Quote:

CAMDEN'S Christian leaders have united to condemn the Quranic Society, which wants to build an Islamic school in Camden, for espousing views which are "incompatible with the Australian way of life". The leaders of the St John's Anglican, Camden Presbyterian and Camden Baptist churches and the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary signed a letter to Camden Council arguing that the proposal was not in the public interest. "Camden is increasingly becoming a multicultural community, but when one part of the community seeks to dominate the public space, as we have seen in Auburn, Bankstown, Lakemba and more recently Liverpool, the social impact is unacceptable," says the letter, which was read at the Quranic Society's appeal to the Land and Environment Court yesterday. "Our concern is the Quranic Society inevitably advocates a political ideological position that is incompatible with the Australian way of life. This includes promoting Quranic law as being superior to national laws and regarding followers of any rival religion as inevitably at enmity with it." The school proposal has split the Camden community. The council voted unanimously to reject the original application for a 1200-pupil school "on planning grounds alone" last May. After reducing its proposal to a school catering for 900 students, the Quranic Society took its case to the Land and Environment Court. Commissioner Graham Brown, who will decide the school's fate, visited the site yesterday morning, along with lawyers, council officials and residents. It is on a rural block on the corner of Cawdor and Burragarong roads. The hearing continued at Camden Civic Centre in the afternoon, attended by about 150 residents. The hearing continues today. with Alicia Bowie

http://www.smh.com.au/national/churches-oppose-islamic-school-20090421-ae1i.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 11:28am:

Quote: CAMDEN'S Christian leaders have united to condemn the Quranic Society, which wants to build an Islamic school in Camden, for espousing views which are "incompatible with the Australian way of life". The leaders of the St John's Anglican, Camden Presbyterian and Camden Baptist churches and the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary signed a letter to Camden Council arguing that the proposal was not in the public interest. "Camden is increasingly becoming a multicultural community, but when one part of the community seeks to dominate the public space, as we have seen in Auburn, Bankstown, Lakemba and more recently Liverpool, the social impact is unacceptable," says the letter, which was read at the Quranic Society's appeal to the Land and Environment Court yesterday. "Our concern is the Quranic Society inevitably advocates a political ideological position that is incompatible with the Australian way of life. This includes promoting Quranic law as being superior to national laws and regarding followers of any rival religion as inevitably at enmity with it." http://www.smh.com.au/national/churches-oppose-islamic-school-20090421-ae1i.html

Thank you sprint!


Wow! Wow! Wow!

Good on em!
......CAMDEN'S Christian leaders that is.




The contents of the Koran encourages a vile and very, very, wicked philosophy.

It is called ISLAM.




Not the Koran, but the practice of ISLAM should be banned in all nations.

I'm still holding my breath!





++++++++++++




ISLAM = deception, lies, violence.

Those are its fruits.


When it suits their purpose [of 'approachment' to Christians / secular society] muslims will [deceitfully] claim, their friendship with, and claim a spiritual brotherhood with, Christians,

'We're all people of the book and we all come from the same history'.

ABC Radio National Religion interview transcript  - "The Undercover Mosque: The return"
".....Stephen Crittenden: .....your program highlights a certain kind of duplicity. When they're caught out, individuals don't miss a bit, they just say they've been taken out of context....
David Henshaw: ......Regent's Park Mosque is officially committed to inter-faith dialogue.....
A GROUP OF CHRISTIANS VISITING THE MOSQUE and the preacher and the Women's Circle treat them kindly and talk about 'We're all people of the book and we all come from the same history'.
JUST AS SOON AS THAT GROUP OF VISITORS LEAVES, THE LANGUAGE CHANGES COMPLETELY. 'CHRISTIANITY IS VILE', the preacher says.....
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2360820.htm#transcript

My God, we are the first country in the world to actually sound off like we have a pair.

*SOMEONE* finally gets it.  Islam = Religious Apartheid, religious fascism in which the uber Islamic overlords rule over us, and those who refuse to be ruled over as dhimmis are slaughtered and destroyed,

Until we start getting that through our thick skulls, we are lost. In our arrogance we think we can meet, with no effort, a very sophisticated program which should be called 'Conquest for Dummies' - Islam, just by doing nothing. Sound plan there dhimmis.

And doomed to failure...

Just like the signs often placed in shop and pub windows until near the end of the 19th century "Chinese not served here" and "Help wanted. No Irishman need apply", Camden's little spat will soon enough be interpreted as something other than having a metaphorical pair.

I see no reason to link any religion with education.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 1:43pm:

And doomed to failure... Just like the signs often placed in shop and pub windows until near the end of the 19th century "Chinese not served here" and "Help wanted. No Irishman need apply", Camden's little spat will be interpreted as something other than having a metaphorical pair.

Chinese, Irish, are races of ppl [in the case of Irish, a nationality?].


Whereas ISLAM, [effectively] is a deceptive, violent, fascist political philosophy, which encourages the murder of all who resist its authority.

For free people to choose to tolerate evil, to tolerate a philosophy like ISLAM,
......is to choose to remove all further free choice from their lives.






When it comes to ISLAM, why can't ppl see that,

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

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 2:01pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 1:43pm: And doomed to failure... Just like the signs often placed in shop and pub windows until near the end of the 19th century "Chinese not served here" and "Help wanted. No Irishman need apply", Camden's little spat will be interpreted as something other than having a metaphorical pair. Chinese, Irish, are races of ppl [in the case of Irish, a nationality?]. Whereas ISLAM, [effectively] is a deceptive, violent, fascist political philosophy, which encourages the murder of all who resist its authority. For free people to choose to tolerate evil, to tolerate a philosophy like ISLAM, ......is to choose to remove all further free choice from their lives. When it comes to ISLAM, why can't ppl see that, "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Thomas Mann http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Mann

And the Chinese were considered yellow sub-humans... the Irish - violent thieves, layabouts and drunks.

In the "immortal" words of Edmund Barton : "These races [Asians and aborigines] are, in comparison with the white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior."

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 2:13pm:

In the "immortal" words of Edmund Barton : "These races [Asians and aborigines] are, in comparison with the white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior."

So wise. :)

DILLIGAF wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 2:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 2:13pm: In the "immortal" words of Edmund Barton : "These races [Asians and aborigines] are, in comparison with the white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior." So wise. :)

Just a victim of his time.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 2:23pm:

DILLIGAF wrote on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 2:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2009 at 2:13pm: In the "immortal" words of Edmund Barton : "These races [Asians and aborigines] are, in comparison with the white races - I think no one wants convincing of this fact - unequal and inferior." So wise. :) Just a victim of his time.

A hero of his time and until this very day.

An ideology is not a race. Islam is not a race.

If you were to say, Communists not served here, or Nazis not served here there is something comparable.

That Islamic group does believe in jihad. They are against Australian values. They do want to crush our society and rule with the use of sharia. And if they didn't they wouldnt be an Islamic group.

Good news. Despite what Helian says, the public debate appears to be moving forward. I think this is the first time I have seen public commentary focus on the political aspects of Islam.

They chose an interesting way of phrasing it - the superiority of Islamic law over national law and non-Muslims as inevitably at enmity with it. To me, this doesn't seem to do enough to distinguish Islam. Everyone thinks that they have some changes that would make our laws better, which makes some degree of enmity inevitable. I would have focussed on more specific issues - opposition to democracy, human rights and freedom, denial of freedom of religion, cruel and unusual punishment etc. Perhaps the chosen phrasing makes it harder for Muslims to mislead the public with the various deflections they use, for example by saying that Islam compels them to obey local law, while omitting details like the violent overthrow of our government at the first opportunity. It also cuts to the fundamental problem - that Islam is a set of laws, not a religion.

Quote:

It also cuts to the fundamental problem - that Islam is a set of laws, not a religion.

It is a set of laws, a culture, a nation state without borders, a system of government, a political philosopy AND a religion. But the religious part is only, we can do all of the previous things because God says we have to and so we are always right and there can never be any argument about what we are doing.

What do we know about the Quaranic Society? Anything? Where it's getting its money from? Benefactors? Source of funding? Beliefs, philosophies? As usual, we know nothing about it. But the community has to 'tolerate' a huge cloistered school plonked right in its midst, staffed by adherents to an ideology that would like to see their little community destroyed and under sharia rule.

Why should they have to 'tolerate' that?

It’s interesting to note that its churches opposing the Islamic school, specifically the leaders of the St John's Anglican, Camden Presbyterian and Camden Baptist churches and the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Two religions battling it out as they have for centuries.

Discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race are essentially the same. Both presume that people will act in a predictably negative manner and cannot, either by perceived permanent mindset or by genetic predisposition, act any other way.

There may be more of these episodes, but sooner or later it will boil down to pure racial or religious discrimination for its own sake.

Quote:

Discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race are essentially the same

Except..they're not the same at all.

How about I re-invent the Nazi party, and call it my religion, because God told me to implement those policies - but you can't criticise any of those policies, well, because its my religion.

Islam defines itself as the only political ideology that cannot be criticisde at all, hiding behind the cloak of religion. You've bought into that deception, I haven't.

And as for people being able to behave predictably as muslims, we have had more than 1300 years of predictability. Why is there no 'Sikhaphobia' or 'Buddhismaphobia' or 'Mormonophobia'? It's because Islam boldly says it is going to kill and take over everything around it, and then acts as the victim when people say they are not willing to go along with that.

You know nothing about Islam helian, just like your mates mantra and moazaak.

Calanen wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 10:14pm:

Except..they're not the same at all. How about I re-invent the Nazi party, and call it my religion, because God told me to implement those policies - but you can't criticise any of those policies, well, because its my religion.

A cult is not a religion...

Sooner or later, supporters of the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary and the Knights who say 'Ni' will be personified by the archetypal white trash brigade, then hyjacked by them and will require censure.

Arguing for discrimination based on race or religion is a lost cause in modern secular Australia.

Quote:

A cult is not a religion...

Who defines what is a cult or a religion? You it seems. I am not sure why it matters.

Islam is a supremacist ideology that is a perfect system, for conquering all others around it with what I call the 'water on the stone' method. A dripping tap on granite, how could it possibly destroy the granite? Over a long period of time, that is exactly what it will do. We also know that the people who have put the dripping tap on the granite, have done so for exactly the purpose of its destruction.

They tell us so themselves, but if we take them seriously as to what their own goals are, we are 'Islamophobes' apparently. All four schools of Islamic thought, not weirdo misunderstander schools, all four mainstream regular schools of Islam, require the destruction of ALL OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT save sharia, with the use of violence through jihad. They all require sharia be imposed and the jews and christians live under Islamic overlords.

All of them.

This school that is being built, is of the type that requires you to mindlessly recite the Koran thousands and thousands of times.

The Churches hit the nail right on the head:


Quote:

Camden is increasingly becoming a multicultural community, but when one part of the community seeks to dominate the public space, as we have seen in Auburn, Bankstown, Lakemba and more recently Liverpool, the social impact is unacceptable," says the letter, which was read at the Quranic Society's appeal to the Land and Environment Court yesterday.

Why do they do this? Because - Islam says - that any area occupied by muslims, comes under the ownership of Islam, the ummah and allah - until judgment day. So it is your duty to drive out people to expand your area. The move into Camden is a move into further areas.

Eventualy, when there are enough areas joined - they will say - we desire self-rule under sharia law, just for our areas. They are muslim after all. What? You say no dirty kuffah - it's time for jihad then because we are so persecuted.

Calanen wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 10:14pm:

Quote: Discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race are essentially the same ......You've bought into that deception [helian], I haven't.

Calanen,

Exactly so.




So many [non-muslims] in this world today seem 'blind', to the fact that it is base ISLAMIC doctrines and ISLAMIC values, which are motivating, acts of evil, and violence worldwide, in front of their eyes on a daily basis.

Acts of evil, and violence, which are being perpetrated by REAL muslims.

Yet these naive ppl among us seem unable to 'connect the dots', and seem unable to associate individual muslims [among us], with what ISLAMIC philosophy represents?

If you take the time to study ISLAM just a little, you will discover that ISLAM behaves in the world, it acts the part, of a violent, supremacist political philosophy.

Again, ISLAM behaves in the world, as if it were A POLITICAL PARTY.

And not as a 'religion'.

If you have doubts about this, consider,
ISLAMIC LAWS ARE NOT ABOUT THE PASSIVE, INTROSPECTIVE WORSHIP, OF A SUPREME BEING.

Dictionary,
introspection = = the examination of one’s own thoughts or feelings.

ISLAMIC laws, are all about the direction [by a few men, clerics] of worldly, secular, RAW political power.


And....
ISLAM = = PURE EVIL.



Why are so many ppl among us, so unwilling to associate the evil and violence which is perpetrated by muslims,
.....WITH MUSLIMS, AND WITH ISLAM????

The evil and violence, which is being perpetrated by ppl claiming to BE muslims!

And all the while the [lying] muslims among us appear to disassociate themselves with from 'other' violent muslims, who are categorised [by them] as 'NOT REAL MUSLIMS'.

But that is precisely what ISLAMIC doctrine tells them to do - TO LIE TO THE 'UNBELIEVERS', UNTIL MUSLIMS COME TO POWER, OVER THE 'UNBELIEVERS'.

Then, when muslims come to power,
......they will reveal who they really are,
......and what their values really are.

Q.
Who are these REAL muslims, how can we know them, today?

Q.
What are their real ISLAMIC values?

A.
Look today, at how non-muslims are treated, within Sharia jurisdictions!





Somehow these naive ppl [non-muslims] seem to believe that, it is unjust to associate muslims [muslims who they may daily associate with?], with the evil of ISLAM!

They [these naive ppl] seem INCAPABLE of making a judgement, that the lives of ALL muslims, are intricately entwined with the evil philosophy ISLAM, and that it is ISLAM's values, which motivate their lives.

Instead, these naive ppl [non-muslims] associate CRITICISM, and RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT of evil [ISLAM], as a form of 'intolerance'.






What is happening?

These naive ppl have no power to come to judgement, against evil.

Why is that?

Why is it, that these ppl find it so difficult, to discern between GOOD and EVIL in their midst?

It truly amazes, and astounds me.







Quote:

"......You know nothing about Islam helian, just like your mates mantra and moazaak."

I not so sure, that, that statement is true / accurate.

But what amazes me is the unwillingness of many to acknowledge the TRUTH [the TRUTH about muslims, and the philosophy which really, really, motivates muslim lives, and empowers the values which muslims express in the world].

More opposition, good to see.



Quote:

AN Islamic school in Camden would be "a breeding ground for terrorists", says a resident who gave evidence in support of Camden Council at an appeal against its decision to block the school. Judith Bond said the school would teach war and how to kill. "Values of violence will be emphasised. It will be a breeding ground for terrorists … There will be a surge of gang rapes, looting and attacking infidels," Ms Bond said. Camden residents presented evidence via DVD at the second day of a hearing to decide whether the $19 million Islamic school should be built on the outskirts of the town south-west of Sydney. The area's Christian values were threatened by the proposal, said another resident, John Waterhouse, who warned Christmas decorations and nativity scenes would be "pulled down or withdrawn on some sort of process of religious nit-picking". Describing Camden as "the mouse that dared to roar", he said he did not want prayer mats unrolled in shops or "[our] teenage daughters subjected to demeaning taunts wearing jeans, shorts or T-shirts". Another resident, Kate McCullogh, who was compared with Pauline Hanson when she addressed a meeting last year wearing an Akubra hat decorated with Australian flags, said she was "no redneck xenophobic racist like the media have put to me". "Let's start making people understand that the Western way of life is the best way of life," she said. Other residents' objections were based on urban planning matters, including traffic flow and proximity to working farms. Until now, Camden Council has largely distanced itself from ideological justifications for blocking the development application for a 900-student school. When it voted unanimously to reject the project last May, it did so "on planning grounds alone". But on the opening day of the appeal to the Land and Environment Court on Tuesday, council's barrister, Craig Leggat, SC, opened his evidence with a letter signed by a group of the region's Christian leaders, who said Islam was an ideology with a plan for world domination. The Reverend Fred Nile, leader of the Christian Democratic Party and an outspoken critic of the school, said the signatories had his full support. None of the church leaders responded to the Herald's calls yesterday. The hearing continues today.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/islamic-school-would-breed-terrorists-resident-20090422-affr.html

And we're off...

Ms Bond, a brigade of Christians with a religious objection to a competing religion in their midst and a Ms Katie McCollugh, (wants the world to know she ain't no redneck xenophobic racist... and that whiteness be rightness)... and, of course, old Freddie Nile.

Notice the Camden Council were careful to reject the application on planning grounds alone... seems the council knows where this is going to lead.

What's the bet that if this grabs major headlines Camden will be dubbed the white trash county of New South... or something along those lines.

yes, we're off. This could be exciting.
The reasomns for the opposition are unrelated to whoever anyone wants to pray to.

Will be interesting to see where this leads to helian.
Take care

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 12:12pm:

And we're off... Ms Bond, a brigade of Christians with a religious objection to a competing religion in their midst and a Ms Katie McCollugh, (wants the world to know she ain't no redneck xenophobic racist... and that whiteness be rightness)... and, of course, old Freddie Nile. Notice the Camden Council were careful to reject the application on planning grounds alone... seems the council knows where this is going to lead. What's the bet that if this grabs major headlines Camden will be dubbed the white trash county of New South... or something along those lines.

Absolutely nothing wrong with ISLAM, is there helian?

The local problem is just a symptom of those intolerant Christian 'xenophobes' in Camden.
/sarc off




Like i said [above].....


Quote:

What is happening? These naive ppl have no power to come to judgement, against evil. Why is that? Why is it, that these ppl find it so difficult, to discern between GOOD and EVIL in their midst? It truly amazes, and astounds me. ......what amazes me is the unwillingness of many to acknowledge the TRUTH [the TRUTH about muslims, and the philosophy which really, really, motivates muslim lives, and empowers the values which muslims express in the world].

