.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 12:31pm:

um yeah - could that possibly be because medieval Europe was christian?  ;D In any case, your statement is still bullshit: Quote: Córdoba was the cultural centre of al-Andalus.[12] Mosques, such as The Great Mosque, were the focal point of many Caliphs' attentions. Also found in Córdoba is the Caliph's large palace found on the outskirts of the city. This palace had many rooms filled with riches and prizes from the East. Córdoba was the intellectual centre of al-Andalus, with translations of ancient Greek texts to Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. The 10th-century library of Al-Ḥakam II was one of the largest libraries in the world, housing at least 400,000 volumes. Throughout the period of al-Andalus civilization, Jews and Arabs lived in harmony: Jewish stonemasons have left their marks incised into many columns of the great Mosque at Córdoba. It was not until the fall of al-Andalus in 1492 that the incoming Christians banished the Jews from Spain. Appreciable advances in science, history, geography, philosophy and grammar occurred during the Caliphate.[13] Al-Andalus became susceptible to eastern cultural influences as well. Ziryab is credited on bringing hair and clothing styles to the Iberian peninsula (as well as toothpaste and deodorant).   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Córdoba

Huh? That's not even connected to the statement you're replying to.
Europe's early thinkers were Christian - it's not bullsh*t. Atheism doesn't emerge until the early 19th century. There are some rare cases, like Hume in the 18th century, but atheism is a late invention.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

The death penalty for a thought crime counts as blocking areas of human knowledge and philosophy.

If people are exploring any kind of knowledge and philosophy outside the bounds of islam, then its not really relevant to our discussion is it? Since we're talking about Islam's contribution to knowledge and philosophy - once you start talking about non-islamic contributions (ie people who have renounced islam), then it becomes entirely irrelevant.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

the fact that it is even mentioned as an example of Muslims contributing to knowledge is yet another symptom of Islam as a barrier to the acquisition of new knowledge.

I'm not aware of it ever being mentioned in that context. Seems like you are the only person holding camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of islamic science. I'm certainly not, and judging from this thread of islamic scientific achievements, Abu doesn't either - since it is not even mentioned. If you asked me (or any other muslim) what the greatest islamic scientific achievements were, you wouldn't hear 'drinking camel urine' at the top of the list - I would point to things like astronomy, mathematics and medicine. The camel urine might come under the "interesting trivia" section.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

but genuine contributions to basic science were few and far between

history disagrees with you. Ever heard of algebra? mathematical induction? Or even the numbering system we use today?

Islamic physicians made invaluable contributions to the knowledge of human anatomy - and advanced surgical techniques as well as the use of medicinal drugs. The first person to discover that fever was a defense mechanism of the body was a muslim. The first dedicated hospitals came from the islamic world - and inspired the creation of European hospitals.

What we now understand as the modern scientific method was first developed in the islamic world.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Who do you think this Islamic dark age continues today, even when so many other cultures around the world are jumping ahead?

excuse me? What other cultures are "jumping ahead"? - China is about the only significant power and culture that is "jumping ahead" in this world - economically speaking at least. But don't talk about the mighty western world - they are crashing and burning (relatively) in just about every sense.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:15pm:

Huh? That's not even connected to the statement you're replying to. Europe's early thinkers were Christian - it's not bullsh*t. Atheism doesn't emerge until the early 19th century. There are some rare cases, like Hume in the 18th century, but atheism is a late invention.

what do you even mean by "thinker" and "early"?? Ancient Greece was rather "early" wouldn't you say? I don't think Aristotle, Plato et al were christian.

But would you consider the 8th century "early" for western Europe? My point was that there were clearly great "thinkers" already in Europe by then - in Cordoba - and they were non-christians. There was no great learning or cultural centres in western Europe that compared to Cordoba until many centuries later.

Mistie is confusing Medieval Europe with the Enlightenment.

It’s a common mistake.

and Misty, even if you are talking only about christians being the first "thinkers" - as opposed to atheists - you STILL missed my point. My point was that what you refer to as Europe's first great "thinkers" did identify themselves as christian, thats true - but usually not by the church - who previously could dictate what was and what wasn't acceptable thinking. But the point is, by the 15th an 16th century - when all this great "thinking" was going on, the church had very much lost their grip on thought control. They were still jumping up and down screaming "heretic!!" - its just that fewer and fewer people were listening to them. Thats what I meant by Europe only started to advance once they began to revolt against the church. Unlike in islam - where great thinking, science and art was not only compatible with islamic doctrine - it was actively promoted by islam during the golden age. Europe on the other hand was very much a case of advancement despite christianity, not because of it.

