Abu has frequently claimed that Jews migrated illegally into Israel and over-ran it. I have challenged him in this portrayal of the events many time and each time he runs away. This time at least he came up with some links with evidence, although his own evidence paints a very different story:


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 24^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

The Zionists on the other hand just mass illegally immigrated into someone else's land and then formed militias to murder and expel them. Completely difference situations.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 10:09am: Funny how every time I ask you to back up this claim of illegality you run away. You are truly living in a little fantasy world aren't you? You're completely insulated from the reality around you, no matter how many times someone shoves it in your face. Now I've posted a link to this before, so I don't expect this time is going to be any different, but here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Aliyah_Bet:_Illegal_immigration_.281933.E2.80.931948.29 Aliyah Bet (Hebrew: 'עלייה ב‎, "Aliyah 'B'" - bet being the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate for Palestine in violation of British White Paper of 1939 restrictions, in the years 1934-1948. freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 10:09am: Again, just because you disagree on Israel's right to exist doesn't change any of the standards that apply. If Israel adopted Islam's standards, they would slaughter all the men and rape the women. That is why you are a hypocrite for criticising them and for making militants out to be innocent civilians. When you can comprehend the fact that the Zionists mass illegally immigrated into someone else's land and overran it expelling them, then we can continue discussing this, until then it's nothing but folly. No such circumstance exists whereby Muslims did the same thing, so your attempt to draw a parallel is at best, humorous.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

Quote: You are truly living in a little fantasy world aren't you? You're completely insulated from the reality around you, no matter how many times someone shoves it in your face. Now I've posted a link to this before, so I don't expect this time is going to be any different, but here it is again: Abu, according to that article, many immigrated to the area in the context of the holocaust and WWII, many of which did so legally under British law. In total this covered a decade and a half and 110 000 immigrants. Is this what you are complaining about? Prior to this, far more arrived legally under British law. To put it in context, half a million Jews immigrated legally shortly after Israel became a state (between 1948 and 1950). Then, 900 000 Jews fled Arab nations into Israel. Many of these were forcibly expelled by Muslims. That hardly sounds like your description. The biggest contributors to Jews migrating to Israel were Muslims themselves. Only a small minority migrated illegally, against a legislation you would reject anyway, and this happened in the context of WWII and the holocaust. These Jews only started expelling the Palestinians after the Palestinians tried to start their own holocaust and lost. You do run away every single time I challenge you on this. Being able to come up with a link (this time) showing a tiny fraction that actually was illegal does not change that fact. [quote]The British clearly controlled both sides

Is this the same British you argue were unable to control the immigration of Jews into the area? Which is it Abu - were the British in effective control or not?

[/quote]

If you follow Abu's link, and scroll up, it lists even more periods of legal migration into Israel.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Abu has frequently claimed that Jews migrated illegally into Israel and over-ran it.

So how do you suppose Palestine went from a country of 98% Arabs ruled by an Islamic Shari'ah government at the turn of the 20th. century, to a country with 1/3 of Jews and ruled by a Jewish government by 1948? If you have another possible explanation for how this occurred, please share.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

This time at least he came up with some links with evidence

More bovine faeces I see. Fd, can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say stuff like "This time at least he came up with some links"???

In June of this year, you made the same ridiculous argument, and also claimed I "run away", and I posted the EXACT same link for you. You habitually ask for evidence it seems, and then ignore it, discount it, reject it, and then claim I "run away"... debating with you is no different from pouring fresh water into the ocean. I don't run away, I leave you in your pathetic state of denial each time you suffer amnesia and dredge up the same topics you've never been able to debate in previous rounds.


abu_rashid wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 1:52pm: We 'went over it' which involved you making the claim that the immigration was illegal, then running away... Here's a few sources for you to begin with: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:E2YjVw-ob4wJ:www.turkishstudies.net/sayilar/sayi7/16%2520BATMAZ%2520%25C5%259Eakir.pdf+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiZiNFJpJcOxU8KQKQv09oaAfsrYz4uR57A3x6qnBNv-fE8ym0k5kD_pkqHTxmmYcnPbmG34xvKhGNhtJqwMxp3Yb9aEvp38PtvJrqw02Ljx2vvKO07HoIWk64Zu-d8esi2gm-X&sig=AHIEtbSeZ7e1WyqWnkGi4PiE-KWz93vbtg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah_Bet http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/migration/EncJud_migration04-illegal-immigration-to-Palestine-and-Cypurs-115,000-ENGL.html

---

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

If you follow Abu's link, and scroll up, it lists even more periods of legal migration into Israel.

It's illegal to allow immigration into an occupied territory, especially if the intention of that immigration is to displace the populace and replace them with your own or a new population.

Do you honestly believe this kind of despicable action is legal in any sense of the word???

The jews own Isreal now abu. You'll just have to get your little mind around this reality and move on.  :'( :'( :'(

Quote:

So how do you suppose Palestine went from a country of 98% Arabs ruled by an Islamic Shari'ah government

Step 1: The Shariah government was replaced.

Step 2: Legal immigration - according to your own link the majority of the immigration was legal.

Step 3: Palestinians attempt their own holocaust.

Step 4: Palestinians lose.

Step 5: State of Israel established out what was left.

Where did you get the 98% figure from Abu?


Quote:

It's illegal to allow immigration into an occupied territory

Abu, you complained that the migration was illegal under British law. The fact is, the vast majority of it was legal under British law, and when the state of Israel was established, it was legal under Israeli law. A lot of it even happened legally under the "Islamic Shari'ah government". There was no grand conspiracy. It is hardly a revelation that a Jew might want to return to the land of Israel, and that they would do anything in their power to prevent a repeat of the holocaust at the hands of the Palestinians.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

Step 1: The Shariah government was replaced.

Right, so the government was replaced. If Muslims replace the government of Australia, will you consider that legitimate? If they then establish a new government, which expels all Anglos and lets any Muslim immigrate here, will you consider that legal immigration?


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

Step 2: Legal immigration - according to your own link the majority of the immigration was legal.

It was not legal, the people of the land did not recognise it. They rioted to prevent it, as they knew it meant population saturation, and their eventual expulsion. Also under international law, replacing populations in occupied territories is illegal.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

Step 3: Palestinians attempt their own holocaust.

Come on.. all they tried to do was stop someone overrunning their country, hardly a holocaust. If Muslims replace Australia's government and begin expelling Anglos, will you consider it a "holocaust" if Anglo Aussies riot? We already saw what happened in Cronulla, imagine if Muslims actually did something remotely like what was done in Palestine.... Aussies would be rioting all over the place, and I really don't think you'd be here advocating how legitimate it is for the Muslims to expel them.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

Where did you get the 98% figure from Abu?

Well maybe 96%, slightly off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Demographics_in_the_Ottoman_period

Although a League of Nations report did conclude that almost no Jews were there prior to 1880.

In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

It is hardly a revelation that a Jew might want to return to the land of Israel

The idea someone can come and take someone else's home because they suspect their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago is just ludicrous. I won't even validate such nonsense with a response.

Quote:

Right, so the government was replaced. If Muslims replace the government of Australia, will you consider that legitimate?

You claimed the immigration was illegal, not illegitimate. Stop shifting the goal posts.


Quote:

They rioted to prevent it, as they knew it meant population saturation, and their eventual expulsion.

Even today there are plenty of Arab Muslims in Israel. The only thing that inevitably lead to the expulsion of so many of them was attempting to kill all the Jews.


Quote:

Come on.. all they tried to do was stop someone overrunning their country, hardly a holocaust.

It is if they attempt to do so by killing all the Jews.


Quote:

Well maybe 96%, slightly off.

I can't see where you get that number from either.


Quote:

The idea someone can come and take someone else's home because they suspect their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago is just ludicrous. I won't even validate such nonsense with a response.