Keep it streaming Yadda... The more of your kind of frenzied rhetoric, the surer the success of the Muslim cause.

Think on about why the Camden Council are keeping this as a planning issue only.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 12:51pm:

Keep it streaming Yadda... The more of your kind of frenzied rhetoric, the surer the success of the Muslim cause. Think on about why the Camden Council are keeping this as a planning issue only.

helian,

Think on this.....


Quote:

Want good 'outcomes' in this world? Always seek, and support, free and open TRUTH.

"Israel slur fear forces boycott"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1240182348/6#6




helian,

It is not rocket science [the consequence of seeking TRUTH].

But today, so many ppl HATE THE TRUTH.

Are fearful of it.



And, why is that?

Why can't the TRUTH about ISLAM be confronted???

Why, will so few ppl among us, confront that TRUTH?????




Come now,

You can speak for them helian.

Enlighten this 'fool', please.

Yes... the truth...

And how many have laid claim to knowing it...

Any attempt to define it is doomed to define something less than what it is.

Truth is wordless, Yadda.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 12:51pm:

Keep it streaming Yadda... The more of your kind of frenzied rhetoric, the surer the success of the Muslim cause. Think on about why the Camden Council are keeping this as a planning issue only.

helian,
The 'clever' machinations of men, get intrigue, and CORRUPTION.

Dictionary,
machinate = = engage in plots and intrigues; scheme.



Free and open TRUTH, gets, establishes, justice.

And peace will come to abide, alongside justice [i.e. where justice is established].

Want PEACE?

Seek and support free and open TRUTH.



Like i said, it isn't rocket science.

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 1:29pm:

Like i said, it isn't rocket science.

And to think philosophers have pursued truth for 2500 years and still the quest continues... What a pity you weren't born in 500 BC... could've saved humanity a couple of millennia.

Truth is indefinable... wordless.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:29pm: Like i said, it isn't rocket science. And to think philosophers have pursued truth for 2500 years and still the quest continues... What a pity you weren't born in 500 BC... could've saved humanity a couple of millennia. Truth is indefinable... wordless.

Trite deflection.


What ISLAM 'speaks', is not TRUTH,

'ISLAM is the religion of peace.'






http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/sheik.jpg
'.....Just like in muslim countries.'






Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
Posted by: Alaskan
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023681.php#c602782







Quote:

Want PEACE? Seek and support free and open TRUTH.

Keep it coming, Yadda... You're Camden's Qurannic Society's secret weapon.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:05pm:

Keep it coming, Yadda... You're Camden's Qurannic Society's secret weapon.

helian,

No.

It is people like yourself helian, who are ISLAM's greatest allies in the West.

People who will not confront the TRUTH about ISLAM, and its values, its violence.

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:05pm: Keep it coming, Yadda... You're Camden's Qurannic Society's secret weapon. helian, No. It is people like yourself helian, who are ISLAM's greatest allies in the West. People who will not confront the TRUTH about ISLAM, and its values, its violence.

I bet you fifty bucks to a pound of donkey dung, that it'll be comments from the likes of you that the Qurannic society would use as evidence of the mindless discrimination levelled against them.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:29pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:21pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:05pm: Keep it coming, Yadda... You're Camden's Qurannic Society's secret weapon. helian, No. It is people like yourself helian, who are ISLAM's greatest allies in the West. People who will not confront the TRUTH about ISLAM, and its values, its violence. I bet you fifty bucks to a pound of donkey dung, that it'll be comments from the likes of you that the Qurannic society would use as evidence of the mindless discrimination levelled against them.

helian,

Just another deflection, lie.

i.e.
Portray ppl like myself, as 'irrational' 'ISLAM-o-phobes'.




helian,

If you want to see someone who is irrational in their views, look into a mirror.




Why don't ppl like yourself, open your eyes, to how REAL, EMPOWERED ISLAM 'expresses' itself?.....

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/



Why do you help to endorse, defend what ISLAM is, by criticising ISLAM's justified critics?

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:46pm:

helian, Just another deflection, lie.

Oh, you wish... But frayed knot...

See that's why the Camden Council are keeping it to planning issues... So the councillors don't get branded religious fruitcakes.

There's some truth for you... about getting things done in a modern secular state.

Helian - may I have the donkey dung for my garden please ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:57pm:

Helian - may I have the donkey dung for my garden please ?

Just sh!t in a bucket and spread it out at the end of the week, like normal Queenslanders...  ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 2:56pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:46pm: helian, Just another deflection, lie. Oh, you wish... But frayed knot... See that's why the Camden Council are keeping it to planning issues... So the councillors don't get branded religious fruitcakes. There's some truth for you... about getting things done in a modern secular state.

"keeping it to planning issues" , read, avoiding confronting the TRUTH about ISLAM.





helian,

Here's some truth for you.

The only freedom we have, the only freedom which is secure,
.....is the freedom which we are willing to make sacrifices for.

And if the Camden councillors, or anyone else, are too fearful, to do what is right, to support their freedoms, by supporting TRUTH, then they [and we] will fail in our endeavours.

Evil is a cancer.

It cannot live in the 'light' of TRUTH.

But if we ourselves fear that light [TRUTH], the cancer will win.

And we will die.

We, and our rights and freedoms will die, which we were not prepared to defend,
......with TRUTH.



"Something given, has no value."

i.e.
Our present rights and freedoms.

We didn't earn those rights and freedoms.

They were gifted to us, by our forefathers [who did earn them!!].

And unless we are willing to defend them, with TRUTH, we will lose them.i

Freedom is defended with arms. And then it doesn't matter who is right or wrong or what is true or lies... only who wins and who loses.

When come the time our leaders demand we defend our freedom with arms, then so be it.

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 3:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:56pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 2:46pm: helian, Just another deflection, lie. Oh, you wish... But frayed knot... See that's why the Camden Council are keeping it to planning issues... So the councillors don't get branded religious fruitcakes. There's some truth for you... about getting things done in a modern secular state. "keeping it to planning issues" , read, avoiding confronting the TRUTH about ISLAM.

Read it any way your prejudices require, but the Camden Council are keeping within the law and not letting emotion betray their better judgement.

helian - good point.
The council did turn it down on planning issues initially.

I wonder if they can assess it on other issues also ?
ie, disruption to other existing residents?
effect on society ?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:29pm: Like i said, it isn't rocket science. And to think philosophers have pursued truth for 2500 years and still the quest continues... What a pity you weren't born in 500 BC... could've saved humanity a couple of millennia. Truth is indefinable... wordless.

Sorry Helian, but that is Rubbish, we all know that truth is always self evident, it usually reveals itself in bars, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, about the time when strangers profess a deep love, and spiritual bond, for whoever's 'shout' it is. ;) ;) ;)

mozzaok wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 11:56pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:44pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:29pm: Like i said, it isn't rocket science. And to think philosophers have pursued truth for 2500 years and still the quest continues... What a pity you weren't born in 500 BC... could've saved humanity a couple of millennia. Truth is indefinable... wordless. Sorry Helian, but that is Rubbish, we all know that truth is always self evident, it usually reveals itself in bars, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, about the time when strangers profess a deep love, and spiritual bond, for whoever's 'shout' it is. ;) ;) ;)

Ah yes! The 10th pint of the Epiphany... I know it well.  ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 11:20pm:

helian - good point. The council did turn it down on planning issues initially. I wonder if they can assess it on other issues also ? ie, disruption to other existing residents? effect on society ?

It appears the Camden Council must convince the Land and Environment court that the school would not be 'in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding area'.

But whatever the councillors' strategy is, I reckon, as sure as sh!t ain't sugar, they don't want their affairs represented to the rest of the nation and the world by the likes of a Ms Katie McCollugh and Fred Nile.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 4:01pm:

Freedom is defended with arms. And then it doesn't matter who is right or wrong or what is true or lies... only who wins and who loses. [quote]When come the time our leaders demand we defend our freedom with arms, then so be it.

When the army has muslim generals, there are muslim politicians in all levels of government, muslim civil servants, muslim police - it will be too late for any defending freedoms. It will be 'run for your life' or 'do as you're told.'

Calanen wrote on Apr 24^th, 2009 at 6:44am:

When the army has muslim generals, there are muslim politicians in all levels of government, muslim civil servants, muslim police - it will be too late for any defending freedoms. It will be 'run for your life' or 'do as you're told.'

Then grab your gun, your bush hat and Katie McCollugh, counsellor and get yourselves up bush while the gettin's good. Breed yourself an army of the lord. Of course in 20 years time when you and your spawn stumble barefoot and bleary eyed back into suburbia, it won't be Islamic cultural imperialism that rules our world, it'll be Chinese.

Quote:

Discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race are essentially the same.

No they aren't Helian. They are fundamentally different. You are committing the association fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

How about you address the actual issue, instead of addressing easy ones that are only superficially similar?


Quote:

There may be more of these episodes, but sooner or later it will boil down to pure racial or religious discrimination for its own sake.

No it won't Helian, because what it boils down to is opposition to the political ideology of Islam. Your whole position is based on rejecting other people's completely rational reason for opposing Islam and substituting your own irrational reason. You are not arguing the point at all, but instead have to resort to continually making up arguments to reject. You yourself are resorting to childish taunts in the face of reasoned arguments - exactly what you accuse your opponents here of.


Quote:

See that's why the Camden Council are keeping it to planning issues... So the councillors don't get branded religious fruitcakes.

Like what you are doing to avoid the real issue? You complain about religious discrimination, yet you constantly blame people's views on their religion, without considering their reasoning.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2009 at 7:18am:

Calanen wrote on Apr 24th, 2009 at 6:44am: When the army has muslim generals, there are muslim politicians in all levels of government, muslim civil servants, muslim police - it will be too late for any defending freedoms. It will be 'run for your life' or 'do as you're told.' Then grab your gun, your bush hat and Katie McCollugh, counsellor and get yourselves up bush while the gettin's good. Breed yourself an army of the lord. Of course in 20 years time when you and your spawn stumble barefoot and bleary eyed back into suburbia, it won't be Islamic cultural imperialism that rules our world, it'll be Chinese.

You really have trouble saying anything that isn't stupid. I am an atheist. I dont give a sh*t about the lord.

When have chinese ever blown anything up in the West? Or demanded special chinese schools everywhere that dominate the skyline? Or asked for special Chinese cultural sensitivity training for police and law enforcement to make them more sensitive to Chinese concerns? Frigging never. Bring as many chinese here as you want, and there will never be a chinese jihad.

Islam has conquered Lakemba, Auburn, Liverpool, and is seeking to move into Camden. Having muslims in a suburb means that the suburb becomes unlivable for all except muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2009 at 9:33pm:

How about you address the actual issue, instead of addressing easy ones that are only superficially similar?

The real issue is whether the Camden Council erred in its decision on planning grounds to reject the application of the Quaranic Society to build an Islamic School in the area and not whether Islam is evil or that Islamic schools lead to terrorism.

The Council it seems wants this to be based on planning issues only, not ideological or religious ones and having the likes of Nile and the nuns grabbing the headlines doesn’t help their mission.

Every anti-Islamic statement or spuriously linking the society to terrorism may assist the society if ever they needed to demonstrate that resistance to the school is based on ‘Islamophobia’ or religious chauvinism.

If the Land and Environment court uphold the Society’s appeal then the Council’s decision will be overturned. If not, the Society most likely will have to look elsewhere.

That’s how it goes… And as the counsellor will confirm (at least in principle) even the Quranic society is entitled to equal and just treatment under the law.

The reference to the Chinese, counselor, is to illustrate that other colossal forces are set to permanently alter the Australian way of life and our poltical affilliations long before Islam does. The rest was a pisstake because I don't think you give a flying bugger about Australia's best interests.

Suggest a way this secular nation can discriminate against Muslims that does not jeopardise Australian interests and its status internally and overseas... That does not leave us vilified or does not embroil the country in a vicious cycle of deteriorating relations with Indonesia possibly to the point of war and one that we'd lose.

Well it doesn't look like you got much right in that last post FD, starting with Helian's assertion about discrimination, which you quoted, and discounted, without showing how he qualified it.


Quote:

Both presume that people will act in a predictably negative manner and cannot, either by perceived permanent mindset or by genetic predisposition, act any other way.

This is why people, like myself, who do not have any time at all for Islam, seek to distance ourselves from those who do not just criticise Islam, but vilify and demonise all muslims, in just such a way as Helian described, in his qualifying sentence.


Quote:

Quote: There may be more of these episodes, but sooner or later it will boil down to pure racial or religious discrimination for its own sake. No it won't Helian, because what it boils down to is opposition to the political ideology of Islam.

Once more, I disagree.
While I agree that the "valid" reason that Islam needs to be challenged, is because of it's political side, and many people fairly make that point, but many, many more, do not care to qualify what aspect of Islam they oppose, they just hate muslims.
As more fair and rational people, put forward valid arguments against Islam's political ambitions, so will more and more ignorant people, feel confident in just pronouncing their position, on islam,  that they just hate muslims.

That seems to correspond closely, to what Helian predicts, and what we have seen occur in other parts of the world.


Quote:

Like what you are doing to avoid the real issue? You complain about religious discrimination, yet you constantly blame people's views on their religion, without considering their reasoning.

the real issue is that people do things for the right reasons.

Quote:

Suggest a way this secular nation can discriminate against Muslims that does not jeopardise Australian interests and its status internally and overseas...

It is quite simple really. You discriminate against people who reject freedom of religion, democracy, human rights etc. You don't even have to mention Islam. An institution whose long term goal is the destruction of everything good about our society is fair game.


Quote:

That does not leave us vilified or does not embroil the country in a vicious cycle of deteriorating relations with Indonesia possibly to the point of war and one that we'd lose.

Australia and Indonesia are not the only two countries on earth. There is a broader struggle between freedom and oppression. Freedom seems to be winning, albeit slowly. You are two quick to discard freedom out of fear.


Quote:

As more fair and rational people, put forward valid arguments against Islam's political ambitions, so will more and more ignorant people, feel confident in just pronouncing their position, on islam,  that they just hate muslims.

So what are you suggesting? That the mainstream refrain from protecting basic freedoms in case a few lunatics get a bit hot under the collar over the issue? That we give a green light to the political goals of Islam so as not to facilitate unjust discrimination? Every just cause has a lunatic fringe. Helian tries to define the cause by its lunatic fringe. How about you?


Quote:

That seems to correspond closely, to what Helian predicts, and what we have seen occur in other parts of the world.

So what should we do instead? We have seen all sorts of outcomes in other parts of the world. To think that Helian is somehow able to predict the future is kind of naive, don't you think? All you seem to be doing is pointing out the obvious downside to the centuries old struggle for freedom - that it is a struggle. So what?

Quote:

When have chinese ever blown anything up in the West? Or demanded special chinese schools everywhere that dominate the skyline? Or asked for special Chinese cultural sensitivity training for police and law enforcement to make them more sensitive to Chinese concerns? Frigging never. Bring as many chinese here as you want, and there will never be a chinese jihad.

The Chinese won't invade us with arms, but they are taking over this country by stealth. Not only are we mortgaging ourselves to them, we've just signed a 50 year carte blanche lease with them to access all our resources. They won't use our labour either - too expensive. Why is there a global call for 100,000 skilled workers to migrate here - when we've been sending skilled workers from European countries home immediately their contract is finished.

And the Chinese are a lot smarter than the Muslims who tend to be like a bull at a gate and are forcing their way into Camden.  I can't figure out why they specifically want a school in the midst of their redneck enemies.  Surely there must be land available in more Muslim friendly areas.  I would be worried for my child's safety attending a school in such a hostile area.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

It is quite simple really. You discriminate against people who reject freedom of religion, democracy, human rights etc. You don't even have to mention Islam. An institution whose long term goal is the destruction of everything good about our society is fair game.

Define away, FD… Define it such that it isn’t anti-Muslim by another name. And it better be tight, because you can bet your nuts there’d be counsellors out there ready to tear it apart to demonstrate its Islamophobic subtext.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

Australia and Indonesia are not the only two countries on earth. There is a broader struggle between freedom and oppression. Freedom seems to be winning, albeit slowly. You are two quick to discard freedom out of fear.

Being Australian, Australia is my primary concern and Indonesia is the most important nation with regard to Australia’s security. Imagine, say, a hostile Indonesia allowing tens of thousands of boat people to descend on Australia’s shores.


freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

So what are you suggesting? That the mainstream refrain from protecting basic freedoms in case a few lunatics get a bit hot under the collar over the issue? That we give a green light to the political goals of Islam so as not to facilitate unjust discrimination? Every just cause has a lunatic fringe. Helian tries to define the cause by its lunatic fringe. How about you?

Only a very small minority of Muslims are militant Islamists (or Taqfiris as David Kilcullen suggests we label them to better define their contemptible cause). They’re the lunatic fringe that’s got the likes of the counsellor raving on about blood in the streets… Maybe defending one too many psychopaths has addled his mind… or maybe his conscience, if he got too many off.


Quote:

That seems to correspond closely, to what Helian predicts, and what we have seen occur in other parts of the world.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 9:45am:

So what should we do instead? We have seen all sorts of outcomes in other parts of the world. To think that Helian is somehow able to predict the future is kind of naive, don't you think? All you seem to be doing is pointing out the obvious downside to the centuries old struggle for freedom - that it is a struggle. So what?

It’s not a supernatural prediction, FD. We (Australians) have always been in the habit of gobbing off about the potential destruction of our way of life by new immigrant races (Irish, Southern Europeans, East Europeans, Asians) and new religions (Catholics or Papists as they were contemptuously known as) then accepting them as part of the social fabric and forgetting we ever had a problem with them.

Ultimately Australians have always managed to absorb every immigrant wave to reach our shores… And we’ll do it again with Indians, Africans and Muslims.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 7:43am:

That’s how it goes… And as the counsellor will confirm (at least in principle) even the Quranic society is entitled to equal and just treatment under the law.