Quote:

If people are exploring any kind of knowledge and philosophy outside the bounds of islam, then its not really relevant to our discussion is it? Since we're talking about Islam's contribution to knowledge and philosophy - once you start talking about non-islamic contributions (ie people who have renounced islam), then it becomes entirely irrelevant.

Fair enough. Islam's contribution to knowledge was to chop people's heads off if they disagree. It must be coincidence that it stifles every other type of thought.


Quote:

I'm not aware of it ever being mentioned in that context. Seems like you are the only person holding camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of islamic science.

Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu. He also gave the example of the guy who jumped off a tall building with feathers glued to his arms in his Islam and science thread.


Quote:

If you asked me (or any other muslim) what the greatest islamic scientific achievements were, you wouldn't hear 'drinking camel urine' at the top of the list - I would point to things like astronomy, mathematics and medicine.

And jumping off tall buildings with feathers glued to your arms.


Quote:

history disagrees with you. Ever heard of algebra? mathematical induction? Or even the numbering system we use today?

Ever heard of science?


Quote:

What we now understand as the modern scientific method was first developed in the islamic world.

Yet you don't even seem aware of what it is. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.


Quote:

excuse me? What other cultures are "jumping ahead"? - China is about the only significant power and culture that is "jumping ahead" in this world

Just about everyone is, even without the help of vast wealth from enourmous oil reserves.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:25pm:

It must be coincidence that it stifles every other type of thought.

ok - so we'll just ignore the existence of the greatest learning centres of its time - the largest cities which contained the largest libraries.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu.

so they actually said "amongst the greatest islamic scientific discoveries is drinking camel urine"? Please humour me FD and show me where.

In fact after a quick search, the only threads that contain the words "camel urine" were this and this. On both occasions you were the one who brought it up, and no muslim on either thread came remotely close to saying the discovery of the benefits of camel urine was at the pinnacle of islamic scientific discovery.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:25pm:

He also gave the example of the guy who jumped off a tall building with feathers glued to his arms in his Islam and science thread.

you must be referring to Abbas ibn Firnas, who invented the first known flying machine. Yeah lets make a mockery of the guy who invented the first hang glider, and achieved what the Europeans were still attempting to do... about 10 centuries later.  :P Never mind the fact that his invention actually worked. But more broadly, when we're talking about scientific advancement, it really makes sense to mock the people who go out and actually try stuff and experiment - cause you know, thats kinda what science is all about. I'm dying to see how you are going to attempt to relate this back to islam's inherent tendency to "stifle" ideas and thought. And the fact is, the Europeans were doing exactly the same thing ten centuries later before they finally mastered the art of flying.

Incidentally, amongst Abbass's many other scientific achievements, he invented a water clock, reading glasses, and a planisphere.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Ever heard of science?

mathematics is generally considered a science. But I'd be interested to see how far modern science would have advanced without the use of these mathematical tools - given that they are so integral to modern science. Also, is medicine, astronomy and physics - amongst other fields, not good enough for you?


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Yet you don't even seem aware of what it is. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

you "seem" to be jumping to conclusions. I guess that shouldn't surprise me  :P

The scientific method - as we know it today - is arriving at a scientific theory empirically: developing a hypothesis, and then testing that through experiment or other type of observation. This concept was unknown even to the ancient Greeks, and only became popular in Europe around the 18th century. Yet, islamic scientists such as ibn al-Haytham and Jabir ibn Hayyan had already developed the method many centuries before the Europeans.

Quote:

you must be referring to Abbas ibn Firnas, who invented the first known flying machine. Yeah lets make a mockery of the guy who invented the first hanglider, and achieved what the Europeans were still attempting to do...

You mean a peculiar stain on the pavement below?


Quote:

Never mind the fact that his invention actually worked.

LOL, from your own link that you provided as 'evidence':

He is also said to have made an attempt at flight using a set of wings. The only evidence for this is an account by the Moroccan historian Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari (d. 1632), composed seven centuries later

It looks like you have swallowed the Islamic propaganda hook line and sinker, yet again. I guess the truth does not matter when promoting Islam? Can you give any example of great historical European scientists whose contributions were unkown to the world until they appeared in a poem many centuries later? If Muslims put as much effort into actual science as they put into rewriting the history of science (and everything else) they might not be so backwards.

If what you say about this guy is actually true, it would in fact be further evidence of how Islam crushes innovation, for they actually did invent something useful, then promptly forgot about it. But it looks now like this one was entirely fabricated.