They purchased it Abu - completely legal, and it happens all the time, even today. It is only when they Muslims tried to slaughter the Jews that it got ugly.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Quote: Right, so the government was replaced. If Muslims replace the government of Australia, will you consider that legitimate? You claimed the immigration was illegal, not illegitimate. Stop shifting the goal posts.

You're such a waste of time it's not funny.

Right, so the government was replaced. If Muslims replace the government of Australia, will you consider that legal?

Happy? Gonna answer now? Or more petty diversions to follow?


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Even today there are plenty of Arab Muslims in Israel. The only thing that inevitably lead to the expulsion of so many of them was attempting to kill all the Jews.

The vast majority were expelled/fled during the 1947-1948 terror campaigns of the Zionist militias.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

It is if they attempt to do so by killing all the Jews.

So again, if Muslim militias begin roaming Australia's countryside, overtaking towns and expelling their inhabitants, killing many in their path, you'd consider Aussies who responded in kind to be committing a holocaust?


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

I can't see where you get that number from either.

Are you illiterate? Or did you just not even bother to read the link?

According to Alexander Scholch, Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

They purchased it Abu - completely legal, and it happens all the time, even today. It is only when they Muslims tried to slaughter the Jews that it got ugly.

People purchase countries completely legally all the time? Care to name another case? Besides, the vast majority of the land was seized during Plan Dalet, it was not purchased. This is another of the Zionist myths you've purchased.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

many immigrated to the area in the context of the holocaust and WWII, many of which did so legally under British law. In total this covered a decade and a half and 110 000 immigrants. Is this what you are complaining about? Prior to this, far more arrived legally under British law.

What a pointless thing to be debating - whether or not the two-faced  British occupation force - who were themselves illegitimate - deemed it legal or not is completely irrelevant. The jews were "legally" slaughtered by the nazis - I suppose that makes it ok does it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 12:10pm: many immigrated to the area in the context of the holocaust and WWII, many of which did so legally under British law. In total this covered a decade and a half and 110 000 immigrants. Is this what you are complaining about? Prior to this, far more arrived legally under British law. What a pointless thing to be debating - whether or not the two-faced  British occupation force - who were themselves illegitimate - deemed it legal or not is completely irrelevant. The jews were "legally" slaughtered by the nazis - I suppose that makes it ok does it?

Obviously Abu thinks it is important - hence my (as yet unanswered) question about whether this is what Abu was complaining about. It seems he is upset that Palestine played a role in allowing Jews to break the law by avoiding the gas chambers.


Quote:

Right, so the government was replaced. If Muslims replace the government of Australia, will you consider that legal?

Our government gets replaced every few years Abu. This is perfectly legal. I have no doubt that one day we will even elect a Muslim, though I am sure you would not consider them a proper Muslim. The Americans just elected a black man from a Muslim country as president. Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership.


Quote:

So again, if Muslim militias begin roaming Australia's countryside, overtaking towns and expelling their inhabitants, killing many in their path, you'd consider Aussies who responded in kind to be committing a holocaust?

Sorry I keep forgetting, it is all the non-Muslims fault. Muslims would never do anything like that. They were happily minding their own business when Jewish refugees started slaughtering them. This is typical behaviour for Jews.


Quote:

Are you illiterate? Or did you just not even bother to read the link?

I wasted my time reading the text you copied and pasted. You should have told me that you copied the irrelevant bit and that I had to go looking for the relevant info.

BTW, your original claim may well have been correct - that 98% of them were Arabs. That is, if you will allow a Jew to also be an Arab.


Quote:

People purchase countries completely legally all the time?

That is not what I said Abu. I was merely pointing out that you description of what happened is completely wrong - again. Like I said, it was only when the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust that things got ugly.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Sorry I keep forgetting, it is all the non-Muslims fault. Muslims would never do anything like that. They were happily minding their own business when Jewish refugees started slaughtering them. This is typical behaviour for Jews.

"muslims would never do anything like that" - reads "muslims ALWAYS do things like that" - ergo, muslims are inherently evil - ergo the whole conflict is caused by islam and muslims.

This is the simplistic crap that stymies any chance of a rational discussion - and yes I acknowledge that BOTH sides are equally as guilty.

At its core though, and as I attempted to explain to you in the other thread (which you ignored), this is not a conflict of religion, or even ideology - but rather of land security and basic human rights.

This is not a story about jewish refugees fleeing to Palestine merely to seek refuge in the country. This is about zionism - the political movement to take the whole of Palestine for a jewish state. This is very important to understand: the jewish immigration that occured in the late 19th an early 20th century was NOT a benign movement of people to happily coexist with the natives - it was an aggressive plan to stake claim to the entire region for a jewish state - and by inference, to expel the existing arab population. That is in fact what started to happen right before the arab league invaded.

The writing on the wall was certainly seen by the British, who recognised the legitimate greivances of the arab locals in the face of clear provocation by the zionists. As far back as 1920 there was an arab riot, for which a British inquiry put the blame on the zionists. Basically if a flood of immigrants start entering your country and start boasting that they are going to claim it as their own - with no chance of coexistence, I don't imagine many people would react too kindly to that.

Quote:

This is the simplistic crap that stymies any chance of a rational discussion

Gandalf, perhaps you have not noticed, but Abu frequently makes claims such as this:


Quote:

The Zionists on the other hand just mass illegally immigrated into someone else's land and then formed militias to murder and expel them. Completely difference situations.

I have pointed out to him plenty of times that he is wrong about this. It is a bit rich for you to accuse me of making simplistic generalisations, when this requires you to put words in my mouth rather than responding to something I actually said.


Quote:

At its core though, and as I attempted to explain to you in the other thread (which you ignored)

We had a fairly lengthy discussion about it in the other thread.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Gandalf, perhaps you have not noticed, but Abu frequently makes claims such as this:

Which is why I issued the qualifier "and yes I acknowledge that BOTH sides are equally as guilty." - in the very same sentence.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

It is a bit rich for you to accuse me of making simplistic generalisations

Bit rich? What do you call these sort of statements then?:


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

it was only when the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust that things got ugly.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

The only thing that inevitably lead to the expulsion of so many of them was attempting to kill all the Jews.

The last one is completely baseless, and is refuted by everything I have been arguing in this thread and the other. You continue to ignore the points I raise, and just keep rehashing this baseless myth over and over.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the zionist campaign, which began in earnest in the late 19th century, called for all territory west of the Jordan to be annexed for a jewish state. The flood of immigration that occurred in the early 20th century must be viewed in this context - and indeed the zionists were loud and clear in voicing their intentions that there was no room for the native arab inhabitants when their state - promised to them in their minds by the Balfour declaration - was to be created.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

We had a fairly lengthy discussion about it in the other thread.

::) You initially "addressed" my arguments with a one line quip. I then gave a detailed analysis of the historical context (once again addressing your simplistic theme that the whole conflict all comes down to the muslims being bloodthirsty zealots), to which you ignored completely - preferring to continue with your spamming contest with Abu.

But hey, whatever rocks your boat. If you want to just spam, then go ahead and spam. But don't get all indignant when I point out to you that you are in fact just spamming.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 12:10pm: many immigrated to the area in the context of the holocaust and WWII, many of which did so legally under British law. In total this covered a decade and a half and 110 000 immigrants. Is this what you are complaining about? Prior to this, far more arrived legally under British law. What a pointless thing to be debating - whether or not the two-faced  British occupation force - who were themselves illegitimate - deemed it legal or not is completely irrelevant. The jews were "legally" slaughtered by the nazis - I suppose that makes it ok does it?

In what way was the British control of Palestine 'illegitimate'???

what? I can't believe you're even asking that. The British Mandate was a shameless imperialist occupation - the arabs mere pawns in a game between European imperialist powers.