And what is just treatment? The result they want no matter how many people object or on what basis? So it's there way or the highway, regardless of the wishes of the local community - and in your view that is the only 'just' outcome?

In addition to being completely clueless, you have now taken up mindreading and know what my motives are. In the end, who cares. If you think that I am going to be even moved slightly because you have a particular view of what I am doing, you are dead wrong. I expect people like you to oppose me on the most insane obsfucating premises, while Islam use the useful idiots like yourself as their puppets on the road to sharia and dhimmidom. Maybe you hope you can be King of the Dhimmis if they win in return for your support.

Please keep jockeying for the position of apologist of the year on the politically correct bandwagon - hop aboard, there is plenty of room - to see how can out appease, pander, apologise and wring hands like the little de-bollocked mockery of a man that you are.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7328/bandwagon.jpg

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

The reference to the Chinese, counselor, is to illustrate that other colossal forces are set to permanently alter the Australian way of life and our poltical affilliations long before Islam does. The rest was a pisstake because I don't think you give a flying bugger about Australia's best interests.

You really need to learn how to converse like a normal human being. I know you are not one, but just pretend and practice.


Quote:

Suggest a way this secular nation can discriminate against Muslims that does not jeopardise Australian interests and its status internally and overseas...

Discriminate? I want to treat everyone the same. No special treatment for muslims. No cultural sensitivity training. No constant bleating for laws. No ghettos and no go zones where we have to be culturally sensitive and not have police there to 'offend' muslims. Discrimination is such a stupid word to use in this context. I am opposing people who have a political philosophy and well funded plan for the destruction of my society. If they just worshipped allah and stayed out of the way, I couldnt care less. But Islam is about dominance of all around it, in the streets, in the bars, on the roads, in the courts, in the prisons, in the schools, in government, in the media.


Quote:

That does not leave us vilified or does not embroil the country in a vicious cycle of deteriorating relations with Indonesia possibly to the point of war and one that we'd lose.

You are such a whiny scared biatch. You seriously need to grow a pair.
Do you think Iran or anyone else gives a flying hoo ha what anyone thinks? They just do things, and far worse then we do - in their best interests.

And LOL as to Indonesia winning a war against us. They could not afford to run a war for the first day, let alone the months and years it would take to come to this place. The majority of Indonesia's armed forces are used in domestic duties - meaning - they are just police. If you pull them out of there, Indonesia revolts. So they have 10 per cent of their army that can move, and as soon as we see them on satellite moving a whole invasion fleet up ready to go, they get bombed into the ground by F-111s, and F-18s, while submarines and destroyes, and frigates blow their invasion fleet out of the water.

And that's just if we are by ourself, hopefully we could count on US help, but if not, so what.

So Indonesia is such a load of bs as a risk. And certainly appeasing them as muslims will not endear them to us. We are infidels. Our government is defying the will of allah by not having sharia. It is the divine will of God, that we must be destroyed, and that they must destroy us. The only question is when - not if.

You believe there is a difference between moderate and radical Islam. There isn't. There is no mainstream form of Islam which says, do not bring jihad to overthrow the infidel and introduce sharia. Not one. Not anywhere.

And when there was civil war in Nigeria, Sudan, Yugoslavia - it was all muslims who fought when the mosques blared the call to jihad. Not just the extremist ones.

You are such a naive fool, and muslims rightly think that those amongst us who think as you do are weak sheep ready to be slaughtered. Hopefully you are just the vocal minority, or the muslims are right.

Calanen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:

You really need to learn how to converse like a normal human being. I know you are not one, but just pretend and practice.

You like dishing it out, but being a pussypants you get all sooky about it coming back at you.

Calanen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:

You are such a whiny scared biatch. You seriously need to grow a pair.

You talk a lot about growing a pair… eh counsellor… It’s like you’re convinced your rants hide the fact you’re a ball free armchair warrior … But just like I said, you don’t give a bugger about Australia’s interests… What you want is to vent your spleen… even if in the end your plans end in an obvious catastrophic defeat. It’s not about Indonesian invasion. It’s more about embargo and blockade.

And all it would take to throw Australia into complete psychological turmoil would be the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees in boats… covertly supplied, aided and protected by the Indonesians.

You spend too many hours alone, counsellor, or seeking the admiration of self-loathing nutjobs.

Calanen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 12:30pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25th, 2009 at 7:43am: That’s how it goes… And as the counsellor will confirm (at least in principle) even the Quranic society is entitled to equal and just treatment under the law. And what is just treatment? The result they want no matter how many people object or on what basis? So it's there way or the highway, regardless of the wishes of the local community - and in your view that is the only 'just' outcome? In addition to being completely clueless, you have now taken up mindreading and know what my motives are. In the end, who cares. If you think that I am going to be even moved slightly because you have a particular view of what I am doing, you are dead wrong. I expect people like you to oppose me on the most insane obsfucating premises, while Islam use the useful idiots like yourself as their puppets on the road to sharia and dhimmidom. Maybe you hope you can be King of the Dhimmis if they win in return for your support. Please keep jockeying for the position of apologist of the year on the politically correct bandwagon - hop aboard, there is plenty of room - to see how can out appease, pander, apologise and wring hands like the little de-bollocked mockery of a man that you are.

You're an hysteric, counsellor.

As for just treatment under the law... I thought you'd understand that concept well enough, given you regaled us with your yarn about defending the psychopath... You never did answer the question, though... Did you get him off?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 1:41pm:

You spend too many hours alone, counsellor, or seeking the admiration of self-loathing nutjobs.

In addition to reading my mind, you now have some sort of telepathic camera that sees how my life is led! What an amazing delusional capability, I would refer you to a psychiatrist for a pre-sentencing report, guarantee you a discount before the Courts. Remember to remind them of your delusional 'remote telepathic viewing' capability if you are ever arrested.

I think the critical issue is whether you think it is possible to oppose Islamist extremism, without demonising, and vilifying, all muslims.

I certainly do, in fact I think that demonising all muslims is totally counter productive, as it is only muslims who will be able to initiate the change of direction, which Islam needs to take, and like the lover continually, wrongly accused of cheating, it can drive them to the point of despair where they do become what they are always accused of.

The statistics show us that there are a couple of billion muslims in the world, and if they were all crazy terrorists like the Islamophobes would like us to believe, then we would be seeing much more trouble than we do.

I am not seeking to play down the very real threat that Islamist extremists do pose, just hoping that people try and keep it in a sensible perspective, and not demonise all muslims, but work with them, to jointly oppose the excesses of the fanatics, not drive them into their arms.

Calanen wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 2:42pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25th, 2009 at 1:41pm: You spend too many hours alone, counsellor, or seeking the admiration of self-loathing nutjobs. In addition to reading my mind, you now have some sort of telepathic camera that sees how my life is led! What an amazing delusional capability, I would refer you to a psychiatrist for a pre-sentencing report, guarantee you a discount before the Courts. Remember to remind them of your delusional 'remote telepathic viewing' capability if you are ever arrested.

Guessed right, did I?

So, did you get him off?

as with most other people in the free world, it is immaterial to me who you believe or not believe in.


fact is, under islam law it is very significant.
So all islamic schools can bugger off.
All islamics can bugger off.
All muslims can bugger off.


muslims are islamics, so they can all bugger off.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 9:29pm:

as with most other people in the free world, it is immaterial to me who you believe or not believe in. fact is, under islam law it is very significant. So all islamic schools can bugger off. All islamics can bugger off. All muslims can bugger off. muslims are islamics, so they can all bugger off.

LOL sprint, ive always liked your straight to the point attitude.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

I think the critical issue is whether you think it is possible to oppose Islamist extremism, without demonising, and vilifying, all muslims.

You do not understand. Its ISLAM - normal ordinary every day ISLAM that is extremist. Not extremist Islam. Learn what Islam is. Let me say it again, LEARN WHAT ISLAM IS - before you think you know the difference between Islam and 'extremist Islam.' And opposing the supremacist philosophy of Islam, is not 'demonizing' muslims, no more than opposing the Third Reich was demonising Germans. It's like saying we need to engage with the moderate Nazis.

Regular ordinary, ordinary..Islam - wants sharia. It wants your government destroyed. It believes in jihad, and violence and warfare, and the absolute divine right of muslims to rule over all others, with the use of extreme force and violence. Go to www.jihadwatch.org and read Islam 101. Then present your learned critique of what Robert Spencer says there.

My view on you Moazzak is that you do not want to know the truth, because its too hard for you to accept. So you wont learn any facts, you will just keep repeating the same statements about religion of peace and moderate Islam, and shut your eyes wilfully blind to the ABUNDANT evidence all around you of what Islam really is.


Quote:

I certainly do, in fact I think that demonising all muslims is totally counter productive,

I am not demonizing 'all muslims'. I am simply saying, this is what Islam is. This is what it does. Whether people who identify themselves as muslims and follow those beliefs, how would I know. But I am just saying, this is what they believe, and better than that - this is what they SAY they believe (in Arabic usually, don't want the dhimmis to know the truth while they can still defend themselves) and yet people like yourself, who know nothing about Islam, know better.


Quote:

as it is only muslims who will be able to initiate the change of direction,

Why does it need to change direction if it is really the religion of peace? And why would it change direction at all, when there are people all around the place like your good self who prevent ANY criticism of Islam and provide them with ready made excuses for the worst behaviour worldwide.


Quote:

which Islam needs to take, and like the lover continually, wrongly accused of cheating, it can drive them to the point of despair where they do become what they are always accused of.

What the hell does this mean. Islam has been rampaging around since 600 or so invading, conquering, destroying indigenous societies and setting up brutal dictatorial theocratic governments. Everywhere, in every place that Islam has been alongside people of any other religion, there has been jihad and violence to seek to impose sharia. And yet for some reason, you believe that this ONE time here, there will not be such things - when we see the march to war all across Europe, the Middle East and in the USA, as brittle angry muslims fire up at the slightest perceived insult, refusing to accept any criticism or blame for anything they do, and to respond with threats and violence at the slightest hint of someone disagreeing with them.


Quote:

The statistics show us that there are a couple of billion muslims in the world, and if they were all crazy terrorists like the Islamophobes would like us to believe, then we would be seeing much more trouble than we do.

What a stupid comment. How many soldiers are there in the US, 1 million? and 290 million or so non-combatants?


Quote:

I am not seeking to play down the very real threat that Islamist extremists do pose, just hoping that people try and keep it in a sensible perspective, and not demonise all muslims, but work with them, to jointly oppose the excesses of the fanatics, not drive them into their arms.

You don't get it. Islam - is extreme. Ok, repeat after me - Islam is extreme..its not just a matter of some imaginary 'extremist' Islam. Regular ordinary Islam demands that there be jihad and warfare and the destruction of all other societies save the rule of muslims as overlords imposing sharia with us as dhimmis living under their rule. That's all it is, that's all it does. All four main schools of Islamic thought believe that and practice it.

So can you repeat after me - REGULAR Islam is the problem - not extremist Islam.

Quote:

Define away, FD… Define it such that it isn’t anti-Muslim by another name. And it better be tight, because you can bet your nuts there’d be counsellors out there ready to tear it apart to demonstrate its Islamophobic subtext.

Who cares? It doesn't matter if it is obviously targetted at Muslims. The fact is, Islam is incompatible with Australian values. You have this strange notion that because Islam is also a religion, there is something wrong with criticising or opposing it. If someone wanted to set up a nazi school, would you fret that the opposition to it is based on Naziphobia? Why is Islam any different?


Quote:

Being Australian, Australia is my primary concern and Indonesia is the most important nation with regard to Australia’s security. Imagine, say, a hostile Indonesia allowing tens of thousands of boat people to descend on Australia’s shores.

Again, what is your point? Should we allow people to undermine our society because we are afraid?


Quote:

Only a very small minority of Muslims are militant Islamists (or Taqfiris as David Kilcullen suggests we label them to better define their contemptible cause). They’re the lunatic fringe that’s got the likes of the counsellor raving on about blood in the streets… Maybe defending one too many psychopaths has addled his mind… or maybe his conscience, if he got too many off.

Just because they aren't militant doesn't mean they don't share the goal of undermining our society. They just approach their goals with a much longer and mroe realistic time frame. And besides, you are avoiding the question yet again. Other than making excuses and fear mongering, what is it you think we should actually do?


Quote:

Ultimately Australians have always managed to absorb every immigrant wave to reach our shores… And we’ll do it again with Indians, Africans and Muslims.

That is pretty poor logic. Our whole argument is based on some unique aspects of Islam, yet you can only offer the example of other religions as a guide to what will happen with Islam. You are yet again avoiding the fundamental issue. If Muslims do manage to integrate, it won't be because of people like you insisting that the problems don't exist. You are a barrier to positive reform.


Quote:

But just like I said, you don’t give a bugger about Australia’s interests… What you want is to vent your spleen… even if in the end your plans end in an obvious catastrophic defeat.

Helian, it seems to me that you think we should allow people who oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc to go about their plans unchallenged because you are afraid of them. Is that right? Would you mind clarifying your position on this, because all I see is someone who wants to give up their rights because they are already scared.


Quote:

The statistics show us that there are a couple of billion muslims in the world, and if they were all crazy terrorists like the Islamophobes would like us to believe, then we would be seeing much more trouble than we do.

Mozz, you are only seeing one side of the issue. Yes only some Muslims are violent extremists, but they all want to see Islam dominate. They all want to see freedom of religion taken away. They all want to deny their fellow humans basic rights. They all want to see women and non-Muslims as second class citizens. That's what mainstream Islam is. The only difference between the mainstream and the extremists is that mainstream Muslims realise they are not in a position to achieve anything through violence at the moment. But they still think of Islam as an empire. They want that empire to return. The empire is not a fairytale, it is a brutal killing machine.

There is no Australian government that will ever be elected that will attempt to unilaterally discriminate against Muslims at the borders. Not because our politicians are scared or unpatriotic, but because a world religion such as Islam cannot be resisted in that way and it’s pure fantasy to think that it can.

Australia would not endure censure from other nations arising from that kind of stand.

We can however use the law to protect Australia’s secular values, such as banning all visible displays of religiosity. Exclude all ‘clerics’ from the political process or public office. Ban groups with religious agendas from the political process. Do not permit religious schools of any kind to exist. Ban any religious practice from the workplace. Ban the proselytizing of religion in public places. Disallow any religious based education from schools.

Affirm the secular nature of our state by denying religiosity any validity or political platform.

I am certainly not ignorant of the aspects of Islam that are concerning to so many, but I don't know that all muslims do want sharia law, or to see Islam become an all dominant world power.
I don't know that most of them do not look at it in the same way as many christians, who simply look upon their faith as a personal spiritual system that enriches their lives.

I don't suggest we ignore the ambitions of the loonies, just that we don't tar all muslims with the same brush.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 26^th, 2009 at 1:08pm:

I am certainly not ignorant of the aspects of Islam that are concerning to so many, but I don't know that all muslims do want sharia law, or to see Islam become an all dominant world power.

So what. I am sure there were members of the SS that thought jews were not so bad. In fact, I am trying to remember who it was, but there was a high ranking lawyer in the SS who said he didn't care either way about the Jews when he joined up, but he needed the work. Does that mean that Nazism did not discriminate against Jews, because you could find one member of the SS who didn't care about them?

I am tallking about the philosophy of Islam, not what individuals may or may not do. What you are saying (I think) oscillates between on the one hand saying, Islam doesn't say that...and then on the other saying, but if IT DOES SAY that..then lots of muslims don't even follow it so it doesnt really matter.

It does matter. Please point me to, the type of Islam you say does not divide the world into dar al harb and dar al Islam, and require that the muslims work towards jihad to topple the dar al harb through warfare into the dar al Islam. Tell me the type of Islam, in your view that rejects the rule by sharia law and ruling over dhimmis. Where is it - point me to it please.


Quote:

I don't know that most of them do not look at it in the same way as many christians, who simply look upon their faith as a personal spiritual system that enriches their lives.

These are just motherhood statements. Read Islam 101 at www.jihadwatch.org - Then tell me what you disagree with.


Quote:

I don't suggest we ignore the ambitions of the loonies, just that we don't tar all muslims with the same brush.

So your approach is to do nothing, say its a few apples that spoil the barrel, whatever the barrel happens to be.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 26^th, 2009 at 1:08pm:

I don't suggest we ignore the ambitions of the loonies, just that we don't tar all muslims with the same brush.

It is perfectly OK and reasonable to tar self-confessed muslims with the brush of Islam. As it has been said before: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."


How is Islam an improvement on anything? What is new AND positive in the Book of Mohammed?

Calanen wrote on Apr 26^th, 2009 at 2:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 26th, 2009 at 1:08pm: I am certainly not ignorant of the aspects of Islam that are concerning to so many, but I don't know that all muslims do want sharia law, or to see Islam become an all dominant world power.

moz,

On the basis of your statement, i can say categorically, you are mistaken, or deceived, about ISLAM.

About what ISLAM is, and about who is a muslim.








Quote:

It does matter. Please point me to, the type of Islam you say does not divide the world into dar al harb and dar al Islam, and require that the muslims work towards jihad to topple the dar al harb through warfare into the dar al Islam. Tell me the type of Islam, in your view that rejects the rule by sharia law and ruling over dhimmis. Where is it - point me to it please.

Calanen,

It is certain, that accepted doctrines and views define a 'muslim'.

Any muslim who sincerely, and publicly repudiates those doctrines and views, becomes an apostate, a non-muslim.

The problem is, knowing ISLAM, how can any non-muslim know when a muslim is being sincere???

I'm not being obtuse, it is a serious question, when muslims believe [because ISLAMIC 'religious' doctrine tells them] that it is totally kosher, halal, to deceive non-muslims, at any time.





moz,

Consider,

Muhammad himself, was what all muslims today consider to be a 'moderate' muslim,
.....i.e. a normal muslim.