Quote:

But more broadly, when we're talking about scientific advancement, it really makes sense to mock the people who go out and actually try stuff and experiment - cause you know, thats kinda what science is all about. I'm dying to see how you are going to attempt to relate this back to islam's inherent tendency to "stifle" ideas and thought. And the fact is, the Europeans were doing exactly the same thing ten centuries later before they finally mastered the art of flying.

Except unlike Muslims, they actually achieved it.


Quote:

mathematics is generally considered a science.

No it isn't.


Quote:

But I'd be interested to see how far modern science would have advanced without the use of these mathematical tools - given that they are so integral to modern science.

You seem to be making a distinction between the two here. How is this possible if maths is science?


Quote:

Also, is medicine, astronomy and physics - amongst other fields, not good enough for you?

Physics is a basic science.


Quote:

The scientific method - as we know it today - is arriving at a scientific theory empirically: developing a hypothesis, and then testing that through experiment or other type of observation.

Can you explain how this method applies to maths? What experiments would you do to test a mathematical theory?

What a load of codswallop..hypothesis is greek by its name even.One only has to go back to Plato and Socretes to envisage hypothesis at work.Garbage.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

It looks like you have swallowed the Islamic propaganda hook line and sinker, yet again.

Sure, his machine and test might not have even existed, but I was responding to you mocking the idea of someone trying something new for the purpose of scientific advancement - presumably only because that person was a muslim.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

If what you say about this guy is actually true, it would in fact be further evidence of how Islam crushes innovation, for they actually did invent something useful, then promptly forgot about it.

Thats a fair point. We just don't know what happened after that, and whether or not the islamic world went on and pursued flying any further than that. But of course the point is the islamic world didn't end up creating flying machines - the west did.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

You seem to be making a distinction between the two here. How is this possible if maths is science?

Are you serious? How do different fields of science help each other? Really FD?  ;D How about physics and astronomy? or chemistry and biology - or virtually any two different fields of science?

Think about it FD, whether you call maths a science or not, it doesn't matter - science uses maths - fact - including (and especially) the tools invented by the islamic world such as algebra and arabic numerals.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

Can you explain how this method applies to maths? What experiments would you do to test a mathematical theory?

you misunderstand - science doesn't necessarily always use what we now term the "scientific method". Says wikipedia:


Quote:

Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as the scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.

brumbie wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:41pm:

What a load of codswallop..hypothesis is greek by its name even.One only has to go back to Plato and Socretes to envisage hypothesis at work.Garbage.

and?

The use of hypothesise does not equal scientific method. Basically the scientific method requires three components: hypothesis, test hypothesis through observation, and draw conclusions. If you actually knew anything about Greek philosophy, you would know that their "method" to arrive at scientific theories went in the exact opposite way to the modern scientific method. They first made specific observations, then derived abstract conclusions (hypothesise) from these observations. The scientific method runs the exact opposite way: hypothesise are formed, and then they are tested through experimentation and observation. Thats the key difference - the Greeks didn't test their hypothesise, thus they weren't "scientific" in the way we understand it today.

Quote:

Sure, his machine and test might not have even existed, but I was responding to you mocking the idea of someone trying something new for the purpose of scientific advancement - presumably only because that person was a muslim.

No, because in Islam a made up story about a guy jumping off a building and plunging to his death counts as a scientific contribution, regardless of the complete absence of any actual contribution. Every time I look into these claims about the great contributions of Muslims to science I am surprised all over again by the absurdity of it. Why on earth do Muslims have to resort to made up stories in the first place? I don't see anyone having to make up stories about imaginary contributions from past European scientists.


Quote:

Thats a fair point. We just don't know what happened after that, and whether or not the islamic world went on and pursued flying any further than that.

Perhaps because it is a made up story.


Quote:

Think about it FD, whether you call maths a science or not, it doesn't matter

Since the point I was trying to make is that Islam always has and still does stifle basic science, it would help if you knew what I was talking about. Getting confused about maths and science doesn't really help, even if you do really really want to find a way to squeeze some kind of Islamic contribution into it.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

No, because in Islam a made up story about a guy jumping off a building and plunging to his death counts as a scientific contribution, regardless of the complete absence of any actual contribution.

At least get the story straight. He did not die from the attempt - in fact he flew for quite some time, and landed relatively softly - only hurting his back slightly. Or so the story goes. The "contribution" of this is obviously that it was the first known successful man-made flight.

Painting muslims as mere liars is apparently not good enough for you - they have to be idiotic liars  :P


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

Since the point I was trying to make is that Islam always has and still does stifle basic science

yes, because we'll ignore the 500 years in which basic science flourished under islam.


freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

Getting confused about maths and science doesn't really help, even if you do really really want to find a way to squeeze some kind of Islamic contribution into it.