The arabs helped the British overthrow the Ottoman imperialists, they should have been awarded with self-rule. Instead they merely passed from one occupier to another.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

what? I can't believe you're even asking that. The British Mandate was a shameless imperialist occupation - the arabs mere pawns in a game between European imperialist powers. The arabs helped the British overthrow the Ottoman imperialists, they should have been awarded with self-rule. Instead they merely passed from one occupier to another.

But they were offered self-rule, with several countries created (Jordan, Lebanon and Syria for example) but the Arab State in Palestine rejected out of hand by the Arab League...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

[quote author=04020D07020F05630 link=1353809434/13#13 date=1353907667] But they were offered self-rule, with several countries created (Jordan, Lebanon and Syria for example) but the Arab State in Palestine rejected out of hand by the Arab League...

I'm not sure what offer you are referring to, but if it was made, it was in direct conflict with the Balfour declaration. But this was typical of the British rule - making conflicting commitments to both sides, and double crossing each at every step. Ultimately, the British were only interested in maintaining their sphere of influence and offsetting the ambitions of the other imperial European powers. In most cases this went against Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Britain offered "autonomy" in some instances - but only to leaders that had been bought out to British interests, who they could be sure would be reliable puppets.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 3:31pm: [quote author=04020D07020F05630 link=1353809434/13#13 date=1353907667] But they were offered self-rule, with several countries created (Jordan, Lebanon and Syria for example) but the Arab State in Palestine rejected out of hand by the Arab League... I'm not sure what offer you are referring to, but if it was made, it was in direct conflict with the Balfour declaration. But this was typical of the British rule - making conflicting commitments to both sides, and double crossing each at every step. Ultimately, the British were only interested in maintaining their sphere of influence and offsetting the ambitions of the other imperial European powers. In most cases this went against Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Britain offered "autonomy" in some instances - but only to leaders that had been bought out to British interests, who they could be sure would be reliable puppets.

Rubbish, the Balfour Declaration called for the creation of a Jewish Homeland (Israel) AND an Arab State (with a neutral League of nations/UN enclave around Jerusalem) within the British Mandate of Palestine...quite apart from the creation of Transjordan (now called Jordan, which was made up out of around 70% of the Mandate territory)..

However, the Arab League refused to participate in the idea of sharing the remaining 23% of Palestine (after the creation of Jordan) with a Jewish State, so the second Arab state was never assigned before Israel declared independence and the first Israeli/Arab war kicked off in 1948....

The Arab League bears at least 50% (possibly more) blame for the current state of affairs in and around Israel/Gaza/The West Bank and Golan Heights..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

Rubbish, the Balfour Declaration called for the creation of a Jewish Homeland (Israel) AND an Arab State

no it didn't:


Quote:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

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

Is that what you refer to as the "offer" the British gave for Palestinian statehood?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

However, the Arab League refused to participate in the idea of sharing the remaining 23% of Palestine (after the creation of Jordan) with a Jewish State, so the second Arab state was never assigned before Israel declared independence and the first Israeli/Arab war kicked off in 1948...

I assume you are talking about the UN partition plan, but this is something quite different to what we were talking about, and it certainly wasn't offered by the British.

Quote:

Bit rich? What do you call these sort of statements then? Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership

Do you know what Abu proposes as the proper Islamic way to change government? I'll give you a hint - it is not democracy.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 25^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Abu has frequently claimed that Jews migrated illegally into Israel and over-ran it. So how do you suppose Palestine went from a country of 98% Arabs ruled by an Islamic Shari'ah government at the turn of the 20th. century, to a country with 1/3 of Jews and ruled by a Jewish government by 1948?

Kemal Ataturk was the last man with the head job in Islam, he held the highest position in Islam and he dismantled the muslim Ottoman empire telling the men to shave their beards and Turkey gave up on Islamic rule as it was holding them back Ataturk embraced that unIslamic concept called democracy.
The last man who had the top job in Islam abandoned Islamic rule for democracy yet muslims today ignore his message.

When Ataturk dismantled the muslim Ottoman empire sharia law went the way of that fad in the 1980"s called colonic irrigation.

Tel Aviv was founded as a Hebrew speaking city in 1909 so its fair to say there were a considerable amount of Palestinian Yahud at that time.

You are very quiet about the Jews that were kicked out of their Arab homelands Abu, are we to believe you think it is ok for an Arab muslim to evict a Jew from their homeland yet it is not ok for a filthy yahud to evict a muslim from their home?

The Jews that were booted out of their homelands by muslim Arabs had to go somewhere that could explain why these jewish refugees from muslim lands ended up in Israel.

If the Arabs didnt boot the jews from their homelands there might not be as many jews in Israel today did you ever consider that fact?

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

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 5:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 4:22pm: Rubbish, the Balfour Declaration called for the creation of a Jewish Homeland (Israel) AND an Arab State no it didn't: Quote: His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration Is that what you refer to as the "offer" the British gave for Palestinian statehood? gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 4:22pm: However, the Arab League refused to participate in the idea of sharing the remaining 23% of Palestine (after the creation of Jordan) with a Jewish State, so the second Arab state was never assigned before Israel declared independence and the first Israeli/Arab war kicked off in 1948... I assume you are talking about the UN partition plan, but this is something quite different to what we were talking about, and it certainly wasn't offered by the British.

Ok, I'll give you that one....
The Balfour Dec took place within the UN/League of Nations partition plan then....pretty much the same thing, and doesn't change the fact that the Mandate system was just as legitimate as the previous Ottoman rule..

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Do you know what Abu proposes as the proper Islamic way to change government? I'll give you a hint - it is not democracy.

And I'll give you a hint FD - I don't give a flying fluck what Abu says in this respect, and I'm certainly not interested in engaging in one line point scoring. You see unlike you I'm actually interested in constructively discussing this issue. I've given you a reasoned and (what surely constitutes) a well thought out analysis, and frankly I'm tired of you responding to me with childish one liners - mostly related to your pathetic pissing contest with Abu.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

The Balfour Dec took place within the UN/League of Nations partition plan then....pretty much the same thing

What? The Balfour declaration was in 1917, the UN partition plan was in 1947. They are worlds apart. The BD took place before the massive jewish immigration into Palestine, while the UN plan recognised the massive change in the demographic and political realities - both in terms of the huge shift in jewish influence, as well as an acknowledgement that Palestinian nationalism could no longer be ignored (like it could at the time of the BD). BD was a casual British thought bubble about what might happen many decades in the future. The UN plan was an urgent attempt to deal with the reality on the ground.

The two plans couldn't be more different.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Do you know what Abu proposes as the proper Islamic way to change government? I'll give you a hint - it is not democracy. And I'll give you a hint FD - I don't give a flying fluck what Abu says in this respect, and I'm certainly not interested in engaging in one line point scoring. You see unlike you I'm actually interested in constructively discussing this issue. I've given you a reasoned and (what surely constitutes) a well thought out analysis, and frankly I'm tired of you responding to me with childish one liners - mostly related to your pathetic pissing contest with Abu. gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26th, 2012 at 5:50pm: The Balfour Dec took place within the UN/League of Nations partition plan then....pretty much the same thing What? The Balfour declaration was in 1917, the UN partition plan was in 1947. They are worlds apart. The BD took place before the massive jewish immigration into Palestine, while the UN plan recognised the massive change in the demographic and political realities - both in terms of the huge shift in jewish influence, as well as an acknowledgement that Palestinian nationalism could no longer be ignored (like it could at the time of the BD). BD was a casual British thought bubble about what might happen many decades in the future. The UN plan was an urgent attempt to deal with the reality on the ground. The two plans couldn't be more different.