Why is that TRUTH about Muhammed, and ISLAM, so hard to accept, by so many non-muslims?

Is it perhaps because muslims you know, claim that they don't endorse the actions of 'violent muslims', and only want to live a quiet, tolerant life?

And you, a non-muslim, WANT to believe them,
.....RATHER THAT CONFRONT THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM.






HERE IS THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM -

THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM!

AND, there are no moderate muslims.

Any person who identifies themself with ISLAM, by definition, identifies themself with endorsing ISLAM's doctrines of deception, violence, and terror, against non-muslims, and ALL un-ISLAMIC culture.



By definition, a muslims 'reason for being', is to work with all his resources, to destroy the non-muslim world, and in its place establish Sharia, and ISLAMIC authority.

PERIOD.




AND i repeat, there are no 'moderate' muslims.

moz,

When will you get it into your head?,

'Moderate' muslims, ......IS AN OXYMORON!




AND,
THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM!

Quote:

We can however use the law to protect Australia’s secular values, such as banning all visible displays of religiosity. Exclude all ‘clerics’ from the political process or public office. Ban groups with religious agendas from the political process. Do not permit religious schools of any kind to exist. Ban any religious practice from the workplace. Ban the proselytizing of religion in public places. Disallow any religious based education from schools. Affirm the secular nature of our state by denying religiosity any validity or political platform.

Thanks for making a suggestion about what we should do. I see now why you were so hesitant to do so.

You seem a bit confused Helian. One the one hand, you complain about religious discrimination. On the other, you blame religion as the problem and want an extreme form of religious discrimination, and fail to appreciate that it is the political ideology of Islam that is the problem, not religion in general, or the spritual aspects of Islam. What you propose is a denial of freedom that seems more similar to Islam than to our society. You want to replace Islam with your own version of extreme intolerance. Again, you respond to fear by throwing basic freedoms away as quickly as possible. Is this how you respond to threats in general?


Quote:

I am certainly not ignorant of the aspects of Islam that are concerning to so many, but I don't know that all muslims do want sharia law, or to see Islam become an all dominant world power.

I have met one Muslim who considers herself 'Koran only', which may match what you describe. However, if you take Sharia out of Islam, there isn't really much left. Muslims right here on OzPolitic back up our worst fears about Islam, though getting a straight answer out of them can be like pulling teeth. You are attempting to defend Islam by saying that Muslims don't actually accept the ideology of Islam. These bad things about Islam are not the lunatic fringe, they are the mainstream and modern interpretations. Imagine if the Pope came out and said we must destroy demcoracy, or that we must go back to stoning little grils to death who cheat on whatever dirty old man was chosen as their husband, or that apostates must be killed, or that blasphemers should be thrown to an angry mob. This is what they want to teach Australian children in an Australian school. Not a few centuries ago, but today. Why do you have such trouble accepting the vast gulf between Islam and other religions?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2009 at 7:17pm:

Thanks for making a suggestion about what we should do. I see now why you were so hesitant to do so. You seem a bit confused Helian. One the one hand, you complain about religious discrimination. On the other, you blame religion as the problem and want an extreme form of religious discrimination, and fail to appreciate that it is the political ideology of Islam that is the problem, not religion in general, or the spritual aspects of Islam. What you propose is a denial of freedom that seems more similar to Islam than to our society. You want to replace Islam with your own version of extreme intolerance. Again, you respond to fear by throwing basic freedoms away as quickly as possible. Is this how you respond to threats in general?

Yes, talk is easy. Your solution?

I think that most would realise, that when pointing out the many follies that make up Islam, they are preaching to the converted.

I have no regard for Islamic teachings, and find the majority of them, that I have seen, as bordering on being outright evil, and those that don't fall into that category, could, at the very least, be deemed as being grossly offensive.

Where I differ with some, is that I don't think the majority of people who call themselves muslims, follow Islam in the way that the extremists preach it, or in the strict sense that we have seen ascribed to it.

We see how often the extremist muslims denounce other muslims, as not being true muslims, to which that majority would contend the reverse to be true.

I fully agree with all that think strictly following the Koranic teachings, is a wicked political/religious system, based in violent, repressive, anachronistic ideologies, and Islam preached, and practiced in that way, deserves our condemnation, and opposition.

I just think that making the assumption that the majority of muslims do, or even wish to, follow Islam in that strictly literal sense, is not supported by what we see, with the unfortunate exception of the lunatic fringe, which are so evil, and so active, that they create a perception of being far greater in number, and influence, than they really are.

Now I accept that those who do follow Islam, could go either way, and if they did go over to the dark side, of the extremists, then we could well see the nightmare scenario predictions realised.

The thing is, we must choose a course of action that will see mainstream muslims withdraw any support for extremism, and continually demonising them, en masse, apart from being very unfair, seems a very poor way to try and achieve that goal.

I think the best we can do is support the everyday people who hold no truck with terrorists, or murderous zealots, by allowing them to live their normal peaceful life, and let the nutjobs condemn themselves by their own actions.

We do need to show the values we stand for, tolerance, peacefulness, and respect for the law, by tolerating differences which do not threaten us, allow peaceful co-existence of other religions, and strictly enforce all our laws, fairly and transparently.

If we do that, then young muslims will see the inherent value in our system, and respect it, and hopefully help to promote the same values in their Islamic communities.

When we accept that people are just people, with simple, personal goals, not just borg-like components of a vast Islamic mothership, then we will be one step closer to seeing the conflicts of the past, put behind us, for good, for good.

Quote:

If we do that, then young muslims will see the inherent value in our system, and respect it, and hopefully help to promote the same values in their Islamic communities.

Why would they respect it, when you don't?

Quote:

Yes, talk is easy. Your solution?

I think we should start by preventing the immigration of those who are ideologically opposed to democracy, personal freedom, human rights, freedom of religion etc. This would be a good move even without the problem of Islam. It makes a lot more sense than jailing people for telling you about their religion. Secondly, we should be more open and frank about the evil aspects of Islam and not shy away from voicing our concerns out of fear of offending people who hold these evil beliefs.


Quote:

I think that most would realise, that when pointing out the many follies that make up Islam, they are preaching to the converted.

I don't. I was only exposed to it very recently, and very slowly, by Abu et al. When it was just sprint going off, I didn't give it much consideration.


Quote:

We see how often the extremist muslims denounce other muslims, as not being true muslims, to which that majority would contend the reverse to be true.

This is largely a disagreement over the use of violence in the short term. It is not a disagreement over long term goals, only how to achieve them.


Quote:

I just think that making the assumption that the majority of muslims do, or even wish to, follow Islam in that strictly literal sense, is not supported by what we see

It is supported by what I see. All the Muslims who post here either back it up or insult me when I ask them their opinion. I see Muslim women getting around in the middle of summer wearing a tent. I see Muslims protesting violently about a benign cartoon on the other side of the world. I see Muslims remaining silent in the face of horrendous attacks on the freedom of women, like the pricks who throw acid in the face of women for dressing immodestly. I see Australian Muslims dismissing these acts as 'just another crime'.


Quote:

Now I accept that those who do follow Islam, could go either way, and if they did go over to the dark side, of the extremists, then we could well see the nightmare scenario predictions realised.

Mozz, what about the dark side of mainstream Islam? Do you deny that the four mainstream schools of Islam support the death penalty for apostasy for example? Abu's criticism of the lunatic fringe is not that their goals are evil, but that their implimentation of those goals is not technically correct according to Islam. There is a correct way to stone a 13 year old girl to death. That is what separates the fringe from the mainstream, not whether they should stone 13 year old girls to death.


Quote:

The thing is, we must choose a course of action that will see mainstream muslims withdraw any support for extremism, and continually demonising them, en masse, apart from being very unfair, seems a very poor way to try and achieve that goal.

You draw a magical line between mainstream and extreme Islam. But you fail to appreciate the difficulty in getting Muslims to act on it. You imagine a mainstream that simply does not exist, or is at best represented by mute apostates. Witness for example, Abu's almost total refusal to criticise fellow Muslims, and his eventual admission that he will always take the side of Muslims because they are Muslims, not because they are right. Muslims do not divide neatly into extremists and mainstream as you imagine they should.


Quote:

If we do that, then young muslims will see the inherent value in our system, and respect it, and hopefully help to promote the same values in their Islamic communities.

But Islam opposes those values, fundamentally. They see personal freedom for example as an evil. I am not going to start respecting Islam because some of them manage to follow it's commands and refrain from killing me until the appropriate time. Nor could I expect a rational Muslim to respect my beliefs. They are incompatible. It's like you think we should be polite and welcoming to one group of neonazis and ignore the preaching of their evil ideology, in case we push them to an even more extreme version of Nazism.

Young Muslims will either respect our values or choose Islam if we confront them with the reality of their choice. Pretending there is no conflict achieves nothing. We have seen from Abu the lengths they will go to to delude themselves and others into thinking there is no compatibility problem.


Quote:

When we accept that people are just people, with simple, personal goals, not just borg-like components of a vast Islamic mothership, then we will be one step closer to seeing the conflicts of the past, put behind us, for good, for good.

The way to treat them like real people is to be honest about what we think of their beliefs, not refrain from honesty because we fear the lunatic fringe, not turn a blind eye to their evil ideology because there are people around who are even more evil and we can't tell them apart. We are lying to them and misleading them. We are letting them think that Islam is somehow OK so long as they don't start slaughtering us just yet. We are letting them think that so long as they don't blow up buildings they are welcome to destroy our society gradually.

Mozz, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Perhaps you were simply born into freedom and democracy and think it's somehow natural and stable. It isn't. It cannot survive if we allow growing sections of our society and large institutions to undermine it. It must be protected, not sacrificed for the greater good and not tossed aside every time a lunatic flies a plane into a building. Events like 9/11 make our society stronger. It is not the lunatics, but the cold and methodical institutions that are the real threat to our society. It is naive to think that people can preach an ideology like Islam unchallenged and not have it lead to conflict. Your strategy of delaying that conflict in the hope they will simply give up will merely make it more bloody. Let us have it now, while our society can handle free debate and a conflict of words, not later when it becomes violent. There is no benefit in standing by silently while members of our community preach the destruction of democracy and freedom. If as you suggest, the majority of Muslims share our support for these things, then let them come out and say it, not pray five times a day in front of their peers for it's destruction.

Quote:

If as you suggest, the majority of Muslims share our support for these things, then let them come out and say it, not pray five times a day in front of their peers for it's destruction.

Yeah right, because the whole Islamic world is such a beacon of tolerance and democracy, that is of course what muslims want.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:

Quote: Yes, talk is easy. Your solution? I think we should start by preventing the immigration of those who are ideologically opposed to democracy, personal freedom, human rights, freedom of religion etc. This would be a good move even without the problem of Islam. It makes a lot more sense than jailing people for telling you about their religion. Secondly, we should be more open and frank about the evil aspects of Islam and not shy away from voicing our concerns out of fear of offending people who hold these evil beliefs.

I can't imagine any immgrant including Muslims not agreeing to those conditions?

How do we determine who is ideologically opposed? Would it be by their own declaration? How would it be phrased?

Do we prevent citizens from lobbying for laws that coincide somewhat with the intent of Sharia law, for example?

The lunatic fringe that Mozz seeks to focus our attention on is represented by people like Osama Bin Laden. The mainstream he wants us to turn a blind eye to is represented by people like Adolf Hitler - those who can trick a whole society into throwing away freedom and democracy. Which do you think is the bigger problem? You cannot get the world to reject democracy and freedom by force the way Osama tries to. That is why mainstream Islam rejects him. You can only get people to do it by tricking them, Hitler style. That is what mainstream Islam supports.

It is not people like Osama who scare me the most. It is people like Abu, who put such effort into misrepresenting Islam, to the point where words change their meaning to suit the agenda of Islam. It doesn't seem to matter that what people think is said and what is actually meant are completely different, because it furthers our tolerance of Islam a little bit longer. It is the great effort required to peel back the layers of deception, and the extraordinary skill with which Muslims take advantage of the limp wristed aquiesence of people like Mozz that scares me the most.

Quote:

I can't imagine any immgrant including Muslims not agreeing to those conditions?

Nor do I. I am not suggesting they be required to agree to these things, as the standard Muslim lie of leaving out the 'for now' bit will kick in. Read what I actually posted: preventing the immigration of those who are ideologically opposed to democracy, personal freedom, human rights, freedom of religion etc.


Quote:

How do we determine who is ideologically opposed? Would it be by their own declaration? How would it be phrased?

It would be like an interrogation. For example, if someone said they support democracy, you would keep asking till you found out whether they support real democracy, not the version where only Muslims can vote and only Muslims can run for office. It would not be a simple process of filling out forms and ticking the good box instead of the bad box. It would be like a job interview. We would apply the same standard to ideology that we currently demand for other things like health. I'm sure we make efforts to weed out Nazis etc. It's not that difficult once you decide to do it. We spend a fortune on checking out immigrants already. This is not something we canb afford to leave out.


Quote:

Do we prevent citizens from lobbying for laws that coincide somewhat with the intent of Sharia law, for example?

No, but we speak out against it. We don't hold our tongue in case we push them into Osama's arms.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

It is not people like Osama who scare me the most. It is people like Abu, who put such effort into misrepresenting Islam, to the point where words change their meaning to suit the agenda of Islam.

A skill sine qua non shared by every politician.

It's easy to propose what should be done in general terms, but the problem of defining the logistics of implementation paraphrases the fable of The Mice in Council and their plan to bell the cat of which the moral of the fable is - It is easy to propose impossible remedies.

It can currently take years to process an application for immigration. During that time I imagine exhaustive background checks are being completed.

How would you implement your proposal such that it would be a more effective defence against 'political undesirables'?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:

Quote: I can't imagine any immgrant including Muslims not agreeing to those conditions? Nor do I. I am not suggesting they be required to agree to these things, as the standard Muslim lie of leaving out the 'for now' bit will kick in. Read what I actually posted: preventing the immigration of those who are ideologically opposed to democracy, personal freedom, human rights, freedom of religion etc. [quote]How do we determine who is ideologically opposed? Would it be by their own declaration? How would it be phrased?

It would be like an interrogation. For example, if someone said they support democracy, you would keep asking till you found out whether they support real democracy, not the version where only Muslims can vote and only Muslims can run for office. It would not be a simple process of filling out forms and ticking the good box instead of the bad box. It would be like a job interview. We would apply the same standard to ideology that we currently demand for other things like health. I'm sure we make efforts to weed out Nazis etc. It's not that difficult once you decide to do it. We spend a fortune on checking out immigrants already. This is not something we canb afford to leave out.


Quote:

Do we prevent citizens from lobbying for laws that coincide somewhat with the intent of Sharia law, for example?

No, but we speak out against it. We don't hold our tongue in case we push them into Osama's arms.[/quote]
Would you really trust bureaucrats not to screw up an interrogation of that kind? Do you imagine that immigrants can't be versed in answering correctly prior to travel to Australia? What about the vernacular language barrier? How long would it be before stats proved that Muslims were being targetted and with that opposition to it in Parliament being raised?

To have been or are currently a member of or associated with a banned organisation is an easy (relatively) justification for disqualification as an immigrant... I'm sure they do that now. But what of those who are Muslim clean skins?

There are currently copious amounts of criticism and condemnation of Islam freely available. Speaking out against it is less a problem per se than not enough people seeing Islam as so great a threat to do so.

Q what was Stalin's religion?

A atheism

Q was Stalin against islamiic schools?

A yes

If building the Muslim school was only opposed by the Christian lobby than I say build it. That argument is simply one ignorant group denying the same privleges to another ignorant group. Yadda, your extreme commentry would have most moderate Australians (unfortunately) voluntering to help build the foundations of the school.

Based on what FD has stated, I agree. No to the Muslim school in Camden or anywhere else in Australia.

locutius wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 8:18am:

If building the Muslim school was only opposed by the Christian lobby than I say build it. That argument is simply one ignorant group denying the same privleges to another ignorant group. Yadda, your extreme commentry would have most moderate Australians (unfortunately) voluntering to help build the foundations of the school.

Except that Yadda has done his research and is right. Read the Islam 101 series I posted, and speak from facts not ignorance.


Quote:

Based on what FD has stated, I agree. No to the Muslim school in Camden or anywhere else in Australia.

The school also has extreme backers, which they have done their best to conceal. Who is the Quaranic Society? Nobody knows.
It is Tablighi Jamaat that is behind the school.

Tablighi Jamaat are hardliner Islamic missionaries.

Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions

by Alex Alexiev
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2005

http://www.meforum.org/686/tablighi-jamaat-jihads-stealthy-legions

Print  Send  RSS Share:      

Every fall, over a million almost identically dressed, bearded Muslim men from around the world descend on the small Pakistani town of Raiwind for a three-day celebration of faith. Similar gatherings take place annually outside of Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Bhopal, India. These pilgrims are no ordinary Muslims, though; they belong to a movement called Tablighi Jamaat ("Proselytizing Group"). They are trained missionaries who have dedicated much of their lives to spreading Islam across the globe. The largest group of religious proselytizers of any faith, they are part of the reason for the explosive growth of Islamic religious fervor and conversion.

Despite its size, worldwide presence, and tremendous importance, Tablighi Jamaat remains largely unknown outside the Muslim community, even to many scholars of Islam. This is no coincidence. Tablighi Jamaat officials work to remain outside of both media and governmental notice. Tablighi Jamaat neither has formal organizational structure nor does it publish details about the scope of its activities, its membership, or its finances. By eschewing open discussion of politics and portraying itself only as a pietistic movement, Tablighi Jamaat works to project a non-threatening image. Because of the movement's secrecy, scholars often have no choice but to rely on explanations from Tablighi Jamaat acolytes.