I was never confused - maths is a formal science, I knew that - you didn't apparently. The only debate is whether that should be considered "science" given that it is not empirical science.

But it is you who has missed the point entirely. Is "science" - as in "empirical science" the only worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge? Of course not. Mathematics is central to science - obviously. Quite simply without mathematics there would be no science. Who cares what you call it - that fundamental fact remains - regardless of whether you call maths a science, or santa clause.

Also still waiting for the quote from Abu, or other muslim on this forum stating that drinking camel urine was the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Or shall I put that into the overflowing "FD-being-called-on-his-bullshit-claims" basket - along with the "no one considers maths a science" claim, or the as yet unsubstantiated increase in Iraqi deaths during the last year claim?  ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:58pm:

and Misty, even if you are talking only about christians being the first "thinkers" - as opposed to atheists - you STILL missed my point. My point was that what you refer to as Europe's first great "thinkers" did identify themselves as christian, thats true - but usually not by the church - who previously could dictate what was and what wasn't acceptable thinking. But the point is, by the 15th an 16th century - when all this great "thinking" was going on, the church had very much lost their grip on thought control. They were still jumping up and down screaming "heretic!!" - its just that fewer and fewer people were listening to them. Thats what I meant by Europe only started to advance once they began to revolt against the church. Unlike in islam - where great thinking, science and art was not only compatible with islamic doctrine - it was actively promoted by islam during the golden age. Europe on the other hand was very much a case of advancement despite christianity, not because of it.

The church in the medieval period was the place of education. Education and learning wasn't independent of the church in Medieval Europe. The early thinkers believed that by understanding the world you were understanding the mind or ways of god. Karnal made this good point earlier. For example, take Descartes; in the 3rd Meditation he states that he got the idea of "perfection" from God and that by understanding the world more he was coming closer to "perfection" and hence "god". It is similar with many others. Newton, I believe, also thought he was coming closer to god when he laid down his principles.

The move to atheism in Europe was slow. It wasn't an overnight revolution. As skeptical thought progressed and became more acute over the centuries, it turned its eye on god and religion and eventually doubted its existence. When Logical Positivism arrives in the 19th century, god and Platonic metaphysics are basically eradicated from the sciences.

Again, atheism is only a recent phenomenon.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

The church in the medieval period was the place of education. Education and learning wasn't independent of the church in Medieval Europe. The early thinkers believed that by understanding the world you were understanding the mind or ways of god. Karnal made this good point earlier. For example, take Descartes; in the 3rd Meditation he states that he got the idea of "perfection" from God and that by understanding the world more he was coming closer to "perfection" and hence "god". It is similar with many others. Newton, I believe, also thought he was coming closer to god when he laid down his principles. The move to atheism in Europe was slow. It wasn't an overnight revolution. As skeptical thought progressed and became more acute over the centuries, it turned its eye on god and religion and eventually doubted its existence. When Logical Positivism arrives in the 19th century, god and Platonic metaphysics are basically eradicated from the sciences. Again, atheism is only a recent phenomenon.

The church got out of the Dark Ages through a Renaissance - a rebirth of Western Civilization. This involved reading non-Christian Greek philosophy for the first time, and discovering Greek and Roman history - pagan history, not Christian.

Without this, there would have been no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, no Scientific Revolution, and no Reformation.

During the Dark Ages, Islam was the center of Western civilization. Before the Renaissance, the only people reading Plato and Aristotle were the Muselmen. The only people trading were the Muselmen - they controlled the main global trade routes, and they housed the main libraries and centers of learning at the time.

China was equally focused on learning, but it was an insular civilization. The Muslim world at the time was extroverted and expansionist. It collected taxes and levies from the main trade routes and ports. While the West was stuck with feudalism, the Muslim world mediated global trade and cultural cross-fertilization. The Islamic world was the centre of global civilization. During the Dark Ages, Western Europe was the antithesis of civilization.

Western Europe only came good in the 15th century - after it got its hands during the Crusades on all the Greek and Roman texts held in Ottoman-ruled Constantinople, the old Eastern centre of the Roman Empire. We're talking about a period just over 500 years old, from the spice trade and the "Age of Expansion" on. For a millennium prior to this, Europe was mired in corruption, war and feudal slavery. The church during this time was not a beacon of Enlightenment - far from it. It kept order through the Rack and the Stake.

Somewhere along this historical journey, Islam and the West swapped places - probably around the time of the Scientific Revolution. Like many cultural phenomena, it was shaped by war. In a sense, Mao's statement about power rings true. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Ottomans were kept out of Vienna by superior planning and firepower. Islam's power declined.