I'm sorry, I disagree....the League of Nations/UN Mandate system was always all about creating independant nations out of territories that had been administered by the losers in WW1, mainly Germany and the Ottoman Empire.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 2:39pm: freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2012 at 12:10pm: Abu has frequently claimed that Jews migrated illegally into Israel and over-ran it. So how do you suppose Palestine went from a country of 98% Arabs ruled by an Islamic Shari'ah government at the turn of the 20th. century, to a country with 1/3 of Jews and ruled by a Jewish government by 1948? Kemal Ataturk was the last man with the head job in Islam, he held the highest position in Islam and he dismantled the muslim Ottoman empire telling the men to shave their beards and Turkey gave up on Islamic rule as it was holding them back Ataturk embraced that unIslamic concept called democracy. The last man who had the top job in Islam abandoned Islamic rule for democracy yet muslims today ignore his message. When Ataturk dismantled the muslim Ottoman empire sharia law went the way of that fad in the 1980"s called colonic irrigation. Tel Aviv was founded as a Hebrew speaking city in 1909 so its fair to say there were a considerable amount of Palestinian Yahud at that time. You are very quiet about the Jews that were kicked out of their Arab homelands Abu, are we to believe you think it is ok for an Arab muslim to evict a Jew from their homeland yet it is not ok for a filthy yahud to evict a muslim from their home? The Jews that were booted out of their homelands by muslim Arabs had to go somewhere that could explain why these jewish refugees from muslim lands ended up in Israel. If the Arabs didnt boot the jews from their homelands there might not be as many jews in Israel today did you ever consider that fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

Ironically, according to the link Abu gave as evidence to back up his own argument, the biggest contributor to Jewish immigration into Israel was their forced eviction from Arab Muslim countries. I wonder what he intends with these Jews when he insists they be sent back home?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

I'm sorry, I disagree....the League of Nations/UN Mandate system was always all about creating independant nations out of territories that had been administered by the losers in WW1, mainly Germany and the Ottoman Empire.

So? That has nothing to do with whether or not the Balfour Declaration and the UN partition plan were "pretty much the same thing" - they weren't. Like I say, they were world's apart, each responding to completely different geographical and political realities. Besides, the UN plan proposed a Palestinian state, the BD did not. In fact the zionists always interpreted the Balfour promise as a free license to claim the entire area west of the Jordan (and even beyond) and sweep away the native arabs.

Quote:

And I'll give you a hint FD - I don't give a flying fluck what Abu says in this respect, and I'm certainly not interested in engaging in one line point scoring. You see unlike you I'm actually interested in constructively discussing this issue. I've given you a reasoned and (what surely constitutes) a well thought out analysis, and frankly I'm tired of you responding to me with childish one liners - mostly related to your pathetic pissing contest with Abu.

It is not a one line point scoring thing. It is an accusation that Abu levels against Iraeli Jews over and over again in spite of the obvious facts and our many attempts to correct him. Why do you so begrudge my efforts to correct his anti semitic propaganda? It is an entire thread devoted to the subject, not one line. If you don't think it is important, you don't have to respond. It's not like we are short on threads about the Israel/Palestine conflict - they don't all have to be about you.

Just on the topic of partition plans, there were several, not just the final U.N one which was supposedly enacted (even though it never was anyway).

The reason the Zionists never mention the earlier partition plans, like the Peel Plan, is because they rejected every single one of them, because none of them gave the Jews at least 50% of the country, instead they proposed a small Jewish "homeland" inside a larger Palestinian state, which reflected the respective populations proportionally.

What was carried out was not a partition plan, U.N or otherwise, it was Plan Dalet, the systematic expulsion of Arabs from their villages and towns through force by Jewish terrorist militias.

So the whole argument about a partition plan is moot anyway.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

Why do you so begrudge my efforts to correct his anti semitic propaganda?

Probably because you do it by recycling the same tired old islamophobic propaganda. Answering bigotry with bigotry is less than constructive.

I have tried to give you the context of the conflict and why the arab nations have been at war with Israel, but you continue with the tired "muslims just attempted their own holocaust" - because after all, don't all muslims want to slaughter jews just for the hell of it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

Probably because you do it by recycling the same tired old islamophobic propaganda. Answering bigotry with bigotry is less than constructive.

Islamophobia is a techically and logically incorrect term invented by muslims to hurl slurs at critics of Islam, they also use racist despite the fact muslims are not a race of people and when that fails they resort to bigot.


Quote:

Phobia (n) a persistent irrational fear of a specific object,activity or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobia If FD was Islamophobic then he should have a compelling desire to avoid Islam yet he constantly seeks out Abu instead of avoiding Islam Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims,it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs.

Phobias are a medical condition ,arrogant muslims claim you are in need of medical treatment when they throw the technically and logically incorrect term Islamophobia.
Here is a list of real phobias and take note the medical profession does not recognise Islamophobia.
http://psychology.about.com/od/phobias/a/phobialist.htm

We should start calling muslims Judeophobic when they criticise Israel.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

Islamophobia is a techically and logically incorrect term

I'm pretty sure I've been through this before, and furthermore I'm almost certain I was answering you.

Islamophobia is real, it is understood, and it is has been demonstrated and documented. It is a type of racism, but as you correctly point out,  islam is not a "race", so therefore it is more commonly referred to as islamophobia. Even so, the cognitive processes that lead to both are basically the same. Persecuting a woman because they wear an islamic hijab is no different to persecuting someone because they have dark coloured skin.


Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

We should start calling muslims Judeophobic when they criticise Israel.

The correct term is "anti-semitic" - and it is levelled against muslims and anyone who dare criticise Israel all the time. Of course technically, to describe an anti-semite as someone who hates jews is wrong since semite refers to a linguistic group (incorporating hebrew speakers as well as a bunch of others including arabic). But who cares? English is full of incorrectly defined words, it doesn't matter. We all know what it means - anti-semitic means anti jew, just as islamophobic means anti muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 11:33am: Islamophobia is a techically and logically incorrect term I'm pretty sure I've been through this before, and furthermore I'm almost certain I was answering you. Islamophobia is real, it is understood, and it is has been demonstrated and documented. It is a type of racism, but as you correctly point out,  islam is not a "race", so therefore it is more commonly referred to as islamophobia. Even so, the cognitive processes that lead to both are basically the same. Persecuting a woman because they wear an islamic hijab is no different to persecuting someone because they have dark coloured skin. Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 11:33am: We should start calling muslims Judeophobic when they criticise Israel. The correct term is "anti-semitic" - and it is levelled against muslims and anyone who dare criticise Israel all the time. Of course technically, to describe an anti-semite as someone who hates jews is wrong since semite refers to a linguistic group (incorporating hebrew speakers as well as a bunch of others including arabic). But who cares? English is full of incorrectly defined words, it doesn't matter. We all know what it means - anti-semitic means anti jew, just as islamophobic means anti muslim.

Islamophobia is not real it is a technically and logically incorrect word which explains why it is popular with muslims.

Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs.

If muslims persist in using words they invented which are technically and logically incorrect then under religious equality we should start calling muslim critics of jews Judeophobes

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs.

Thats correct - which is why islamophobia has nothing to do with criticising the actual teachings of islam. In fact most islamophobes know almost nothing about those teachings. Like I said islamophobia follows the same patterns as regular racism - it is almost entirely about persecuting and discriminating muslims because they exhibit the visual identifiers of islam. Which is why almost all islamophobia is directed at women who wear a headscarf - the headscarf is the thing that non-muslims most closesly associate with islam. Also most muslims are still non-white, so there is a definite element of your classic racism.

In short, islamophobes target muslims not because they are muslim per se, but because they look muslim.

Quote:

Probably because you do it by recycling the same tired old islamophobic propaganda. Answering bigotry with bigotry is less than constructive.

I did it by referring to his own evidence, which shows that other than the holocaust and the expulsion of Jews from Arab Muslim countries, the immigration was perfectly legal. Perhaps you didn't notice that  bit.