As a result, academics tend to describe the group as an apolitical devotional movement stressing individual faith, introspection, and spiritual development. The austere and egalitarian lifestyle of Tablighi missionaries and their principled stands against social ills leads many outside observers to assume that the group has a positive influence on society. Graham Fuller, a former CIA official and expert on Islam, for example, characterized Tablighi Jamaat as a "peaceful and apolitical preaching-to-the-people movement."[1] Barbara Metcalf, a University of California scholar of South Asian Islam, called Tablighi Jamaat "an apolitical, quietist movement of internal grassroots missionary renewal" and compares its activities to the efforts to reshape individual lives by Alcoholics Anonymous.[2] Olivier Roy, a prominent authority on Islam at Paris's prestigious Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, described Tablighi Jamaat as "completely apolitical and law abiding."[3] Governments normally intolerant of independent movements often make an exception for Tablighi Jamaat. The Bangladeshi prime minister and top political leadership, many of whom are Islamists, regularly attend their rallies, and Pakistani military officers, many of whom are sympathetic to militant Islam, even allow Tablighi missionaries to preach in the barracks.

Yet, the Pakistani experience strips the patina from Tablighi Jamaat's façade. Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif (1990-93; 1997-99), whose father was a prominent Tablighi member and financier, helped Tablighi members take prominent positions.[4] For example, in 1998, Muhammad Rafique Tarar took the ceremonial presidency while, in 1990, Javed Nasir assumed the powerful director-generalship of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's chief intelligence agency. When Benazir Bhutto, less sympathetic to Islamist causes, returned to the premiership in 1993, Tablighis conspired to overthrow her government. In 1995, the Pakistani army thwarted a coup attempt by several dozen high-ranking military officers and civilians, all of whom were members of the Tablighi Jamaat and some of whom also held membership in Harakat ul-Mujahideen, a U.S. State Department-defined terrorist organization.[5] Some of the confusion over Tablighi Jamaat's apolitical characterization derives from the fact that the movement does not consider individual states to be legitimate. They may not become actively involved in internal politics or disputes over local issues, but, from a philosophical and transnational perspective, the Tablighi Jamaat's millenarian philosophy is very political indeed. According to the French Tablighi expert Marc Gaborieau, its ultimate objective is nothing short of a "planned conquest of the world" in the spirit of jihad.[6]

Origins and Ideology

The prominent Deobandi cleric and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ilyas Kandhalawi (1885-1944) launched Tablighi Jamaat in 1927 in Mewat, India, not far from Delhi. From its inception, the extremist attitudes that characterize Deobandism permeated Tablighi philosophy. Ilyas's followers were intolerant of other Muslims and especially Shi‘ites, let alone adherents of other faiths. Indeed, part of Ilyas's impetus for founding Tablighi Jamaat was to counter the inroads being made by Hindu missionaries. They rejected modernity as antithetical to Islam, excluded women, and preached that Islam must subsume all other religions.[7] The creed grew in importance after Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq encouraged Deobandis to Islamize Pakistan.

The Tablighi Jamaat canon is bare-boned. Apart from the Qu'ran, the only literature Tablighis are required to read are the Tablighi Nisab, seven essays penned by a companion of Ilyas in the 1920s. Tablighi Jamaat is not a monolith: one subsection believes they should pursue jihad through conscience (jihad bin nafs) while a more radical wing advocates jihad through the sword (jihad bin saif).[8] But, in practice, all Tablighis preach a creed that is hardly distinguishable from the radical Wahhabi-Salafi jihadist ideology that so many terrorists share.

Part of the reason why the Tablighi Jamaat leadership can maintain such strict secrecy is its dynastic flavor. All Tablighi Jamaat leaders since Ilyas have been related to him by either blood or marriage. Upon Ilyas' 1944 death, his son, Maulana Muhammad Yusuf (1917-65), assumed leadership of the movement, dramatically expanding its reach and influence. Following the partition of India, Tablighi Jamaat spread rapidly in the new Muslim nation of Pakistan. Yusuf and his successor, Inamul Hassan (1965-95), transformed Tablighi Jamaat into a truly transnational movement with a renewed emphasis targeting conversion of non-Muslims, a mission the movement continues to the present day.

While few details are known about the group's structure, at the top sits the emir who, according to some observers, presides over a shura (council), which plays an advisory role. Further down are individual country organizations. By the late 1960s, Tablighi Jamaat had not only established itself in Western Europe and North America but even claimed adherents in countries like Japan, which has no significant Muslim population.

The movement's rapid penetration into non-Muslim regions began in the 1970s and coincides with the establishment of a synergistic relationship between Saudi Wahhabis and South Asian Deobandis. While Wahhabis are dismissive of other Islamic schools, they single out Tablighi Jamaat for praise, even if they disagree with some of its practices, such as willingness to pray in mosques housing graves. The late Sheikh ‘Abd al ‘Aziz ibn Baz, perhaps the most influential Wahhabi cleric in the late twentieth century, recognized the Tablighis good work and encouraged his Wahhabi brethren to go on missions with them so that they can "guide and advise them."[9] A practical result of this cooperation has been large-scale Saudi financing of Tablighi Jamaat. While Tablighi Jamaat in theory requires its missionaries to cover their own expenses during their trips, in practice, Saudi money subsidizes transportation costs for thousands of poor missionaries. While Tablighi Jamaat's financial activities are shrouded in secrecy, there is no doubt that some of the vast sums spent by Saudi organizations such as the World Muslim League on proselytism benefit Tablighi Jamaat. As early as 1978, the World Muslim League subsidized the building of the Tablighi mosque in Dewsbury, England, which has since become the headquarters of Tablighi Jamaat in all of Europe.[10] Wahhabi sources have paid Tablighi missionaries in Africa salaries higher than the European Union pays teachers in Zanzibar.[11] In both Western Europe and the United States, Tablighis operate interchangeably out of Deobandi and Wahhabi controlled mosques and Islamic centers.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

The West's misreading of Tablighi Jamaat actions and motives has serious implications for the war on terrorism. Tablighi Jamaat has always adopted an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam, but in the past two decades, it has radicalized to the point where it is now a driving force of Islamic extremism and a major recruiting agency for terrorist causes worldwide. For a majority of young Muslim extremists, joining Tablighi Jamaat is the first step on the road to extremism. Perhaps 80 percent of the Islamist extremists in France come from Tablighi ranks, prompting French intelligence officers to call Tablighi Jamaat the "antechamber of fundamentalism."[12] U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly adopting the same attitude. "We have a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States," the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section said in 2003, "and we have found that Al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the past."[13]

Recruitment methods for young jihadists are almost identical. After joining Tablighi Jamaat groups at a local mosque or Islamic center and doing a few local dawa (proselytism) missions, Tablighi officials invite star recruits to the Tablighi center in Raiwind, Pakistan, for four months of additional missionary training. Representatives of terrorist organizations approach the students at the Raiwind center and invite them to undertake military training.[14] Most agree to do so.

Tablighi Jamaat has long been directly involved in the sponsorship of terrorist groups. Pakistani and Indian observers believe, for instance, that Tablighi Jamaat was instrumental in founding Harakat ul-Mujahideen. Founded at Raiwind in 1980, almost all of the Harakat ul-Mujahideen's original members were Tablighis. Famous for the December 1998 hijacking of an Air India passenger jet and the May 8, 2002 murder of a busload of French engineers in Karachi, Harakat members make no secret of their ties. "The two organizations together make up a truly international network of genuine jihadi Muslims," one senior Harakat ul-Mujahideen official said.[15] More than 6,000 Tablighis have trained in Harakat ul-Mujahideen camps. Many fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s and readily joined Al-Qaeda after the Taliban defeated Afghanistan's anti-Soviet mujahideen.[16]

Another violent Tablighi Jamaat spin-off is the Harakat ul-Jihad-i Islami.[17] Founded in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this group has been active not only in the disputed Indian provinces of Jammu and Kashmir but also in the state of Gujarat, where Tablighi Jamaat extremists have taken over perhaps 80 percent of the mosques previously run by the moderate Barelvi Muslims.[18] The Tablighi movement is also very active in northern Africa where it became one of the four groups that founded the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria. Moroccan authorities are currently prosecuting sixty members of the Moroccan Tablighi offshoot Dawa wa Tabligh in connection with the May 16, 2003 terrorist attack on a Casablanca synagogue.[19] Dutch police are investigating links between the Moroccan cells and the November 2, 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.[20]

There are many other cases of individual Tablighis committing acts of terrorism. French Tablighi members, for example, have helped organize and execute attacks not only in Paris but also at the Hotel Asni in Marrakech in 1994.[21] Kazakh authorities expelled a number of Tablighi missionaries because they had been organizing networks advancing "extremist propaganda and recruitment."[22] Indian investigators suspect influential Tablighi leader, Maulana Umarji, and a group of his followers in the February 27, 2002 fire bombing of a train carrying Hindu nationalists in Gujarat, India. The incident sparked a wave of pogroms victimizing both Muslims and Hindus.[23] More recently, Moroccan authorities sentenced Yusef Fikri, a Tablighi member and leader of the Moroccan terrorist organization At-Takfir wal-Hijrah, to death for his role in masterminding the May 2003 Casablanca terrorist bombings that claimed more than forty lives.[24]

Tablighi Jamaat has also facilitated other terrorists' missions. The group has provided logistical support and helped procure travel documents. Many take advantage of Tablighi Jamaat's benign reputation. Moroccan authorities say that leaflets circulated by the terrorist group Al-Salafiyah al-Jihadiyah urged their members to join Islamic organizations that operate openly, such as Tablighi Jamaat, in order "to hide their identity on the one hand and influence these groups and their policies on the other."[25] In a similar vein, a Pakistani jihadi website commented that Tablighi Jamaat organizational structures can be easily adopted to jihad activities.[26] The Philippine government has accused Tablighi Jamaat, which has an 11,000-member presence in the country, of serving both as a conduit of Saudi money to the Islamic terrorists in the south and as a cover for Pakistani jihad volunteers.[27]

There is also evidence that Tablighi Jamaat directly recruits for terrorist organizations. As early as the 1980s, the movement sponsored military training for 900 recruits annually in Pakistan and Algeria while, in 1999, Uzbek authorities accused Tablighi Jamaat of sending 400 Uzbeks to terrorist training camps.[28] The West is not immune. British counterterrorism authorities estimate that at least 2,000 British nationals had gone to Pakistan for jihad training by 1998, and the French secret services report that between 80 and 100 French nationals fought for Al-Qaeda.[29]

A Trojan Horse for Terror in America?
Within the United States, the cases of American Taliban John Lindh, the "Lackawanna Six," and the Oregon cell that conspired to bomb a synagogue and sought to link up with Al-Qaeda,[30] all involve Tablighi missionaries.[31] Other indicted terrorists, such as "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, and Lyman Harris, who sought to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge, were all members of Tablighi Jamaat at one time or another.[32] According to Robert Blitzer, head of the FBI's first Islamic counterterrorism unit, between 1,000 and 2,000 Americans left to join the jihad in the 1990s alone.[33] Pakistani intelligence sources report that 400 American Tablighi recruits received training in Pakistani or Afghan terrorist camps since 1989.[34]

I don't think I was being ignorant. Go and read some of my own battles with the Muslims on this forum. Some of my arguments have been quite illuminating as to some of the confessions I was able to illicit.

I am unapologetically anti-Islam for the political reasons that FD summarised earlier. But come on, the Christian church opposes a Muslim school. That's just the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not interested in what John and Luke and Mark have to say (implied) about Islam as a political threat, I'd rather hear what you and Helian and Chomsky, Rawls, Rouseau and even Abu have to say about it.

Quote:

But come on, the Christian church opposes a Muslim school. That's just the pot calling the kettle black.

Not really. The Christian Church, even the biggest hardliners, do not want to set up a theocratic state with bishops or cardinals ruling in a dictatorship according to biblical law. Nor do they see it as *imperative* that every member of the Church help them with the most obscene violence to do so.

In contrast, Islam requires the faithful to destroy all other civilisations and install a theocracy run by clerics. It only works towards this goal. So getting upset about teh Churches saying this, is an ad hominem attack. They are not saying that they dio not like muslims because of their attitude to Jesus, they are making the very tactfully worded point that muslims seek to dominate the public space.

Case in point, a muslim in my street with a rev mobile, at 5.30am, goes outside and revs the hell out of it for perhaps 15 minutes, then goes back inside. You could see him gesturing at someone in the street - probably telling him to shut up - where someone dared to say to him, what the hell are you doing revving a car at 5.30am? It was if he wanted to provoke a confrontation with someone, and was daring them to try to stop him so there could be some violence.

A tactic all too often seen.

Calanen wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 8:28am:

The school also has extreme backers, which they have done their best to conceal. Who is the Quaranic Society? Nobody knows. It is Tablighi Jamaat that is behind the school. Tablighi Jamaat are hardliner Islamic missionaries.

As the the council’s legal team, barrister Craig Leggart SC and solicitor Chris Shaw, could not produce evidence that Jablighi Jamaat were backing the application for an Islamic school, they were barred from introducing hearsay at the appeal of terrorist links between the Quaranic society and Jablighi Jamaat.

Calanen wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 1:09pm:

Case in point, a muslim in my street with a rev mobile, at 5.30am, goes outside and revs the hell out of it for perhaps 15 minutes, then goes back inside. You could see him gesturing at someone in the street - probably telling him to shut up - where someone dared to say to him, what the hell are you doing revving a car at 5.30am? It was if he wanted to provoke a confrontation with someone, and was daring them to try to stop him so there could be some violence. A tactic all too often seen.

Maybe you should live next door to an arsehole mechanic, counsellor. One who has turned his garage into a workshop and starts early (like 4:30AM when he's not working all night) on hot days because he's got no air conditioning in the garage. Judging by all the swearing and pissing on that went on over there, I'm guessing he wasn't a Muslim.

I can tell you there were more than god-fearin' Christians who took exception to the banging and clanging that arked up in the morning.

The Council finally shut him down for running a business in a residential area.

Got him on planning grounds alone.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Calanen wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 8:28am: The school also has extreme backers, which they have done their best to conceal. Who is the Quaranic Society? Nobody knows. It is Tablighi Jamaat that is behind the school. Tablighi Jamaat are hardliner Islamic missionaries. As the the council’s legal team, barrister Craig Leggart SC and solicitor Chris Shaw, could not produce evidence that Jablighi Jamaat were backing the application for an Islamic school, they were barred from introducing hearsay at the appeal of terrorist links between the Quaranic society and Jablighi Jamaat.

So what? Just means they didnt find it. Or were not permitted to look. Issue a few subpoenas and you might find a lot. What other org could produce $20 million from nowhere?  All over muslim village, they are praising Tablighi Jamaat for bringing this school to camden - are the muslims their liars? Islamophobes? Rumour mongers? Or maybe they just know more than we do.

Calanen wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

All over muslim village, they are praising Tablighi Jamaat for bringing this school to camden - are the muslims their liars? Islamophobes? Rumour mongers? Or maybe they just know more than we do.

Well, if you're to be believed, counsellor, they're liars and rumour mongers... You're going with their word for it this time?

helian - feel free to have a look at muslim village.
I remember when muslims there were offering up prayers for the wannebe terrorists in melbourne.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 3:57pm:

helian - feel free to have a look at muslim village. I remember when muslims there were offering up prayers for the wannebe terrorists in melbourne.

How is that shocking? Given the redneck shyte I've read on nearly every politics forum I've been to including ozpolitic.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 4:03pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 3:57pm: helian - feel free to have a look at muslim village. I remember when muslims there were offering up prayers for the wannebe terrorists in melbourne. How is that shocking? Given the redneck shyte I've read on nearly every politics forum I've been to including ozpolitic.

;D ;D Well done Sprint, I got sucked into replying here, then I realized this had turned into something from the Islam Board. A place I have probably only frequented twice in the last 4 months or so.

Even though I disagreed with much that Abu said and I don't share the depth of Mantra's view of Abu's sincerity or loss, it was much more interesting (a) with Abu around and (b) before people forgot the difference between passionate debate and just stupid aggression that hijacked every discussion.

locutius wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 4:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 4:03pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 3:57pm: helian - feel free to have a look at muslim village. I remember when muslims there were offering up prayers for the wannebe terrorists in melbourne. How is that shocking? Given the redneck shyte I've read on nearly every politics forum I've been to including ozpolitic. ;D ;D Well done Sprint, I got sucked into replying here, then I realized this had turned into something from the Islam Board. A place I have probably only frequented twice in the last 4 months or so. Even though I disagreed with much that Abu said and I don't share the depth of Mantra's view of Abu's sincerity or loss, it was much more interesting (a) with Abu around and (b) before people forgot the difference between passionate debate and just stupid aggression that hijacked every discussion.

It's odd that this board is not more popular. People are always wanting to mouth off on the reply boards on newspaper sites.

I think its the poo brown colour scheme that turns people off. Needs to be blue and white. Flick the switch maestro.

locutius wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 4:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 4:03pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28th, 2009 at 3:57pm: helian - feel free to have a look at muslim village. I remember when muslims there were offering up prayers for the wannebe terrorists in melbourne. How is that shocking? Given the redneck shyte I've read on nearly every politics forum I've been to including ozpolitic. ;D ;D Well done Sprint, I got sucked into replying here, then I realized this had turned into something from the Islam Board. A place I have probably only frequented twice in the last 4 months or so. Even though I disagreed with much that Abu said and I don't share the depth of Mantra's view of Abu's sincerity or loss, it was much more interesting (a) with Abu around and (b) before people forgot the difference between passionate debate and just stupid aggression that hijacked every discussion.

abu made bad mistake using unfair and unjust moderation on his board biasing towards his muslim brothers forgetting that here is not muslim country.