But it wasn't through any inherently superior mindset or Western supremacy. It was global influence and the control of trade. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dutch invented capitalism by selling shares in the Dutch East India Company. The British navy became a world power. The Prussians mobilized and defeated the Ottomans, creating the Austro-Hungarian empire. Power shifted to the protestant countries, countries where the power of the church was usurped and held in check by the emerging nation state.

There was no "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, merely the long decline of one civilization (Islam) and the rise of another - capitalism. The new capitalist states were continuously squabbling with each other. War was ever-present. There were no epochal battles for the control of Western Europe. As soon as the Ottomans were turned back from Vienna, there were successions of expanding empires battling for European control - the Russians, Prussians and French. The British played them all off against each other from the sidelines, and settled on supremacy in the colonies.

All Christianity gave humanity was Feudalism. The reason the protestants came to the fore was their willingness to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's and leave the newly devised nation state to get on with business. I.e, it was indeed the separation of church and state that saw Europe develop, prosper and achieve military supremacy.

There was no real clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, only one empire slowly crumbling and another taking its place. This is how history seems to work, and only Gud knows if there's an art or science to it. If you believe Rousseau, Machiavelli's the Prince was intended as satire, not a cynical instruction manual for rulers. Western Europe may well be in a similar period of decline today, and no one can agree on how to reverse things. More state cooperation or less? More economic integration or less? More regulation of the economy or less?

What can we learn from history? No one knows. As Weber said, the owl of Minerva flies only at the dusk.

We can only judge history when all is said and done. We can only know what has worked - or not worked - after it happens.

well said Karnal.

I was going to respond to MM, but you covered everything I was going to say. Especially:


Quote:

Western Europe only came good in the 15th century - after it got its hands during the Crusades on all the Greek and Roman texts held in Ottoman-ruled Constantinople, the old Eastern centre of the Roman Empire. We're talking about a period just over 500 years old, from the spice trade and the "Age of Expansion" on. For a millennium prior to this, Europe was mired in corruption, war and feudal slavery. The church during this time was not a beacon of Enlightenment - far from it. It kept order through the Rack and the Stake.

I do find it amusing how MM is so adamant that islam can never be a vehicle of learning and enlightenment (even though it was for 500 years, but we'll ignore that), because of its emphasis on submission to a transcendant god - and then proceeds to hold the medieval church (another religion that demands submission to a transcendant god) as an oasis of knowledge and education.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Education and learning wasn't independent of the church in Medieval Europe. The early thinkers believed that by understanding the world you were understanding the mind or ways of god.

Exactly what I was trying to say about islam and its promotion of learning and education.

Well, if by the "early thinkers" Mistie means Decartes, he's confusing the Dark Ages with the Enlightenment.

An easy mistake to make. The old boy does it all the time. Every time he defends the Enlightenment, he's fantasizing about the return of the Rack and the Stake.

There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam.

There's nothing stopping Islam from entering the modern world other than its own stubbornness.

In a sense, it's unfair to blame rulers for their failures. If George Bush had succeeded establishing demokracy in the Middle East, he could be the new Woodrow Wilson. If Nixon had achieved "peace with honour" in Nam, he could be seen as Teddy Roosevelt.

But they didn't. Their plans failed. History was against them.

What did Ronald Reagan do?" For some reason the Amerikans love him. He certainly didn't win the cold war. The Russians lost that one fair and square.

Likewise, what did Queen Victoria do? De Galle? Bismark? JFK?

I'll grant Winston Churchill his success. And Paul Keating. Mind you, they were both excellent at talking up their successes - in Churchill's case, rightly so. In my opinion, Churchill was a much better writer than a speaker.

The owl of Minerva flies only at the dusk. Our legacies are only created when we're gone. The modern media is managing to reverse this axiom, with the fates turning against Gillard right from the start. The Twitterverse has a lot to answer for.

Perhaps history will be kinder to some than gossip.

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Well, if by the "early thinkers" Mistie means Decartes, he's confusing the Dark Ages with the Enlightenment. An easy mistake to make. The old boy does it all the time. Every time he defends the Enlightenment, he's fantasizing about the return of the Rack and the Stake.

Yet Descartes was religious. The meditation are full of references to god.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam.

Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks?

What ties Christianity and Western Europe to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East?

I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct.

The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa.

What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul?

During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now?

There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another.