Quote:

because after all, don't all muslims want to slaughter jews just for the hell of it?

Not for the hell of it. They are following Muhammed's lead.


Quote:

Persecuting a woman because they wear an islamic hijab is no different to persecuting someone because they have dark coloured skin.

What about because they want to stone people to death who disagree with them? This hardly sounds like a phobia to me.


Quote:

The correct term is "anti-semitic"

Abu gets upset if you use that term. Why is it a phobia for Islam but not Judaism?


Quote:

it is almost entirely about persecuting and discriminating muslims because they exhibit the visual identifiers of islam. Which is why almost all islamophobia is directed at women who wear a headscarf

Can you explain how you go from there to accusing me of Islamophobia? Do you think I have Abu confused with a woman in a letterbox outfit?

Here's freediver totally not engaging in any sort of anti-islamic bigotry (see how I took out that pesky word "islamophobia" - just so you don't get distracted):


freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

They are following Muhammed's lead.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

they want to stone people to death who disagree with them

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

a woman in a letterbox outfit

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 12:05pm: Islam is an ideology a set of beliefs that guide life for muslims it is a fallacy that one can be phobic of beliefs. Thats correct - which is why islamophobia has nothing to do with criticising the actual teachings of islam. In fact most islamophobes know almost nothing about those teachings. Like I said islamophobia follows the same patterns as regular racism - it is almost entirely about persecuting and discriminating muslims because they exhibit the visual identifiers of islam. Which is why almost all islamophobia is directed at women who wear a headscarf - the headscarf is the thing that non-muslims most closesly associate with islam. Also most muslims are still non-white, so there is a definite element of your classic racism. In short, islamophobes target muslims not because they are muslim per se, but because they look muslim.

Islamophobia is a technically and logically incorrect word it has nothing to do with racism which is another word muslims use incorrectly with critics of Islam.
You can always fall back on bigotry when the previous slurs dont silence the critics.

Yes most muslims are still non-white as you say and i would suggest there is no chance of them taking up a man made belief like Islam.
There are many hadeeth that say Mohammad was white, he fits my definition of white trash,why are all the prophets from god white men?

The Jews are the biggest victims of hate crimes which are about 5-6 times higher than any other religion,Judeophobia is rampant in the Islamic world.
Muslims always squeal like a stuck pig claiming they are victims yet that is a result of the ingrained victim mentality that muslims have.

The stats show the jews are the biggest victims of hate crimes,perhaps that results from judeophobic muslims.

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-victims

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

Islamophobia is a technically and logically incorrect word

So are about 1000 other English words - like anti-semitism. It doesn't matter what the original meaning is, what matters is how we perceive the word now. anti-semitism is the word we use for anti-jewish bigotry, and islamophobia is the word we use for anti-muslim bigotry. I really don't see whats so hard about that.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Our government gets replaced every few years Abu. This is perfectly legal. I have no doubt that one day we will even elect a Muslim, though I am sure you would not consider them a proper Muslim. The Americans just elected a black man from a Muslim country as president. Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership.

Are you honestly trying to compare the Zionist overrunning of Palestine with Australia's 4 yearly government changeovers? So again I'll ask you, if Muslims form militias, and expel Anglos from their towns and sieze power, you'll consider their new government legal? And if they then passed an immigration law forbidding Anglos from immigrating to Australia (even if they were born here) whilst granting every single Muslim in the world instant access to citizenship, you'd also consider that, and the subsequent expulsions and immigration that would result from it to be legal as well?

Please answer this fd, don't avoid it like you do in the next part of your post.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Quote: So again, if Muslim militias begin roaming Australia's countryside, overtaking towns and expelling their inhabitants, killing many in their path, you'd consider Aussies who responded in kind to be committing a holocaust? Sorry I keep forgetting, it is all the non-Muslims fault. Muslims would never do anything like that. They were happily minding their own business when Jewish refugees started slaughtering them. This is typical behaviour for Jews.

That doesn't even remotely answer my questions, please answer it.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

I wasted my time reading the text you copied and pasted. You should have told me that you copied the irrelevant bit and that I had to go looking for the relevant info.

You should have the courtesy of reading links you yourself requested.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

BTW, your original claim may well have been correct - that 98% of them were Arabs. That is, if you will allow a Jew to also be an Arab.

For sure some Jews considered themselves Arabs, and even till this day, some Jews still live in the West Bank as Palestinians.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

That is not what I said Abu. I was merely pointing out that you description of what happened is completely wrong - again. Like I said, it was only when the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust that things got ugly.

So again, I'll ask you to provide us with what you think was the true description of what happened. I've posted nothing but historical facts, and provided links to them on several occasions, none of which you read. You on the other hand have posted nothing of substance at all.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Here's freediver totally not engaging in any sort of anti-islamic bigotry (see how I took out that pesky word "islamophobia" - just so you don't get distracted): freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 12:46pm: They are following Muhammed's lead. freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 12:46pm: they want to stone people to death who disagree with them freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 12:46pm: a woman in a letterbox outfit

Gandalf, I notice you had to take those quotes out of context so it was impossible to tell whether I was actually stereotyping or referring to a specific example. Try again.


Quote:

Are you honestly trying to compare the Zionist overrunning of Palestine with Australia's 4 yearly government changeovers?

Abu it was you who brought Australia into the argument. My point was that it was not a valid comparison.


Quote:

So again I'll ask you, if Muslims form militias, and expel Anglos from their towns and sieze power, you'll consider their new government legal? And if they then passed an immigration law forbidding Anglos from immigrating to Australia (even if they were born here) whilst granting every single Muslim in the world instant access to citizenship, you'd also consider that, and the subsequent expulsions and immigration that would result from it to be legal as well?

Funny how you always refuse to answer the simplest questions and demand I answer your silly ones first. You still have not explained whether your complaints about "illegal mass immigration" of Jews into Israel is a reference to Jews fleeing the holocaust. At the very least you should concede you were wrong about the topic of this thread before making demands of other people. Your little fantasies have nothing at all to do with the reality.


Quote:

You should have the courtesy of reading links you yourself requested.

So if you provide a link and a lengthy quote in response to a demand for evidence, we should automatically assume you have left the relevant bits out of the actual quote and that if we might be able to find it only if we read the whole link? That's a bit silly don't you think Abu?


Quote:

So again, I'll ask you to provide us with what you think was the true description of what happened.

Apart from a small minority of Jews fleeing the gas chambers, and perhaps the million or so that got expelled from nearby Arab Muslim countries after the formation of Israel, the immigration of jews into Israel was legal. They did not "mass illegally immigrate" then turn violent. The violence only started after the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust.


Quote:

I've posted nothing but historical facts

You have posted some facts, and some absurd spin that is completely contradicted by the facts. The quotes of yours in the opening posts are certainly not facts and have nothing at all to do with the history.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Gandalf, I notice you had to take those quotes out of context so it was impossible to tell whether I was actually stereotyping or referring to a specific example. Try again.

oh yes, of course the full context of your quotes makes it completely different - so here you go...


Quote:

don't all muslims want to slaughter jews just for the hell of it?

Quote:

Not for the hell of it. They are following Muhammed's lead.

on why some people persecute muslims:

Quote:

What about because they want to stone people to death who disagree with them? This hardly sounds like a phobia to me.

Quote:

a woman in a letterbox outfit?

well lets face it, referring to a woman in a niqab in these terms is offensive and bigoted whichever context its put in.

I'm just so glad you pointed this out - of course the full context completely changes the meaning of your words - from seemingly bigoted anti-islamic diatribe, to enlightened, glowing terms, that add sooooo much to this discussion.

You didn't answer one single point fd. Want to try and respond to that post again?

Quote:

well lets face it, referring to a woman in a niqab in these terms is offensive and bigoted whichever context its put in.