Anyway let's get back to topic and compaire how opposing is done here in Australia "Churches oppose Islamic school" and there in muslim country

Quote:

Last Wednesday’s anti-Christian violence in Karachi left 15 people wounded and resulted in the houses of 15 Christian families being set on fire, putting Christians on alert as the Taliban increases its influence in Pakistan. ... Fr. Mario Rodriguez, the Karachi-based Director of the Pontifical Mission Societies of Pakistan, told Fides news agency that several Taliban members were caught spraying offensive and intimidating messages on the walls of a church. The vandals were stopped by a group of Christians, but they returned with over 40 armed soldiers who began firing on the gathered Christians. Fifteen were wounded, one man seriously. The mob then began to sack the nearby houses of 15 Christian families, later setting them on fire.

Talibanization

Of course there is no denying, it's a good thing that the Christian churches have modifidied their behaviour over the past few centuries. Unfortunately not before passing on their inspirational conversion via flame technique to many many cultures. Well Done!!

Quote:

It's odd that this board is not more popular. People are always wanting to mouth off on the reply boards on newspaper sites. I think its the poo brown colour scheme that turns people off. Needs to be blue and white. Flick the switch maestro.

A colour change was suggested a while back.  FD likes this colour - it grows on you I suppose, but a different colour could attract more people.


Quote:

Even though I disagreed with much that Abu said and I don't share the depth of Mantra's view of Abu's sincerity or loss, it was much more interesting (a) with Abu around and (b) before people forgot the difference between passionate debate and just stupid aggression that hijacked every discussion

Yes Locutius - Abu did attract a lot of people and I agree with you - aggression did hijack every discussion.  I found Abu reasonable and articulate and he had every right to defend his beliefs without being denigrated to the extent he was.

mantra wrote on Apr 29^th, 2009 at 10:08am:

Quote: It's odd that this board is not more popular. People are always wanting to mouth off on the reply boards on newspaper sites. I think its the poo brown colour scheme that turns people off. Needs to be blue and white. Flick the switch maestro. A colour change was suggested a while back.  FD likes this colour - it grows on you I suppose, but a different colour could attract more people.

You can change the colour scheme once a member, it that helps. Doesn't help the guests, of course. Maybe we could have a vote on it?

Quote:

A skill sine qua non shared by every politician.

So what's you're point Helian? You seem to appreciate the political nature of the threat of Islam, yet you seem to insist that we refrain from going after it the same way we do politicians. No-one would suggest we refrain from criticising Pauline Hanson because she means well, or in case her followers turn to someone even more extreme. Why do you suggest this for Islam?


Quote:

It's easy to propose what should be done in general terms, but the problem of defining the logistics of implementation paraphrases the fable of The Mice in Council and their plan to bell the cat of which the moral of the fable is - It is easy to propose impossible remedies.

What is it about my remedy that is impossible? Are you suggesting that we simply not try to keep people out of Australia who are dedicated to destroying it, merely because it's a bit difficult? You are the one with the impossible remedy, not me.


Quote:

It can currently take years to process an application for immigration. During that time I imagine exhaustive background checks are being completed.

I am not merely suggesting we do background checks.


Quote:

How would you implement your proposal such that it would be a more effective defence against 'political undesirables'?

I would add an interrogation or two on this issue to the interview process, or make it a fundamental part of it. I'm not sure why you think this would be so difficult.


Quote:

Would you really trust bureaucrats not to screw up an interrogation of that kind?

I don't trust bureaucrats to do anything. They need to be kept on a short leash. That is not the same as giving up and not even trying. Am I correct that this is your standard response to everything - ooh that sounds tough or complicated, therefor it is impossible?


Quote:

Do you imagine that immigrants can't be versed in answering correctly prior to travel to Australia?

Anything is possible. The process of doing that would make them feel less welcome. The more Islam demands it's followers to openly lie in its name, the more it undermines it's moral authority.


Quote:

What about the vernacular language barrier?

Now you are really clutching at straws. Do you really believe that a language barrier would prevent this?


Quote:

How long would it be before stats proved that Muslims were being targetted and with that opposition to it in Parliament being raised?

It would happen immediately, because Muslims would be targetted, because they would fail the test. That's the whole point Helian. Don't you get it? If it weeded out a few non-Muslims loonies in the process, all the better.


Quote:

I am unapologetically anti-Islam for the political reasons that FD summarised earlier. But come on, the Christian church opposes a Muslim school. That's just the pot calling the kettle black.

No it's not. Like it or not, our nation was founded on Christian values. Whatever you ascribe modern Australian values to, they are fundamentally at odds with Islam. I feel no threat to them from other faiths.


Quote:

I think its the poo brown colour scheme that turns people off. Needs to be blue and white. Flick the switch maestro.

I think you can change it in your personal options.


Quote:

You can change the colour scheme once a member, it that helps. Doesn't help the guests, of course. Maybe we could have a vote on it?

Go ahead and vote on it. Or better yet, choose two colours and come up with an alternative scheme first.

Quote:

It would happen immediately, because Muslims would be targetted, because they would fail the test.

What would the test determine? You are/are not a Muslim?


Quote:

Whatever you ascribe modern Australian values to, they are fundamentally at odds with Islam.

The points system, background checks, interrogations, long delays (which have the added benefit of observing current behaviour) are all done now. Nothing that you suggest is not done now. There are immigrants in Australia who will tell you of their long wait (in years) to immigrate, their multiple interviews (asking any number of questions) and requirements for more and more documentation, the rejections and reapplications.

So far you've waffled on about 'more interviews.. we need more interviews' (although what you'd ask that is not already asked, you won't say). I believe there's currently no limit to the number of interviews that can be requested. Have you actually ever spoken to anyone who's gone through the immigration mill at its most stringent?

The solution I believe you’re after would be one that excludes the immigration of Muslims because they are Muslims. That I believe is utterly naïve, raises the spectre of the White Australia policy and would be impossible to implement without the kind of condemnation that Australia (the nation that played a leading role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) would not endure.

The fear is yours.

Quote:

What would the test determine? You are/are not a Muslim?

No Helian, it would determine whether you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc. Sort of like what Howard was suggesting, only not about meat pies.


Quote:

The points system, background checks, interrogations, long delays (which have the added benefit of observing current behaviour) are all done now. Nothing that you suggest is not done now.

Are you claiming that current immigration rules exclude people based on political ideology?


Quote:

So far you've waffled on about 'more interviews.. we need more interviews' (although what you'd ask that is not already asked, you won't say).

But I have said Helian. In fact, I brought up the interviews in direct response to you asking me how I would find out the information I wanted. I started by suggesting very specific views that should exclude people from immigrating. I have repeated those views in just about every response to you. I'm not sure how you missed that. It's not like I came striaght out and said we need more bureaucracy.


Quote:

The solution I believe you’re after would be one that excludes the immigration of Muslims because they are Muslims.

No Helian. It would exclude the immigration of Muslims because they oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc. In fact, there would probably be plenty of self identified Muslims who would not be excluded by this, given the variability in personal ideology that comes under the various religious lables.

Helian, you appear to be suggesting that it is OK for immigrants to hold ideologies that are dedicated to destroying our society, so long as they can attach a religious label to them, as if it would be OK for Nazis to immigrate so long as they thought Hitler was the prophet. Is this what you really believe? You seem to understand that our objections are based on political ideology, yet you keep repeating 'but... but it's a religion' as if that makes it all OK.


Quote:

That I believe is utterly naïve, raises the spectre of the White Australia policy

So now you have gone from pretending that objecting to specific political ideologies is purely religious discrimination, to pretending that it is racism. Do you have any arguments that address the points we have actually raised, or is your entire argument based on a series of strawmen?


Quote:

and would be impossible to implement without the kind of condemnation that Australia (the nation that played a leading role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) would not endure

Let me get this striaght, on the one hand you argue that "Nothing that you suggest is not done now". On the other hand you argue that my suggestion would be impossible to implement. On the third hand, you argue that I won't say what my suggestion is. I am having trouble figuring out which of your arguments is the real one and which are the ones you slipped in as a little joke, to see if anyone still reads your posts. Would you care to tell me?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 10:03pm:

No Helian, it would determine whether you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc.

Refusal of entry based on those criteria is already the case and has been for a long time. Suspected political and active association with the Chinese Communist Party is one instance I directly know of where multiple interviews, screeds of documentation, long delays, rejections, and reapplications were required before final approval to immigrate was granted and that took 5 years.


Quote:

Are you claiming that current immigration rules exclude people based on political ideology?

Yes, apparently, as above.


Quote:

No Helian. It would exclude the immigration of Muslims because they oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc. In fact, there would probably be plenty of self identified Muslims who would not be excluded by this, given the variability in personal ideology that comes under the various religious lables.

I know that currently if Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.


Quote:

Helian, you appear to be suggesting that it is OK for immigrants to hold ideologies that are dedicated to destroying our society, so long as they can attach a religious label to them, as if it would be OK for Nazis to immigrate so long as they thought Hitler was the prophet. Is this what you really believe? You seem to understand that our objections are based on political ideology, yet you keep repeating 'but... but it's a religion' as if that makes it all OK.

If Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.


Quote:

Let me get this striaght, on the one hand you argue that "Nothing that you suggest is not done now". On the other hand you argue that my suggestion would be impossible to implement. On the third hand, you argue that I won't say what my suggestion is.

If Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.

What does not currently happen, it seems, is that a prospective immigrant is refused entry solely on the basis that he/she is a Muslim…. Which is what, I believe, you’re really driving at.


Quote:

I am having trouble figuring out which of your arguments is the real one and which are the ones you slipped in as a little joke, to see if anyone still reads your posts. Would you care to tell me?

Don’t worry, FDD… I’m sure someone still reads your gardening section.

helian - that's interesting.


Quote:

If Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.

I might put together a case to present to the immigration dept concerning muslims.
Anyone want to contribute ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:06pm:

helian - that's interesting. Quote: If Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now. I might put together a case to present to the immigration dept concerning muslims. Anyone want to contribute ?

Refusal of entry based on your belief in Islam would exclude the likes of Salman Rushdie and Muhammed Ali. It'd be pure entertainment watching an immigration minister trying to talk us around as to why the great Ali is not good enough to come here because he's a Muslim.

Well, is there a direct logical link there helian.


Should every muslim desire for islam all over the world ?

This is not a rhetoric question, please answer

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:23pm:

Well, is there a direct logical link there helian. Should every muslim desire for islam all over the world ? This is not a rhetoric question, please answer

Not being a Muslim, I can only guess... But I'd say yes, they'd probably desire Islam all over the world. I know committed Christians desire the same for Christianity ... and the Coca-Cola co. want us all drinking coke.

And does islam suppress democracy, human rights and freedom of religion ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:30pm:

And does islam suppress democracy, human rights and freedom of religion ?

Islam doesn't supress anything... Although some Muslims might.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:26pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:23pm: Well, is there a direct logical link there helian. Should every muslim desire for islam all over the world ? This is not a rhetoric question, please answer Not being a Muslim, I can only guess... But I'd say yes, they'd probably desire Islam all over the world. I know committed Christians desire the same for Christianity ... and the Coca-Cola co. want us all drinking coke.

This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know.

Soren wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:43pm:

This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know.

Take a chill pill, Soren... Don't they got humour in Scandinavia?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:43pm: This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know. Take a chill pill, Soren... Don't they got humour in Scandinavia?

Sorry to step on your toe, pal. Equivocate away, we are here to laugh at/near you.

Soren wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:50pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:46pm: Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:43pm: This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know. Take a chill pill, Soren... Don't they got humour in Scandinavia? Sorry to step on your toe, pal. Equivocate away, we are here to laugh at/near you.

You're here to dribble sh!t.

helian - thanks for that comment.


Quote:

Islam doesn't supress anything... Although some Muslims might.

I quite accept it from you.

Unfortunately from my experiences, readings and knowledge I feel islam wants to suppress and deny.


Course, we are in a democratic society, so you can disagree.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:58pm:

helian - thanks for that comment. Quote: Islam doesn't supress anything... Although some Muslims might. I quite accept it from you. Unfortunately from my experiences, readings and knowledge I feel islam wants to suppress and deny. Course, we are in a democratic society, so you can disagree.

You missed my point.

Ah, sorry, that's quite likely.

What was your point ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 12:04am:

Ah, sorry, that's quite likely. What was your point ?

Islam, like the Old Testament, is a book...

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:57pm:

Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:46pm: Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:43pm: This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know. Take a chill pill, Soren... Don't they got humour in Scandinavia? Sorry to step on your toe, pal. Equivocate away, we are here to laugh at/near you. You're here to dribble sh!t.

Bloody Hell, Ian, the inner demon is bulging through. Don't they get humour in Scandinavia, he says. Then looses his cool. Bad faith, as I said.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 12:14am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:57pm: Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:50pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:46pm: Soren wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:43pm: This is an excellent and conclusive example of your bad faith. To equivocate between Islam or Christianity and Coca Cola. Even you know that this is empty, silly rhetoric and spin and fools no-one. And we know that you know. Take a chill pill, Soren... Don't they got humour in Scandinavia? Sorry to step on your toe, pal. Equivocate away, we are here to laugh at/near you. You're here to dribble sh!t. Bloody Hell, Ian, the inner demon is bulging through. Don't they get humour in Scandinavia, he says. Then looses his cool. Bad faith, as I said.

Nah, that's me taking the p!ss...

islam is a book ???
So ?

It's a bad book, should be banned and burned.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 12:18am:

islam is a book ??? So ? It's a bad book, should be banned and burned.

You're a book burner now are you, Sprint?

islam is not a book.

But i would certainly burn that too.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 12:25am:

islam is not a book. But i would certainly burn that too.

Yes, right you are. Islam is a codification as written in the Koran et al...

It won't hurt you any more than the codfications in the Old Testament...

islam is a political system.
islam is a police enforcement.
islam is a society laws.
islam is a straight jacket and a set of blinkers.
islam is a road back 1400 years
islam is sexist

Quote:

I know that currently if Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.

Can you back this up? Do they actively seek this sort of info on applicants? How come I got no response when I asked the immigration minister about these specific issues? Surely if they already had a policy I would have recieved a stock response.


Quote:

What does not currently happen, it seems, is that a prospective immigrant is refused entry solely on the basis that he/she is a Muslim…. Which is what, I believe, you’re really driving at.

No Helian, that is not what I am really driving at. How many times do you need me to repeat this?


Quote:

Islam doesn't supress anything... Although some Muslims might.

So we should blame Muslims, not Islam?


Quote:

Islam, like the Old Testament, is a book...

No helain. The Koran is a book. Islam is an ideology. Not quite sure what point you were trying to make here.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 8:30pm:

Can you back this up? Do they actively seek this sort of info on applicants? How come I got no response when I asked the immigration minister about these specific issues? Surely if they already had a policy I would have recieved a stock response.

No response? Bit strange. Did you write a letter requiring a Ministerial response?

I can only back it up from what an officer within Immigration has privately told me and more directly what a Chinese couple told me, who are friends and one time work colleagues of mine.

She was mainland Chinese born whose family had migrated to Singapore. He was Singapore born with close family connections to mainland China. They applied to immigrate as Singaporean citizens.

They told me the application process was long and arduous and their first application endured for nearly two years. At separate interviews with him and her, they asked the bog standard stuff first, then the ‘Why Australia and not X?’ ones. Then the questions focussed on her family and the reasons why they sometimes travelled to the mainland. They told me they answered honestly… they had no association with the Chinese Communist Party and any trips to the mainland were for family reasons alone. They had two rounds of interviews each.

The problem appeared to be her background. She came from a prominent Chinese family in China. Her grandfather was influential in her home region from an inherited title and was held in high regard but ostensibly, he did not belong to the Communist Party.

Although they met all the criteria in every way (skilled, no police record, settled, good character etc…) they were rejected. They were invited to reapply after a waiting period (I think he said it was 1 year).

They reapplied after the waiting period and went through a similar process.

About a year later their second application was finally approved. They arrived in Australia five years after first applying.


There is the Australian Values Statement requirement and Immigration do have a published policy regarding background checks and character assessments :

Quote:

Section 501 of the Act contains a character test to ensure that visa applicants and visa holders are of acceptable character. The test puts the onus on visa applicants, and visa holders, to show that they are of good character. As well as being a tool to help assess the suitability of applicants to enter and stay in Australia, the test introduces discretionary powers to either refuse or cancel visas if a non-citizen fails the character test. The character test A person will fail the character test where: they have a substantial criminal record they have, or have had, an association with an individual, group or organisation suspected of having been, or being, involved in criminal conduct having regard to the person's past and present criminal conduct, the person is found not to be of good character having regard to the person's past and present general conduct, the person is found to be not of good character there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct in Australia, harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia, vilify a segment of the Australian community, or incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community, or represent a danger to the Australian community or a segment of that community.

I’m guessing Immigration like to keep it to themselves what they actually ask potentially controversial applicants.

If all this is not good enough for you regarding Muslims entering Australia (given that you believe that the practise of Islam is fundamentally opposed to Australian values and thereby implying that being a devout Muslim alone is one criterion  for refusal of entry), then the only option you could argue for is a blanket ban on Muslim immigration or entry of any kind into Australia.

A final solution, as it were.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:42pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:30pm: And does islam suppress democracy, human rights and freedom of religion ? Islam doesn't supress anything... Although some Muslims might.

helian,

So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign?

But, it is individual muslims who are flawed, in their 'application', of their faith?

Is that what you are suggesting?

If so, you are wrong! [.....in my opinion.]

As a thinking rational person [you helian !], i find it difficult to believe that you hold such a view, such a perspective of ISLAM.

But if i must accept your view, i really can't understand why you would hold such an IGNORANT, IGNORANT, view of ISLAM.

.....except to suggest that, YOU ARE CLEARLY, WILLINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT WHAT ISLAM ENCOURAGES IN ITS FOLLOWERS.







http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/Tehran-stoning.jpg

".....HE WHO CONFESSES HIS GUILT OF ADULTERY"
".....go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her.....and she was stoned to death."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/017.smt.html#017.4209




AND....