And civilization is a very thin veneer indeed.

i would actually argue karmal that the greatest ruler and greatest influence on "the west" was elizabeth 1.

having seen the bloodshed brought about by the catholic v anglican schism under henry , she seemed a totally secular ruler, preventing the persecution of nearly all faiths.

to separate the religions from the scientists, she pretty well separated the church into the arbiter of moral things and the "royal societies" into the arbiter of scientific things.

so each could get on and do their work , untroubled by the other.

elizabeths setting up of the royal societies and the advancement of oxford and cambridge led to all those fantastic english scientists from newton on.

this was the genius and its still possibly what sets the west apart in terms of advancement.  scientists being able to get on with science .

the religious leaders have lost a lot of their authority on moral matters but i cant really see that the west has found a satisfactory replacement to settle matters moral.

but science has certainly flourished

Yes - all good things. Lizzie hasn’t been too bad either.

Mind you, they’ve been lucky. Both periods of history have been relatively prosperous for Mother England.

Adamant wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

This is a great stat that all muslim apologists will ignore like the plague. Hey Abu Rashid it is from Wiki leaks too so it has to be true! "According to a poll of 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at thirty universities throughout the UK conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), as reported ref B, 32 percent of Muslims on UK campuses believe killing in the name of religion is justified", Well F Me look at the scum we let through!

Statistics, statisitcs and damned lies as Mark Twain once said.
Polling shows that Christians and Jews are much more likely to justify killing civlians than Muslims. Thats a fact Jack. Theres plenty of reasons to be argued against Muslim immigration into Australia but this is not one of them.

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Yes - all good things. Lizzie hasn’t been too bad either. Mind you, they’ve been lucky. Both periods of history have been relatively prosperous for Mother England.

was the prosperity due to liz  or was liz due to the prosperity.
interesting that liz 2 has the delhi belly,  you didnt slip her some of the old boys cheese did you.
whilst i wouldnt rate victoria i would rate her german husband albert who was a sponsor of industry and a great friend of the poor

How about Gillard? She’s led a  period of low unemployment, low interest rates and high real wages.

But she’ll go down as one of our least popular leaders.

I think the public have been slipped some of the old boy’s cheese.

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

How about Gillard? She’s led a  period of low unemployment, low interest rates and high real wages. But she’ll go down as one of our least popular leaders. I think the public have been slipped some of the old boy’s cheese.

i think our leaders are largley inconsequential nowdays karmal.
napoleon, hitler, churchill, lincoln.  these blokes could really change the course of history.  our present leaders can just watch whats going on, launch an enquiry and get groomed for the daily soundbite.

sad really

Most Australians get paid about $800 a week and to get your tank filled up is about $50 . People are living week to week and never getting ahead. It's basic subsistence. Do you now understand karnal.

youre right though karmal,  she hasnt been a radical leftie and tony is just as left leaning as her (right leaning if you see it from the left)   what she lacks is charisma.

you cant manufacture that. you have it or you dont.  very few have it nowdays.  theyre just too sanitized

personally i'd luv to see you and smithy leading the labor party and the old boy and mistie on the right.

the level of debate would be worth watching. ;) ;) that would liven up question time

Big Dave wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

Most Australians get paid about $800 a week and to get your tank filled up is about $50 . People are living week to week and never getting ahead. It's basic subsistence. Do you now understand karnal.

Stop krapping on. Petrol’s the same price today as when I drove a car 5 years ago. Fruit and veg - cheaper thanks to good rains and bumper crops. Milk and bread - supermarket wars; never been cheaper.

Electronic goods - a TV is cheaper in today’s money than a big box was in the 1980s. Personal computers - a fraction of the cost and a trillion times more powerful. Cars - when was the last time you could buy a new sedan for ten grand? 1980?

Rent is up, but home loans are ridiculously low. Wages are high. And, thanks to the high dollar, never in my lifetime have you been able to travel to Europe or Amerika and pay about the same as you do here.

The cost of living hyperbole is complete krap. Living in an Australian city has never been cheaper in real income terms.

Life has never been better. You need to look for the positives, Big Dave. Go to England and see how they have it.

Without a doubt, Australians are taking over as the world’s biggest whingers - at a time when they’ve never had it so good.

Basic subsistance? Having just come back from India, all I can do is have a big chuckle at that one.

Forgive me, Big Dave. You need to get out more.

Quote:

At least get the story straight. He did not die from the attempt - in fact he flew for quite some time, and landed relatively softly - only hurting his back slightly.

You are confused gandalf. We are talking about a made up story. Just because Abu insists it was a valuable contribution to scientific research does not make it so. I realise that Islam commands you to automatically look favourably upon fellow Muslims, but this is taking it to absurd lengths.