Whether it is offensive is entirely up to you. For those not familiar with the Arabic terms (ie people who speak English) it is probably the best way to describe it. You should have seen Abu complain when people started using the Arabic terms incorrectly. He derailed dozens of threads by demanding people learn all the correct terminology before he would answer a few simple questions (that never got answered of course).


Quote:

on why some people persecute muslims: What about because they want to stone people to death who disagree with them? This hardly sounds like a phobia to me.

Abu wants people stoned to death for lots of reasons that most rational people would find abhorrent (the reason that is, as well as the punishment). Obviously you don't as you completely miss the point. That is why I criticise him. It is not persecution gandalf. It is a perfectly legitimate target of criticism.

This thread is a perfect example Gandalf. I try to make a simple point about an obviously incorrect portrayal of history that Abu makes on a regular basis, despite being corrected nearly every time. You have nothing at all to add to the topic and try to make it about people persecuting Muslims instead.

apparently, according to freediver, the entire muslim world revolves around Abu.

;D I am not allowed to criticise specific Muslims, because that is not general enough. And I am not allowed to criticise Islam in general, because that is not specific enough.

Would you be happy if I attached a few pages of fine print to every post explaining every possible qualification to my views on Islam?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Would you be happy if I attached a few pages of fine print to every post explaining every possible qualification to my views on Islam?

no, any sort of evidence to back up you baseless claims would do. You can start by providing evidence to support your claim that Muhammad made it his mission in life to slaughter non-muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 11:09pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2012 at 10:31pm: Would you be happy if I attached a few pages of fine print to every post explaining every possible qualification to my views on Islam? no, any sort of evidence to back up you baseless claims would do. You can start by providing evidence to support your claim that Muhammad made it his mission in life to slaughter non-muslims.

Oh dear. How about we start with you quoting me making that claim. Slaughtering non-Muslims was only part of Muhammed's 'mission'. Collecting wives, including pre-pubescent ones, was another of his favourite things.

Either that or you could just stop wasting everyone's time.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Oh dear. How about we start with you quoting me making that claim. Slaughtering non-Muslims was only part of Muhammed's 'mission'. Collecting wives, including pre-pubescent ones, was another of his favourite things.

ah yes, sorry I keep forgetting - no direct quote = you never said it - even though you agree with it  :D

So why don't we start with the second sentence of your post: "Slaughtering non-Muslims was only part of Muhammed's 'mission'.", which we can marry up with another one of your quotes, that muslims who go around killing non-muslims are merely "following Muhammed's lead. ". Being extremely careful not to misquote you, how about you elaborate on these statements for us? You are scarce on detail here. What is the context of your use of the word "slaughter"? - do you use the term to describe legitimate acts committed as part of any war of self defence that was forced upon the muslims at the time? Or do you use the term to describe naked aggression of Muhammad, indiscriminately went about slaughtering non-muslims for his own lust for power/religious zealotry or whatever? If its the latter (which appears reasonable, given your choice of the emotionally charged word "slaughter"), then I think its reasonable that you provide evidence for this claim - don't you?


freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Collecting wives, including pre-pubescent ones, was another of his favourite things.

And what is the point of bringing this up? Are you simply making a moral judgment about this? You appear to be. If so, to what end?


freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 8:24am:

you could just stop wasting everyone's time.

I think you miss the irony of starting this thread with the stated purpose of pointing out someone's incorrect facts - and throughout, casually throw around the most baseless and outrageous smears about a group of people and their prophet. And since I know you are just going to reply with "quote me" - here are a sample:

1. The only thing that inevitably lead to the expulsion of so many of them [arabs] was attempting to kill all the Jews.

2. Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership.

3. Palestinians attempted their own holocaust

4. on why muslims want to slaughter jews:
Not for the hell of it. They are following Muhammed's   lead.

And before you bring out your predictable "you quote me out of context" - it is the claims themselves that are baseless, not the context. To spell it for you:
1. that arabs attempted to "kill all the jews" has no basis in fact.

2. That "Muslims" (collective) insist on "mass slaughter" whenever there is a change in government has no basis in fact.

3. That the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust has no basis in fact.

4. that the arab wars against the state of Israel was merely a case of muslims following Mohammad's lead - has no basis in fact.

There, I've completely flogged a dead horse I know, but your continued obstinacy has forced my hand. I think its relevant to point these things out given the entire stated purpose of this thread. The point? Well, getting back to the topic, the technicalities of the legality or otherwise of the jewish immigration is, as I pointed out from the start, a non-issue. Abu has only ever argued the term from a universal morality/human rights point of view - and he made that clear when he stated that it was "illegal" only in the sense that it was opposed by the actual people living on the land - and who would be most affected by it.

So after this topic was clearly established as a fundamental issue of basic human rights, you then started pulling out arguments related to why the arabs are not worthy of such human rights - thus the tired old baseless crap - ie muslims lost all claim to human rights after they started trying to kill all jews and instigate their own holocaust. And as if we had any doubt about the reasons for this alleged attempted holocaust, you simply dismiss it with "well they were just following Muhammad's lead". You see you reduce the entire conflict to a simple matter of a group of irrational religious zealots - bent on killing all the jews because their prophet told them to. Thats what I mean by answering bigotry with bigotry. If the purpose of this thread was to set the facts straight (which you claim), then you single handedly destroyed it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

..........I think you miss the irony of starting this thread with the stated purpose of pointing out someone's incorrect facts - and throughout, casually throw around the most baseless and outrageous smears about a group of people and their prophet. And since I know you are just going to reply with "quote me" - here are a sample: 1. The only thing that inevitably lead to the expulsion of so many of them [arabs] was attempting to kill all the Jews. 2. Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership. 3. Palestinians attempted their own holocaust 4. on why muslims want to slaughter jews: Not for the hell of it. They are following Muhammed's   lead. And before you bring out your predictable "you quote me out of context" - it is the claims themselves that are baseless, not the context. To spell it for you: 1. that arabs attempted to "kill all the jews" has no basis in fact. 2. That "Muslims" (collective) insist on "mass slaughter" whenever there is a change in government has no basis in fact. 3. That the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust has no basis in fact. 4. that the arab wars against the state of Israel was merely a case of muslims following Mohammad's lead - has no basis in fact. There, I've completely flogged a dead horse I know, but your continued obstinacy has forced my hand. I think its relevant to point these things out given the entire stated purpose of this thread. The point? Well, getting back to the topic, the technicalities of the legality or otherwise of the jewish immigration is, as I pointed out from the start, a non-issue. Abu has only ever argued the term from a universal morality/human rights point of view - and he made that clear when he stated that it was "illegal" only in the sense that it was opposed by the actual people living on the land - and who would be most affected by it. So after this topic was clearly established as a fundamental issue of basic human rights, you then started pulling out arguments related to why the arabs are not worthy of such human rights - thus the tired old baseless crap - ie muslims lost all claim to human rights after they started trying to kill all jews and instigate their own holocaust. And as if we had any doubt about the reasons for this alleged attempted holocaust, you simply dismiss it with "well they were just following Muhammad's lead". You see you reduce the entire conflict to a simple matter of a group of irrational religious zealots - bent on killing all the jews because their prophet told them to. Thats what I mean by answering bigotry with bigotry. If the purpose of this thread was to set the facts straight (which you claim), then you single handedly destroyed it.

Response to #2;

Yes, it does have a basis in fact!



The DOCTRINALLY established moslem war strategy when overcoming an old regime [and whether it was an 'ill-favoured' moslem regime, or, and infidel regime, it is ALWAYS deemed by the new moslem victors to have been un-ISLAMIC    e.g. Syria today, fighting the rebels, both sides claim to be the 'rightly guided' moslems] is to use terror and violence, to consolidate their gains.