From ISLAMIC law texts, 'whoever becomes an unbeliever'....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110




"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025349.php

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society



AN EXAMPLE, of enforcement against Jahiliyya, in Sharia jurisdictions....

March 23, 2005
Death at 'immoral' picnic in the park
Students are beaten to death for playing music as Shia militiamen run amok
.....In Basra.....Islamic militias already are beginning to apply their own version of that law [Sharia], without authority from above or any challenge from the police.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article434762.ece

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 2^nd, 2009 at 12:18am:

islam is a book ??? So ? It's a bad book, should be banned and burned.

sprint,

Please.

Absolutely not!!!

If we ban something, such as the Koran for instance, how can we have an informed opinion about its contents, and what it encourages???

Should we ban the practice of ISLAM [within Australia]?

Yes [in my opinion].



But do not ban the source of the information, which informs us, about the values which ISLAM promulgates among its followers.

Don't ban the knowledge of the 'evil'.




'Book burning', is dumb.

'Book burning', is promoting a 'darkness' in the world.

We need more LIGHT in the world.

So many ppl in our society have so little discernment, between good and evil.

How do we get such discernment?

Shine a LIGHT on evil, on everything.

Quote:

If Immigration determine that you oppose democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc you can be refused entry now.

All they would have to do is say, 'Are you a muslim?' then.

A practising muslim, opposes democracy because it is manmade govt that is an abomination in the eyes of allah. The only true government is sharia.

A true muslim opposes freedom of religion, because the only true religion is islam. The people of the book, christians and jews can be kept around to do the work in the Islamic apartheid state, but, no one can convert to those faiths, they can only convert away from them. And of course, any who leave the islamic faith are killed.

That's what Islam believes. It would be interesting to see how individual muslims would explain that they do not believe that, even though they are muslims.

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 1:12am:

helian, So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign? But, it is individual muslims who are flawed, in their 'application', of their faith? Is that what you are suggesting?

What I mean is this – As with the Jewish Torah, the Christian Old Testament and to a lesser extent the New Testament, texts that advocate and describe extreme violence against non-believers (although much less prevalent, more metaphoric and encrypted in the NT), their prescribed extremism is not practised today. So too, it is possible for Islamic extremist text to be abrogated in practise… It is, after all, only text.

Of course if any religion, where some of whose adherents claim expressly justifies violence and intolerance towards non-believers, could be easily banned, then that would be a more preferable option to its accommodation (much like new religious cults can be dealt with while their membership is small). But I don’t believe banning is a viable option with an ancient, widespread and widely practised religion such as Islam and the search for a reasonable accommodation should continue.

Perhaps the answer lies with modern Sufism, which advocates a practise of Islam that is tolerant and has been described as ‘undogmatic, flexible and non-violent’. Even the Indian government (a nation that has been in a state of almost perpetual cold and hot war with an Islamic state for over 60 years) praises Sufism for its tolerance.

In the coming decade or two, however, there may be a ‘Pax-Cathayan’ imposed on our region, with its source being ‘liberated’ from the constraints of democracy, human rights and respect for religion. If that is the case, then Islam will no longer be a problem, as it’s practise will probably be banned or severely curtailed (along with many other things)… and these constraints will be enforced by a colossal iron fist.

have just emailed this query to the immigration dept.
Will see what he reply is, in due course.




Quote:

Good morning, How are you today ? I just have a few general questions you may be able to help me with. This question arose on a chat site I chat in, and you are the experts to ask . If Immigration determines  that a person who wants to immigrate to Australila opposes democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc will they be refused entry ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 10:19am:

have just emailed this query to the immigration dept. Will see what he reply is, in due course. Quote: Good morning, How are you today ? I just have a few general questions you may be able to help me with. This question arose on a chat site I chat in, and you are the experts to ask . If Immigration determines  that a person who wants to immigrate to Australila opposes democracy, human rights, freedom of religion etc will they be refused entry ?

If you want an official reply that you can track, write a letter to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship either directly or via your Federal MP requesting a response.

Since October 2007, all potential migrants are required to sign an Australian Values statement, that expressly requires the new immigrant to respect democracy, human rights and freedom of religion. Falure to do so will result in refusal of entry.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 10:23am:

If you want an official reply that you can track, write a letter to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship either directly or via your Federal MP requesting a response. Since October 2007, all potential migrants are required to sign an Australian Values statement, that expressly requires the new immigrant to respect democracy, human rights and freedom of religion. Falure to do so will result in refusal of entry.

As if anyone isn't going to sign it.  Maybe they should all be put on a few years probation to prove their worth.

mantra wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 11:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3rd, 2009 at 10:23am: If you want an official reply that you can track, write a letter to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship either directly or via your Federal MP requesting a response. Since October 2007, all potential migrants are required to sign an Australian Values statement, that expressly requires the new immigrant to respect democracy, human rights and freedom of religion. Falure to do so will result in refusal of entry. As if anyone isn't going to sign it.  Maybe they should all be put on a few years probation to prove their worth.

Well, until someone has pledged to do something, they can't be censured for not having done it. As they're on a visa, they can be refused citizenship and the visa can be revoked if they violate their undertaking to respect Australian values. But there is no process which requires honesty that cannot be subverted. However, every permanent resident must wait at least one year before applying for citizenship, which is in effect a probationary period. If that is deemed too short, make it five years.

Quote:

If all this is not good enough for you regarding Muslims entering Australia (given that you believe that the practise of Islam is fundamentally opposed to Australian values and thereby implying that being a devout Muslim alone is one criterion  for refusal of entry)

Again Helain, I have not said that. In fact, I have directly contradicted that. Please stop putting words into my mouth.


Quote:

Since October 2007, all potential migrants are required to sign an Australian Values statement, that expressly requires the new immigrant to respect democracy, human rights and freedom of religion. Falure to do so will result in refusal of entry.

What does the statement say? Is signing it the extent to which immigration officials chase this issue up? It sounds to me like the only issue they investigate seriously is criminal conduct.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 5:48pm:

What does the statement say? Is signing it the extent to which immigration officials chase this issue up? It sounds to me like the only issue they investigate seriously is criminal conduct.

Don't know to what degree Immi surveille applicants for proof of commitment to (or at least proof of rejection of) Australian values... The devil's in the details... but I bet they wouldn't disclose to anyone what they did and/or what they requested of ASIO and AFP.

Criminal conduct, I'm sure is No 1... I believe they are also at least very interested in certain poltical ideologies to which a potential immigrant might subscribe.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 10:15am:

Yadda wrote on May 3rd, 2009 at 1:12am: helian, So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign? But, it is individual muslims who are flawed, in their 'application', of their faith? Is that what you are suggesting? What I mean is this – As with the Jewish Torah, the Christian Old Testament and to a lesser extent the New Testament, texts that advocate and describe extreme violence against non-believers (although much less prevalent, more metaphoric and encrypted in the NT), their prescribed extremism is not practised today. So too, it is possible for Islamic extremist text to be abrogated in practise… It is, after all, only text.

helian,

You are incorrect, mistaken, in stating that the Jewish Torah, the Christian Old Testament, advocates violence against non-believers.

e.g.
Exodus 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Exodus 23:9
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34  But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.


Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
18  He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
19  Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Matthew 22:36
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38  This is the first and great commandment.
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.




I would suggest that many of those examples of extreme violence in the OT, were directed against those deemed to be WICKED [by the God of Israel] and against those ppl's who were occupying the 'promised land' - which God [said he had] given to the Children of Israel.

Of course there were also some very severe punishments set out in the Mosaic Law, to be applied against God's own ppl [not strangers/unbelievers] who were transgressors of God's law's.

And this fact demonstrates a doctrinal dichotomy which exists between ISLAM, and Judaism [relating to 'unbelievers'].



helian,

And you didn't answer my previous question....

So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign.....more so than Judaism or Christianity ?




helian,

ALSO PLEASE NOTE.....

All of the 'Golden Rule' verses identified within ISLAMIC religious texts, ARE ONLY INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO FELLOW MUSLIMS - [and excluding any application to 'unbelievers'].


'Golden Rule' = = 'treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.'



AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR
by Bill Warner (Jan 2007)
"......Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and most atheists agree that lying, theft, murder, destroying the sanctity of family, and lusting after other people’s property is bad behavior.
Upon reflection, all of these prohibitions prevent harm to others. We don’t harm others and we don’t want to be harmed. We all want to be treated well and this is the best way to treat others, hence the Golden Rule:
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
The Golden Rule is an ethic of unity. Everyone is treated the same. One ethical system for all people.
This has been said in many ways in many religions and cultures. But there is a religion and culture that does not agree with these ethics—Islam.
......What are Islamic ethics and where do we find them?
.....A Muslim should be a brother to other Muslims (not the rest of humanity). A Muslim should not kill another Muslim. A Muslim may lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
So for Islam the ethical statements are:
Do not kill another Muslim.
Do not steal from another Muslim.
Do not deceive another Muslim.
Islam divides the entire world into Islam and nonbelievers and has two sets of ethics, one for Islam and another for the rest. The Golden Rule has the equality of all humanity as its basis. It is not: Do unto some people, as you would have them do unto you, but do unto all people as you would have them do unto you.
Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because Islam starts with the division of the entire world, all humanity, into two different groups—Islamic and non-Islamic. Every aspect of Islamic ethics is based upon this separation. Having two distinct groups leads to two different ethical codes. Said another way, Islam has dualistic ethics.....
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5208&sec_id=5208

Quote:

So too, it is possible for Islamic extremist text to be abrogated in practise… It is, after all, only text.

The problem with that is, once you take all the bad parts out, there isn't much left. Other religions manage to remain relevant to people despite dropping the historical baggage, but Islam is all historical baggage. That is why Islam as an institution and as a following is the last to modernise of all the major religions. It cannot be rendered into a form that is acceptable to civilised people without destroying it in the process. That is why, despite all the other predictors of progressive change that are present in many Islamic countries (eg vast wealth) they still remain so backwards. That is why Muslims are still killing each other in such vast numbers.

Yadda

Yes, it advocates violence against all those who come between the Children of Israel and whatever they want...

And advocates doing enemies a real mischief, such as this little number...


Quote:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31 17:18

And the oft quoted...


Quote:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18

(the above used for centuries by Christians to burn women to death).

And if you  have need of a slave or two, well...


Quote:

If thou buy an Hebrew servant [slave], six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. Exodus 21:2 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. Exodus 21:7

Then there’s the murder of Canaanites and Hittites and their driving out of their homes so as the Children of Israel can usurp their land.

Muhammed and Moses had a lot in common.


Quote:

So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign.....more so than Judaism or Christianity ?

The practise of Islam, Judaism and Christianity can be as benign or as bloody as their respective adherents wish to practise it. Either way they can and always do find scriptural justification for consequential actions.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 3:45pm:

Quote: So too, it is possible for Islamic extremist text to be abrogated in practise… It is, after all, only text. The problem with that is, once you take all the bad parts out, there isn't much left. Other religions manage to remain relevant to people despite dropping the historical baggage, but Islam is all historical baggage. That is why Islam as an institution and as a following is the last to modernise of all the major religions. It cannot be rendered into a form that is acceptable to civilised people without destroying it in the process. That is why, despite all the other predictors of progressive change that are present in many Islamic countries (eg vast wealth) they still remain so backwards. That is why Muslims are still killing each other in such vast numbers.

It appears Sufis can practise Islam and remain tolerant and benign.

Dervishes appear OK with singing and dancing despite what Islamist fundamentalists preach.

and this is what happens to them:

http://sunninews.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/sufis-killed-in-pakistan-by-terrorists/

Remember, the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning under all four mainstream sunni schools of Islam, and shia. Sufis are considered apostates.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

and this is what happens to them: http://sunninews.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/sufis-killed-in-pakistan-by-terrorists/ Remember, the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning under all four mainstream sunni schools of Islam, and shia. Sufis are considered apostates.

Approximately 20% of Muslims are Sufis (about 240 million).

The practise of Islam is not singularly monolithic and need not necessarily be practised in its bloodiest and intolerant forms.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

Quote: So are you suggesting that ISLAM itself, is benign.....more so than Judaism or Christianity ? The practise of Islam, Judaism and Christianity can be as benign or as bloody as their respective adherents wish to practise it. Either way they can and always do find scriptural justification for consequential actions.

True.








http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
Muslims 'peacefully' protesting on the streets of London

I wonder what it is, which inspires muslims, to such extreme views???
/sarc off

Hmmmm....

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other......"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.029


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008
v. 8-11


"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.089


"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah:"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028


"O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.144


"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123


"Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/018.qmt.html#018.102


"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.073
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.009


"Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.101


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.216


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
[i.e. if a muslim takes a Jew or Christian as a friend, he becomes an apostate!]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051


++++++++++


Compare those quotes from the 'progressive' Koran [above] with ....

This from the Jewish Torah, which was written around 1,400 BC.....

Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34  But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

There are a few more Jewish Torah quotes, in my post #136








Quote:

And if you  have need of a slave or two, well...

"By the 12th Century slaves in Europe were rare, and by the 14th Century slavery was almost unknown on the continent of Europe......"

"Almost 200 years after the British outlawed the slave trade in 1807, slave raids and the sale of slaves in Muslim markets continues in countries like Sudan.  The slave trade remained legal in Saudi Arabia until 1962, when under international pressure it was finally abolished.  However, there are persistent, credible reports, that slavery persists in Saudi Arabia, and even that slaves from Sudan are ending up in Saudi Arabia......"

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-images/scourgeofslavery18.jpg

2004 - Vol 4
The Scourge of Slavery
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm







helian,

ISLAM is pure evil [....in my opinion].

But as is your want, just keep castigating, and tarring Jews and Christians, with the same brush as devout muslims.

One day i hope you will be able to discern the difference,
....in the spiritual source of Judaism and Christianity,
....and the spiritual source of ISLAM.








Whether we are atheist, a muslim, a Jew, or a Christian,
....in this life, God gives us an opportunity to 'polish our souls'.

Some of us flat out, refuse to have our souls polished.

While others are flat out polishing something else.

No need for slavery when you've got peasants and serfs and when that's gone (after the Black Death wiped out most of the serfs), you've got a class system keeping the workers uneducated, unlanded and underpaid, living in conditions that shocked Charles Dickens into a lifetime of writing novels decrying social injustice.

And crypto-slavery rising from Jim Crow laws (that weren't repealed in the US until 1965).

I think the Christian slave owners in the US used scripture to justify the enslavement of the black races.

And good old debt bondage... How does it go?

'St Peter don't you call me cos I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 11:48pm:

While others are flat out polishing something else. No need for slavery when you've got peasants and serfs and when that's gone (after the Black Death wiped out most of the serfs), you've got a class system keeping the workers uneducated, unlanded and underpaid, living in conditions that shocked Charles Dickens into a lifetime of writing novels decrying social injustice. And crypto-slavery rising from Jim Crow laws (that weren't repealed in the US until 1965). I think the Christian slave owners in the US used scripture to justify the enslavement of the black races. And good old debt bondage... How does it go? 'St Peter don't you call me cos I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store'.

Quote:

....But as is your want, just keep castigating, and tarring Jews and Christians, with the same brush as devout muslims.

As I said Yadda, all three faiths have been practised in their most benign and bloodiest forms.

Remember Christianity did not stop devout Christians from subjugating people for centuries and all the while scripture was on hand to justify it all. It's only got better recently (last 200 years) beacuse secularists wrenched power from Christianity in Europe.

For a spiritual trip, check out some sufi music.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 11:48pm:

While others are flat out polishing something else. No need for slavery when you've got peasants and serfs and when that's gone (after the Black Death wiped out most of the serfs), you've got a class system keeping the workers uneducated, unlanded and underpaid, living in conditions that shocked Charles Dickens into a lifetime of writing novels decrying social injustice. And crypto-slavery rising from Jim Crow laws (that weren't repealed in the US until 1965). I think the Christian slave owners in the US used scripture to justify the enslavement of the black races. And good old debt bondage... How does it go? 'St Peter don't you call me cos I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store'.

Helian, I have not agreed with everything you have said in this topic but you are spot on here. Anti-human capitalism evolved very nicely alongside Christianity that had been practicing the exchange of goods and services for gold for centuries.

Sprint, I think the world has had enough of Christian bookburning. Fahrenheit 451 anybody?

It is interesting to note that anti-human communism evolved very horribly alongside atheism beating all records of mass murdering, human rights violations and intolerance of any religions and ideologies but their own.

locutius wrote on May 5^th, 2009 at 9:15am:

Anti-human capitalism evolved very nicely alongside Christianity that had been practicing the exchange of goods and services for gold for centuries.

Interesting that there's no commandment of the likes ‘Thou shalt not abideth slavery’ or ‘thou shalt not exploit thy neighbour’s labour’ or ‘Abuseth not the innocent’ or 'Honour thy daughter and thy son in equal measure'.

As for coveting thy neighbour’s goods… Isn’t it the heart and soul of mercantile competition and consumerism to covet the acquisitions of someone else's?

I don’t believe people feel morally compelled to observe a religious law and withhold themselves from an action when it comes between them and what they believe they must have. They simply focus on their religious text that closely approximates granting them that liberty.

And, while I agree that Israel must exist for reasons that rise from their absymal treatment by Christianity over nearly 2000 years, Zionism has always relied heavily on the notion that God gave the land to Moses and his people, despite even respected modern Israeli archeologists accepting that Exodus and nearly all the stories of Moses are almost certainly fabrications.

locutius - so you're on on books that detail how to make bombs, how to capture kids for slaves etc etc etc ???

there is such a commandment in the NT, ie what xians follow.

Hell Sprint, I read that stuff for entertainment ;) give George R. R. Martin a go. Mature fantasy with little respect for the standard heroic storyline.