Quote:

Painting muslims as mere liars is apparently not good enough for you - they have to be idiotic liar

But they are. How else would you interpret this? At first I thought it was just stupid to claim this to be a valuable contribution to science, when all he supposedly did was glue feathers to his arms and break his neck. Absurd enough I thought - that is until you came along and tried to back it up with that link, which makes it pretty obvious that the whole thing is a fabrication anyway. That Abu would put this dubious claim top of the list in his "setting the record straight" thread just adds to the lunacy. No wonder Muslims contribute so little of value. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets. Are we really to believe that a group of people who put so much effort into taking intellectual credit where it is not deserved would document this for 700 years, then loose all references to it except a poem, which ironically enough makes fun of the guy? It is either another example of Muslims quashing what otherwise could have been a genuine contribution, or taking their attempt to fabricate a glorious history out of thin air to absurd levels.


Quote:

yes, because we'll ignore the 500 years in which basic science flourished under islam

Except of course that that actually contributed remarkably little, despite the otherwise fertile conditions.


Quote:

I was never confused - maths is a formal science

Sure, if you define science as not using the scientific method. You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the issue of Islam's ability to block the development of basic science.


Quote:

Also still waiting for the quote from Abu, or other muslim on this forum stating that drinking camel urine was the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

Lets start with a quote from me.


Quote:

Or shall I put that into the overflowing "FD-being-called-on-his-bullshit-claims" basket - along with the "no one considers maths a science" claim

We are speaking English here gandalf. It helps if you use the common meaning of words, which was obviously my intent with my reference to basic science. I have seen people try to argue that science means any form of knowledge. This does not mean that everyone gets confused because they don't know what we are talking about.


Quote:

In a sense, it's unfair to blame rulers for their failures. If George Bush had succeeded establishing demokracy in the Middle East, he could be the new Woodrow Wilson. If Nixon had achieved "peace with honour" in Nam, he could be seen as Teddy Roosevelt. But they didn't. Their plans failed. History was against them.

What were you just saying about the opera not being over till the fat lady sings?

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 3:42pm: There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam. Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks? What ties Christianity and Western Europe to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East? I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct. The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa. What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul? During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now? There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another.

Despite all that (whatever point you were trying to emphasize), the Church was still a place of learning, and many of the early thinkers were religious.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand or even admit. It's a basic fact if anyone wants to do some research on it.

Now, what was it you're trying to say above? There is no West? There is no clash of civilizations?

Well, there is a West. A narrative has been constructed around it. Just as a narrative of what is Islam and what is Islamic civilization has been constructed.

It's a very post-modern interpretation of history to try and muddy the waters and claim every civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity just flows into one another and there are no boundaries between them. The very fact that each civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity, or whatever word you want to use, had a set of values and were willing to argue and fight for them over other values exemplifies that there were boundaries. These boundaries were real enough for there to be major differences and schisms between peoples to produce conflict.

The post-modern interpretation that says it's all just about seizing trade routes exemplifies why we live in a nihilistic age. If you denigrate and destroy the past then you destroy the present. And that's why the modern world is little more than day-to-day nothingness of work and consumption. Militant Islam is a really a fight against modernity. It's trying to reach into the future to stave off the nihilistic effect of the modern West.

For a future to be constructed there has to be a past; a past worth being proud of; a past that is worth living and breathing in the present; it is where you carry on the traditions of the ancestors and build on them into the future. The present then must also reach into the future encompassing the hopes and dreams of the people.

Today this cannot happen because the past is continually being destroyed by post-modern academics, therefore no foundation can be laid for anything to be built on it.

In my view, the future probably lies with Eastern Europe, China, Turkey, and maybe the USA.