And the Koran itself, and other ISLAMIC 'religious' texts do counsel such a path.


POINT #1,
"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land....."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/008.qmt.html#008.067

Koran [8:67 above] meaning here, first moslems should beleaguer and slaughter their enemies in the land, to terrorise, to cower them.

And then later, moslems will more easily be able to defeat, and enslave a pliant, fearful enemy people.

In 'promoting' ISLAM to the whole earth, all REAL moslems understand, that terror is BOTH, the objective, and the method!

i.e.
#1,
ISLAMIC authority [government] is gained legitimately through the use of terror.

#2,
And, it is legitimate to maintain ISLAMIC authority through the use of terror.


POINT #2,
Allah's Apostle said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220

".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062








POINT #3,

AGAIN;
And, it is legitimate to maintain ISLAMIC authority through the use of terror.


"Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City....whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)."
Koran 33.60,61


Those "seize and slay" acts
.....are commanded by Allah himself.


And Allah reveals no 'qualification' [e.g. there is no; "take him to a law court."],
......Allah commands moslems "whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain", ......i.e. those who are perceived as resisting, and opposing, the spread of his law.

we can skip over your (mis)quoting of quranic verses and hadiths Yadda - because we were not talking about any sort of doctrinal basis of these claims - but rather what muslims have demonstrated in real life.

For every Syria, there is Egypt and Tunisia - where the islamic (and other) protestors overthrew the secular dictatorship without resorting to violence - the only violence coming from the secularist regime. (and indeed even in Syria, it is fairly obvious that the opposition violence was only a response to secular regime violence against them). Or we could talk about Indonesia (the largest muslim country) who smoothly went from a dictatorship to a thriving democracy with no violence at all. Thats in regards to point 2.

As for points 1 and 3 - I can only repeat that the claim that the Palestinians "attempted their own holocaust" by going to war with the new state of Israel in 1948 has no basis in fact - irrespective of what Islamic jurisprudence or the example of the prophet may or may not have said.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 8:24am: Oh dear. How about we start with you quoting me making that claim. Slaughtering non-Muslims was only part of Muhammed's 'mission'. Collecting wives, including pre-pubescent ones, was another of his favourite things. ah yes, sorry I keep forgetting - no direct quote = you never said it - even though you agree with it  :D

Every time you make up what I said, you change the meaning in a subtle yet important way. That is why 90% of my discussions with you involve me patiently pointing out that I did not actually say what you accuse me of. I am not sure how long you expect me to keep playing this game, but it is hardly worth my effort if you stumble over the meaning of every single post.


Quote:

And what is the point of bringing this up? Are you simply making a moral judgment about this? You appear to be. If so, to what end?

I was merely pointing out that slaughtering is hardly the only thing that early Muslims got up to. Raping was just an example of another of their interests. The reason I had to point this out is because, as usual, you made up what I said instead of responding to what I actually said.

Perhaps you have spots problem of not knowing how to copy and paste or use the quote function. If you need help, just ask.

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

we can skip over your (mis)quoting of quranic verses and hadiths Yadda - because we were not talking about any sort of doctrinal basis of these claims - but rather what muslims have demonstrated in real life. For every Syria, there is Egypt and Tunisia - where the islamic (and other) protestors overthrew the secular dictatorship without resorting to violence - the only violence coming from the secularist regime. (and indeed even in Syria, it is fairly obvious that the opposition violence was only a response to secular regime violence against them). Or we could talk about Indonesia (the largest muslim country) who smoothly went from a dictatorship to a thriving democracy with no violence at all. Thats in regards to point 2. As for points 1 and 3 - I can only repeat that the claim that the Palestinians "attempted their own holocaust" by going to war with the new state of Israel in 1948 has no basis in fact - irrespective of what Islamic jurisprudence or the example of the prophet may or may not have said.

RESPONSE;

When confronted with truth;

Deny the truth.

That is what moslems [the kuffar] do.







Part of the contemporary criticism by moslems, of 'unbelievers', is that the 'unbelievers' are vile people who are cursed by Allah.
....they are the 'Kuffar'.

"kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar

NOTE THE WORDS,
"........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."



The moslems are the kuffar, and the moslems [lost in their own lies], do not even recognise that fact.

:D      ;D      ;Di
+++

AGAIN - Who is the kuffar ???,

"........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth."


For the 'religion' of ISLAM, lying and deceit, to further the moslem cause, is a 'holy' religious doctrine;

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya



Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit

Google;
we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Raping was just an example of another of their interests.

I see you still don't quite understand the concept of substantiating claims FD. You see, here you are making a slur against an entire group of people. Like most slurs, you provide not one shred of evidence to support it. Kindly back this rape claim with some sort of evidence, or shut up and stop trolling us with your bigotry.  :)


Yadda wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

RESPONSE; When confronted with truth; Deny the truth. That is what moslems [the kuffar] do.

Please spend 2 seconds comprehending my response yadda before wasting everyone's time with more irrelevant nonsense.

I am not denying the claims on islamic jurisprudence you make (though I suspect as usual they are misquoted), I'm merely pointing out they are irrelevant to the question of what muslims did in practice - vis-a-vis the wars against Israel, and how muslims go about changing governments - particularly in the last few years.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

You didn't answer one single point fd. Want to try and respond to that post again?

Still waiting on a response to post #36 fd, whenever you get the time... no hurry.

You should start with post #37 then Abu. Just because I did not tell you what you want to hear does not mean I did not respond. Since you gave up on pretending the Jews "mass illegally immigrated" to the area (a claim you will no doubt trot out again once this thread dies), your argument has consisted of little more than insisting that criticism of Palestinian Muslims equate to tolerance of being the victim of your absurd characterisations of what went on there. Your questions are either heavily loaded or completely irrelevant, so you can hardly expect me to waste my time with a detailed response every time you dream up a different way of putting it.

You did not address one single point from post #36.

I figured as much. when the questioning really heats up, you are not interested in continuing.

You and I both know you cannot answer any of those questions honestly, without admitting your claims about Jewish immigration into Palestine are false.

Sure I did. In fact the debate moved on from there on several of the issues you raised. And I addressed one point again in my most recent post.

Anyway here it is again, another chance for you to answer...

If you cannot, then just admit you're incapable of answering (as you know it will invalidate all your previous claims).

---

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Our government gets replaced every few years Abu. This is perfectly legal. I have no doubt that one day we will even elect a Muslim, though I am sure you would not consider them a proper Muslim. The Americans just elected a black man from a Muslim country as president. Unlike Muslims, we do not insist on mass slaughters every time there is a change in leadership.

Are you honestly trying to compare the Zionist overrunning of Palestine with Australia's 4 yearly government changeovers? So again I'll ask you, if Muslims form militias, and expel Anglos from their towns and sieze power, you'll consider their new government legal? And if they then passed an immigration law forbidding Anglos from immigrating to Australia (even if they were born here) whilst granting every single Muslim in the world instant access to citizenship, you'd also consider that, and the subsequent expulsions and immigration that would result from it to be legal as well?

Please answer this fd, don't avoid it like you do in the next part of your post.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

That is not what I said Abu. I was merely pointing out that you description of what happened is completely wrong - again. Like I said, it was only when the Palestinians attempted their own holocaust that things got ugly.

So again, I'll ask you to provide us with what you think was the true description of what happened. I've posted nothing but historical facts, and provided links to them on several occasions, none of which you read. You on the other hand have posted nothing of substance at all.

Well done Abu, you tracked down some of the rest of the discussion we had that followed on from where you accuse me of not responding to anything. I'm sure if you keep reading you will find the rest.