Why? Because these are the only countries in the modern world still with balls. Western Europe, I am sad to say, is finished. It has been decimated by post-modern nihilists that have weakened its citizens and turned them into self-loathing fools. In all honesty, such weakness deserves to wither out into nothingness. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 4:01pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 3:42pm: There's nothing there that I didn't already know. Yet, the point I was trying to make, the one you seem intent to debunk, was that the church did reintroduce the Greek texts. The churches were the places of learning. Over time, their influence and hold on education withered. But in the early days it was them who encouraged learning. The Greek texts were "stolen" or "borrowed", depending on how you want to look at it, by Islam. Why then, is Christianity not charged with borrowing or stealing the Greeks? What ties Christianity and Western Eulookrope to ancient Greece any more than Islam and the Middle East? I doubt Medieval bishops would have identified with Aristotle or Plithy the Elder anymore than they identified with a Jewish mystic The whole notion of the West is a construct. The first country since Rome to set up a republic was 18th century France. There was no historical momentum in the West towards liberal democracy. We cut and paste - chop and change. We borrow and steal from the "East" and vice-versa. What makes Angle, Saxon and Teutonic barbarians - those who sacked Rome - anymore "Roman" than those semitic barbarians who took over the city of Byzantium? What makes old Roman territories (and former empires) like Egypt, Persia and Syria any less Roman, or "Western", than Britain or Gaul? During the Dark Ages, civilization belonged with the Muselman. After the Dark Ages, it got transferred to the West. Who does it belong with now? There is no clash of civilizations, it's just one empire seizing trade and shipping routes from another. Despite all that (whatever point you were trying to emphasize), the Church was still a place of learning, and many of the early thinkers were religious. I don't know why this is so hard to understand or even admit. It's a basic fact if anyone wants to do some research on it. Now, what was it you're trying to say above? There is no West? There is no clash of civilizations? Well, there is a West. A narrative has been constructed around it. Just as a narrative of what is Islam and what is Islamic civilization has been constructed. It's a very post-modern interpretation of history to try and muddy the waters and claim every civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity just flows into one another and there are no boundaries between them. The very fact that each civilization/culture/tribe/nation/ethnicity, or whatever word you want to use, had a set of values and were willing to argue and fight for them over other values exemplifies that there were boundaries. These boundaries were real enough for there to be major differences and schisms between peoples to produce conflict.

Mistie, what were the major differences between the ever-shifting alliances and wars that defined Europe over the past 500 years? They had almost identical values, religion, social/political and class structures, and in most cases, the monarchs were related to each other.

You don’t need differences to have a war, just as you don’t need similarities to trade. You think the Silk Road was postmodern? The spice trade? The slave trade?  Cities like Venice and Malacca and Zanzibar and Cordoba?

It doesn’t matter whethert we think the values of past empires and kingdoms were worth fighting for, and in most cases it mattered squat to them too. Without nation-states, soldiers in feudal times faught for whatever army paid most, or whoever made the offer first.

Unemployed returned soldiers presented a real problem in feudal Europe. Thomas Moore proposed hs Utopia to solve this problem - surplus soldiers could get into no end of trouble, and could cause wars themselves. The devil makes work with idle hands, as did gangs of highway robbers, pirates, and any landlord who wanted to increase his holding.

Soldiers don’t fight for values, they fight for a fee. The crusades were not the first mass employment program, and they will not be the last.

If you think wars are about values, you really need to brush up on history. Values are what interests like Hearst and Murdoch preach to sell newspapers and increase the value of their portfolios.

War is solely about access to resources, labour and surplus profit. If this is a postmodern view, I’ll eat my beret.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

I realise that Islam commands you to automatically look favourably upon fellow Muslims

Wow - you can even create bullshit claims that are merely a passing note to another bullshit claim. Do you ever get sick of just blatantly making sh*t up?


freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

that is until you came along and tried to back it up with that link, which makes it pretty obvious that the whole thing is a fabrication anyway.

Its not obvious at all. The historical evidence for this meets the bare minimum criteria of what historians would generally consider acceptable - namely a contemporary document. wikipedia lists it as the first heavier-than-air attempt in history that is "backed by a contemporary documentary source." That the inventor Abbas Ibn Firnas existed is not disputed, and other innovations of his - such as the the reading glasses and a planisphere - are known. Its not ridiculous at all to consider that his flying machine might have existed  - even without the documented evidence. Much historical "fact" has been accepted with far less.


freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Sure, if you define science as not using the scientific method. You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the issue of Islam's ability to block the development of basic science.

lol - you are hilarious. Really, what is your problem with acknowledging that maths and science are inextricably entwined? You talk about basic science - physics is basically all maths - without maths there would be no physics, and without the mathematical tools derived from the islamic world such as algebra, finding use for irrational numbers, implicit proof by induction - and even arabic numerals, there would be no physics, or virtually any of your "basic sciences" as we know them today. But not that thats the only scientific contribution to science by islam - others have been mentioned before.

Actually, why don't you elaborate on your throw-away statement about "Islam's ability to block the development of basic science". Lets hear it FD.


freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Lets start with a quote from me.

yes lets:

Gandalf:

Quote:

I'm not aware of it ever being mentioned in that context. Seems like you are the only person holding camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of islamic science.

FD replied:

Quote:

Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu.

Now, please direct me to where "some muslims" claimed that discovering the benefits of drinking camel urine is the pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement. From my search on this forum, only two threads come up - neither of which have any muslims coming remotely close to saying what you claim they say.


freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

We are speaking English here gandalf. It helps if you use the common meaning of words, which was obviously my intent with my reference to basic science

Good idea FD! Lets indeed use the common meaning of English words - say how about "advancement in maths contributes to the advancement of basic science"? Is that clear enough English for you?