You simply can't answer this one at any cost can you?  ;D

and while your pondering over that FD, don't forget about substantiating your claim that (in your words) "Raping was just an example of another of their [early muslims] interests. "

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

and while your pondering over that FD, don't forget about substantiating your claim that (in your words) "Raping was just an example of another of their [early muslims] interests. "

Look at gandalf siding with the muslim. Why would you side with someone who thinks you are a kafur and sub-human to a muslim?

Big Dave wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

who thinks you are a kafur and sub-human to a muslim?

wow answering my call to back up unsubstantiated claims with yet more unsubstatiated claims. You guys just excel yourselves  :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

and while your pondering over that FD, don't forget about substantiating your claim that (in your words) "Raping was just an example of another of their [early muslims] interests. "

gandalf,

That claim has previously been substantiated, here on OzPol.

Hadith ref's were given.






Here is an account [an excerpt] of the deeds of  Mohammed and 'his companions', from the Hadith;

Mohammed and his companions went on a raiding party.
'and took captive some excellent Arab women', 'and we desired them',
'for we were suffering from the absence of our wives',
'So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them'  [i.e. have non-consensual sex with their captive 'excellent Arab women']
'(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.' [i.e. Mohammed's companions intended to sell/ransom their captive 'excellent Arab women' back to their menfolk]




gandalf,

Do you want to deny, that this account of the deeds of  Mohammed and 'his companions', is an accurate and authentic ?

Coming from ISLAMIC sources, as they do.

fail Yadda - there is no evidence that this hadith has anything to do with rape - thats just your spin.

got anything else?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

fail Yadda - there is no evidence that this hadith has anything to do with rape - thats just your spin. got anything else?

Yes!
...see below.





Quote:

RESPONSE; When confronted with truth; Deny the truth. That is what moslems [the kuffar] do. Part of the contemporary criticism by moslems, of 'unbelievers', is that the 'unbelievers' are vile people who are cursed by Allah. ....they are the 'Kuffar'. "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar NOTE THE WORDS, "........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." The moslems are the kuffar, and the moslems [lost in their own lies], do not even recognise that fact. :D      ;D      ;Di +++ AGAIN - Who is the kuffar ???, "........a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." For the 'religion' of ISLAM, lying and deceit, to further the moslem cause, is a 'holy' religious doctrine; “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya Google; taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit Google; we smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

fail Yadda - there is no evidence that this hadith has anything to do with rape - thats just your spin. got anything else?

gandalf,

So your opinion is;

If men >> abduct << women, and have non-consensual sex with them = = NOT RAPE.

???



Is that so ?

nowhere does it say its non-consensual. Fail again.

If it was non-consensual, then that would contradict specific quranic verses and other hadiths that forbid rape and abuse of women.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Big Dave wrote on Nov 29th, 2012 at 9:14am: who thinks you are a kafur and sub-human to a muslim? wow answering my call to back up unsubstantiated claims with yet more unsubstatiated claims. You guys just excel yourselves  :D

It's just fact. Try marrying into a muslim family. Many muslims won't even shake your hand. If you're gay then you are seen a scum. I personally don't know why anybody would side with abu. He believes in  stonings amongst many other unbelievable things. I just don't get how do-gooders defend islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

nowhere does it say its non-consensual. Fail again.

gandalf,

AGAIN;
So your opinion is;

If men >> abduct << women, and have non-consensual sex with them = = NOT RAPE.



???

Is this true ?

So, in ISLAM it is lawful to abduct women [and later have sex with them] ???







Quote:

If it was non-consensual, then that would contradict specific quranic verses and other hadiths that forbid rape and abuse of women.

That is true.
Coz Mohammed and Allah respected the purity of women.
/sarc off



"Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.006.301



"On 'Id ul Fitr or 'Id ul Adha Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, "O people! Give alms." Then he went towards the women and said. "O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women)." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He replied, "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray." Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Masud, came and asked permission to enter It was said, "O Allah's Apostle! It is Zainab." He asked, 'Which Zainab?" The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas'ub. He said, "Yes, allow her to enter." And she was admitted. Then she said, "O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Masud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else." The Prophet replied, "Ibn Masud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #002.024.541

Yadda wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

So, in ISLAM it is lawful to abduct women [and later have sex with them] ???

To point out the obvious (or so it would seem obvious to everyone except Yadda), we are talking about women whose menfolk were killed during their war with the muslims. These women were enslaved by the muslims - because unlike most christian and virtually every other contemporary army - the muslims didn't actually put every man, woman and child to death after conquering them. Perhaps in Yadda world they should have left these widows and orphans to fend for themselves - and watch them as they starved to death.

The reality was, enslavement meant protection, and probable freedom later on. I don't find it the least bit surprising that many of these slaves would fall in love with their masters and agree to consensual sex.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 6:31am:

You simply can't answer this one at any cost can you?  ;D

You just quoted me answering you Abu.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

and while your pondering over that FD, don't forget about substantiating your claim that (in your words) "Raping was just an example of another of their [early muslims] interests. "

Islam permits soldiers to capture women and take them home as sex slaves. It also permits spousal rape.


Quote:

To point out the obvious (or so it would seem obvious to everyone except Yadda), we are talking about women whose menfolk were killed during their war with the muslims. These women were enslaved by the muslims - because unlike most christian and virtually every other contemporary army - the muslims didn't actually put every man, woman and child to death after conquering them.

It certainly permits this, and Abu wants this standards reintroduced. It also permits the theft of everything not nailed down, mass forced migration of people on the losing side (something Abu complains constantly about in Israel, even though he promotes worse for the Israel Jews), not to mention riding off on the women. You are right that this would be inconsequential if it was a mere historical fact. What makes it a problem is that Abu and so many other muslims around the world want to bring everyone back to these dark ages kicking and screaming.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

nowhere does it say its non-consensual. Fail again. If it was non-consensual, then that would contradict specific quranic verses and other hadiths that forbid rape and abuse of women.

Of course it does not state it specifically. But Islam redefines the concepts of rape and consent. Either that or it just ignores the obvious contradictions, or calls them abrogations (Islam gives you lost of options for explaining away this sort of thing). According to Falah (see Abu is not the only Muslim I get this from) the fact that they are married implies consent and it is ludicrous to expect a husband to obtain his wife's consent again every time they have sex, particularly if she is in a bad mood.

I never could get Falah to explain how this works with Islamic sex slaves.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:

Yadda wrote on Nov 29th, 2012 at 1:56pm: So, in ISLAM it is lawful to abduct women [and later have sex with them] ??? To point out the obvious (or so it would seem obvious to everyone except Yadda), we are talking about women whose menfolk were killed during their war with the muslims. These women were enslaved by the muslims - because unlike most christian and virtually every other contemporary army - the muslims didn't actually put every man, woman and child to death after conquering them. Perhaps in Yadda world they should have left these widows and orphans to fend for themselves - and watch them as they starved to death. The reality was, enslavement meant protection, and probable freedom later on. I don't find it the least bit surprising that many of these slaves would fall in love with their masters and agree to consensual sex.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

You just quoted me answering you Abu.

I did? Where? Please post it again for me.

Quote:

Islam permits soldiers to capture women and take them home as sex slaves. It also permits spousal rape.

Any infidel woman is fair game according to Islam, because the reason women wear hijabs etc is because men naturally cannot control themselves if they see womene not covered up, they have no ability to do so. So, if a woman (especially an infidel woman) is not covered up - then she had it coming according to them. That's exactly what Sheik Hilali said at his mosque, the grand mufti of Islam in Australia. Nobody stormed out of his sermon in outrage, or stood up to correct him. They all laughed, it was funny that he was defending the serial rapist Bilal Skaf.

The brain damaged leftists in Sydney know all about how we should view multiculturalism and the wonderful cultural enrichment of Islam. All from the safety of Gordon and Wahroonga where they never have to deal with its effects. But none of those lefties would EVER send their teenage daughters to Punchbowl High with a majority muslim student body. Not in a million, million years....