Now if you want to have a book burning then lets talk about the truely awful books, like "My Brother Jack", "Heidi" and films like "Titanic", "Casablanca", "Sound of Music", I mean really, I found myself rooting for the Iceberg and the Nazis.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 4:38pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2009 at 4:30pm: and this is what happens to them: http://sunninews.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/sufis-killed-in-pakistan-by-terrorists/ Remember, the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning under all four mainstream sunni schools of Islam, and shia. Sufis are considered apostates. Approximately 20% of Muslims are Sufis (about 240 million). The practise of Islam is not singularly monolithic and need not necessarily be practised in its bloodiest and intolerant forms.

Except that its bloodiest and intolerant forms account for nearly all of the muslims out there. And even the sufis believe in the peaceful overthrow of infidel governments. They are considered apostates, who themselves are marked for death, for advocating non-violence.

So 80% of all muslims want to violently destroy our societies, and the remaining 20% of muslims want to overthrow our societies peacefully - nothing to worry about then. You knucklehead.

Islam is not monolithic, you say - how is that useful. Its monolithic enough in its aim to destroy us, and that's as monolithic as it needs to be in my view.

Calanen wrote on May 5^th, 2009 at 10:14pm:

And even the sufis believe in the peaceful overthrow of infidel governments.

The peaceful overthrow of infidel governments? Would that be through the democratic process?

If you're really worried about the threat of foreign cultural imperialism, you should be looking somewhere else for a more immediate threat.

Says Simon Winchester of the Chinese in an interview about his biography of Dr Joseph Needham 'Bomb, Book and Compass' :


Quote:

I saw a sign outside the Chinese Space Centre in a town called Jin Quan in Qansu provinence which said in English at the bottom of this list of achievements in space, "Without haste, without fear, we will conquer the world". These people have an enormous sense of self confidence, now they don't mean militarily [that] they will conquer the world - they mean a cultural conquest.

Quote:

Islam is not monolithic, you say - how is that useful.

I think it is very useful. It's what keeps Muslims living in squalor, unable to fulfil their agenda. It's what keeps them killing fellow Muslims rather than non-Muslims. It's strength is also its weakness. The west has exploited this weakness for centuries, allowing us to undermine efforts to start a new round of empire building with very little effort on our part. Compare for example the lengths we had to go to to quash Napolean, Hitler, the Japanese, the Communists etc. We barely even noticed Islam.

Quote:

We barely even noticed Islam.

We did notice them from about 700AD to about 1683. The divisions within Islam are minor, its like saying that Pepsi is no threat to Coke because Janice in Human Resources doesn't like Rachel in Legal over at Pepsi HQ.

Also, nobody on this board (except maybe abu who want say anything that will help the infidels) aside from me understands the differences. I do - and I can tell you, they are minor. The disagreements are about whether to give us a chance to surrender first, whether we should be executed or live as slaves, what war booty to divide amongst themselves.

No one save as for the Ahmidayas, says we dont have to be crushed. And they are like .5% of all muslims, and other muslims want to kill them for their non-violence blasphemy. Kind of odd when the religion of peace is supposed to be well peaceful - let's kill the people who preach that it is.

There is no preaching that Islam is tolerant within the Islamic world - that's only al taqiyya for our ears.

The divisions between Catholicism and Protestantism might appear minor as well looking back... But it kept Europe at war with itself for over 200 years.

They've been looking for the guy who advised Bush that overthrowing a minority Sunni Head of State wouldn't cause no problem with the suppressed Shia majority 'cos they all just Islamian cockamimmies at the end of the day'. No need to worry about about the Shia regional power being drawn in to aid their Shia brothers in their moment of opportunity to exact revenge.

Also I believe what David Kilcullen has to say about the opinion of most Afghanis regarding the Taliban... The (the Taliban) are utterly despised by the vast majority of Afghanis. Their practise of extreme Islam revolts nearly all the population.

helian - there may well be some truth in your quote  -
Quote:

David Kilcullen has to say about the opinion of most Afghanis regarding the Taliban... The (the Taliban) are utterly despised by the vast majority of Afghanis. Their practise of extreme Islam revolts nearly all the population

Fortunately it is only the extremists that are a concern.
Unfortunately it seems the vast majority cannot quell the extremists.
It is the unwavering extreme mindset of the taliban and others that give them the power.
We must have a similar mindset against them and exterminate them all

Kilcullen is one of the most informed (and probably the most intertesting) authority on Islamism and counter-insurgency in the world. I have watched hours of his discussions about these subjects and he is as revealing about them as anyone could possibly be.

In one of them he discusses how he and his team deactivated areas in Iraq. Not by killing in the instance he described but by first capturing and holding senior al Qaeda operatives. When local Iraqi insurgents were captured, he would show them who al Qaeda really were. Local insurgents were duped into thinking they were fighting a righteous cause and that their noble leaders supported the fight. When they were shown who they were fighting for, what were they? Non-Iraqis, all serious criminals - i.e. murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc - most covered in tattoos, many of them dealing drugs on Iraqi streets and controlling crime gangs on the streets. This had the effect of shocking most Iraqi insurgents into realising who they were really fighting for - a common crime gang - and quickly coming to the conclusion that this filth was hardly worth the price of fighting or losing one's life for.

Kilcullen goes on to explain that in these kind of wars, an extremely small but sufficiently psychopathic element can 'infect' (as he terms it), a local population and they do it by exploiting whatever local problem is causing grief in a local area, which will generally have nothing to do with an Islamist agenda.

I suggest you watch/read as much as you can about David Kilcullen. He is so highly regarded everywhere within US Administrations and by the US public that, as one interviewer has put it, 'no foreign citizen has done more for the United States in time of war since Colonel Thaddeus Kosciusko helped an insurgent army liberate these shores some 200 years ago'.

thanks helian, I will search kilcullen up.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

Kilcullen is one of the most informed (and probably the most intertesting) authority on Islamism and counter-insurgency in the world. I have watched hours of his discussions about these subjects and he is as revealing about them as anyone could possibly be. In one of them he discusses how he and his team deactivated areas in Iraq. Not by killing in the instance he described but by first capturing and holding senior al Qaeda operatives. When local Iraqi insurgents were captured, he would show them who al Qaeda really were. Local insurgents were duped into thinking they were fighting a righteous cause and that their noble leaders supported the fight. When they were shown who they were fighting for, what were they? Non-Iraqis, all serious criminals - i.e. murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc - most covered in tattoos, many of them dealing drugs on Iraqi streets and controlling crime gangs on the streets. This had the effect of shocking most Iraqi insurgents into realising who they were really fighting for - a common crime gang - and quickly coming to the conclusion that this filth was hardly worth the price of fighting or losing one's life for. Kilcullen goes on to explain that in these kind of wars, an extremely small but sufficiently psychopathic element can 'infect' (as he terms it), a local population and they do it by exploiting whatever local problem is causing grief in a local area, which will generally have nothing to do with an Islamist agenda. I suggest you watch/read as much as you can about David Kilcullen. He is so highly regarded everywhere within US Administrations and by the US public that, as one interviewer has put it, 'no foreign citizen has done more for the United States in time of war since Colonel Thaddeus Kosciusko helped an insurgent army liberate these shores some 200 years ago'.

helian,

Summarising some of what is said above....

Many ppl in the world, who imagine that they are fighting for 'justice' and a 'better world', are being deceived.



I couldn't agree more.

And i don't believe that it is only muslims who are deceived, with their passions exploited ['paths'] for nefarious ends ['destinations'].

But i do believe that by a very long way, ISLAM is the most prominent ideology / political philosophy today, which is deceiving, many otherwise good people, to support a great evil in the world.




Deception is ISLAM's shield [its 'veil'].

Violence is its sword.

ISLAM uses both its shield and its sword most skilfully.

The 'shield' is presented first to a strong 'enemy', but it is the 'sword' which will be used to slay all of ISLAM's 'enemies'.

Where it still must, ISLAM still hides its 'sword' behind its 'shield'.





I too, will lookup more about David Kilcullen.





Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Quote:

We did notice them from about 700AD to about 1683. The divisions within Islam are minor, its like saying that Pepsi is no threat to Coke because Janice in Human Resources doesn't like Rachel in Legal over at Pepsi HQ.

The empire was a threat. It was the same empire established by Muhammed himself. Since we took that away, the people have been exposed as petulant children unable to mount a serious threat. There is a very clear distinction. Prior to dismantling the empire, it was the major threat. Since it was dismantled, it has required very little effort.


Quote:

Also, nobody on this board (except maybe abu who want say anything that will help the infidels) aside from me understands the differences. I do - and I can tell you, they are minor. The disagreements are about whether to give us a chance to surrender first, whether we should be executed or live as slaves, what war booty to divide amongst themselves.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself there. Remember, while the Muslims argue about whether to take us as slaves or kill us, they are living in caves eating goats. Surely that matters. It is the ideology itself that prevents them, or allows outsiders to rpevent them, from re-establishing a dangerous empire. It creates a culture of sumpremacy that is great while you reign supreme, but worse then useless when you loose that power. Terrorism is new for Muslims as well as us. They used to wage conventional war extremely well. Resorting to terrorist tactics is an indication of their strategic postion.


Quote:

Kilcullen goes on to explain that in these kind of wars, an extremely small but sufficiently psychopathic element can 'infect' (as he terms it), a local population and they do it by exploiting whatever local problem is causing grief in a local area, which will generally have nothing to do with an Islamist agenda.

Sounds like Pauline Hanson biding her time.


Quote:

In one of them he discusses how he and his team deactivated areas in Iraq. Not by killing in the instance he described but by first capturing and holding senior al Qaeda operatives. When local Iraqi insurgents were captured, he would show them who al Qaeda really were. Local insurgents were duped into thinking they were fighting a righteous cause and that their noble leaders supported the fight. When they were shown who they were fighting for, what were they? Non-Iraqis, all serious criminals - i.e. murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc - most covered in tattoos, many of them dealing drugs on Iraqi streets and controlling crime gangs on the streets. This had the effect of shocking most Iraqi insurgents into realising who they were really fighting for - a common crime gang - and quickly coming to the conclusion that this filth was hardly worth the price of fighting or losing one's life for.

Entirely predictable when you read what Abu said about seeing the best in fellow Muslims and assuming they are right until proven wrong.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 10:31pm:

Quote: Kilcullen goes on to explain that in these kind of wars, an extremely small but sufficiently psychopathic element can 'infect' (as he terms it), a local population and they do it by exploiting whatever local problem is causing grief in a local area, which will generally have nothing to do with an Islamist agenda. Sounds like Pauline Hanson biding her time.

The difference being Kilcullen has spent 20 years researching Islamism, insurgency and counter-insurgency and is referring to trained and armed guerillas in one conflict exploiting the existence of another conflict which usually has nothing to do with their own... A phenomenon he calls infection.

Pauline?


Quote:

In one of them he discusses how he and his team deactivated areas in Iraq. Not by killing in the instance he described but by first capturing and holding senior al Qaeda operatives. When local Iraqi insurgents were captured, he would show them who al Qaeda really were. Local insurgents were duped into thinking they were fighting a righteous cause and that their noble leaders supported the fight. When they were shown who they were fighting for, what were they? Non-Iraqis, all serious criminals - i.e. murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc - most covered in tattoos, many of them dealing drugs on Iraqi streets and controlling crime gangs on the streets. This had the effect of shocking most Iraqi insurgents into realising who they were really fighting for - a common crime gang - and quickly coming to the conclusion that this filth was hardly worth the price of fighting or losing one's life for.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 10:31pm:

Entirely predictable when you read what Abu said about seeing the best in fellow Muslims and assuming they are right until proven wrong.

Predictable in all complex theatres of war where infection has occurred, apparently. The term Kilcullen used was something like primary group cohesion.. which, he explained, means the victims of the secondary conflict if faced with the choice of a heavy handed response from a foreign army and the infectors will side with the fighters of that army because they are most like themselves in culture and/or religion even though they despise them... hence Kilcullen's term the 'accidental guerilla'.

Quote:

The difference being Kilcullen has spent 20 years researching Islamism, insergency and counter-insurgency and is referring to trained and armed guerillas in one conflict exploiting the existence of another conflict which usually has nothing to do with their own... A phenomenon he calls infection. Pauline?

They are both exploiting the same phenomenon. They validate people's invalid beliefs in a quest for power and money. If a dire situation arose hear, Pauline would be in the thick of it whipping up people's emotions and choosing a side. You don't have to be in a war zone to take advantage of it.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 11:01pm:

Quote: The difference being Kilcullen has spent 20 years researching Islamism, insergency and counter-insurgency and is referring to trained and armed guerillas in one conflict exploiting the existence of another conflict which usually has nothing to do with their own... A phenomenon he calls infection. Pauline? They are both exploiting the same phenomenon. They validate people's invalid beliefs in a quest for power and money. If a dire situation arose hear, Pauline would be in the thick of it whipping up people's emotions and choosing a side. You don't have to be in a war zone to take advantage of it.

True. Sorry, thought you were equating Hansons opinions with those of Kilcullen.

Quote:

I think you are getting ahead of yourself there. Remember, while the Muslims argue about whether to take us as slaves or kill us, they are living in caves eating goats. Surely that matters. It is the ideology itself that prevents them, or allows outsiders to rpevent them, from re-establishing a dangerous empire. It creates a culture of sumpremacy that is great while you reign supreme, but worse then useless when you loose that power.

Think about how the empire was created. It was not suddenly an empire, but winning a large number of battles and conquering a large number of areas. From small places in the middle east, right across up into Spain.


Quote:

Terrorism is new for Muslims as well as us. They used to wage conventional war extremely well. Resorting to terrorist tactics is an indication of their strategic postion.

That's actually not correct. Terror has always been a tactic of Islam - what has changed is the technology able to be employed. You obviously couldn't have roadside bombs made with anti-tank mines and EFPs. While there were conventional battles, Islam was always very good at terrorising civilian populations and launching behind the lines raids.

Kilcullen is also a counter-insurgency expert, he doesn't seem to know very much about Islam from what I have read of his stuff, or if he does, he is keeping it well hidden.

Calanen wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 9:59pm:

Kilcullen is also a counter-insurgency expert, he doesn't seem to know very much about Islam from what I have read of his stuff, or if he does, he is keeping it well hidden.

One of the reasons Kilcullen is a sought after expert on Islamism and counter-insurgency is that he has spent the last 20 years in the field studying the subjects and during that time witnessed first hand the formation and rise of Jemaah Islamia in Indonesia.

from the little I have read of Kilcullen I'ld say he was very knowledgable about islam and muslims.
more to the point, he seems to be capable of negating the extremists.

The more I readup on Islam the less justified the savary against it becomes.

I've yet to see anything about The Islamic faith that teaches hatred, unwarranted violence, or malice. If there is terrorism, it is the result of your own bloodshed, invasions, and biggotry. You can't expect people to just rollover and die because you want them too.

Muslims have become a scapegoat for the west's never ending rage.

Jim Profit wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 9:22am:

The more I readup on Islam the less justified the savary against it becomes. I've yet to see anything about The Islamic faith that teaches hatred, unwarranted violence, or malice. If there is terrorism, it is the result of your own bloodshed, invasions, and biggotry. You can't expect people to just rollover and die because you want them too. Muslims have become a scapegoat for the west's never ending rage.

Well said JP.  I can't understand the hatred so many have for Muslims.  They have got some quirky ideologies which I don't agree with, but on the whole most of them want to live in peace the same as the rest of us. I can only think this hatred of Muslims has been influenced by the Zionist contolled media who allow propaganda to flourish unabated.


Quote:

Q: Why do muslims hate Jews? A: We don't! A Muslim cannot be a Muslim without believing in Moses. Rather its the Jews that hate muslims. Q: Why do muslims call non-muslims Infidels? A: Muslims don't call non-muslims Infidels. In fact, "infidel" is a christian word, not a muslim word. look at the definition of the word, infidel: Date: 15th century 1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity 2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief 3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood”. http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/FAQ/non_muslim/FAQ_non_muslim.html

islams stated written directive is to dominate the world.
mohammad used murder and assassainations to achieve his ends.
some islamic nations refuse nonmuslims from living there.
the more muslims that enter a secular natio9n the more problems there are with them.

many muslim leaders over decades have spewed open hatred for the west and vowed to end US and the free world.


I can understand the hatred muslims have for us.
they are told to subjugate us in the koran by whatever means.

mantra,

What a lot of inaccurate drivel [i.e. pure LIES!] in your post,
.....LIES which you are promoting and giving credence to.

"Churches oppose Islamic school"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1240363717/169#169

e.g.


Quote:

Q: Why do muslims hate Jews? A: We don't! A Muslim cannot be a Muslim without believing in Moses. Rather its the Jews that hate muslims.

TRUTH....
Even 'immutable' ISLAMIC scripture itself [from the 700's AD], states Allah's hatred of Jews [and therefore sanctifies all present muslim hatred of Jews]....

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
quran 005.051
...[i.e. he is an 'unbeliever']


"On his death-bed Allah's Apostle....said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians....."
hadithsunnah/bukhari 004.056.660


ISLAMIC DOCTRINE AGREES THAT THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT CANNOT COME UNTIL,
....ALL JEWS ARE FOUGHT, AND SLAUGHTERED - BY DEVOUT MUSLIMS!....

"Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari 004.052.177



AND.....

More contemporary statements by a prominent devout muslim, a JIHADIST....

"We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death."
Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah's #1 in Lebanon]


Hassan Nasrallah, in Lebanon's Daily Star [October 23 2002]....

Google,
"If they (the Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22If+they+%28the+Jews%29+all+gather+in+Israel%2C+it+will+save+us+the+trouble+of+going+after+them+worldwide.%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Can you feel the muslim love, for their fellow man???


TRUTH....
A muslim cannot be a muslim without harbouring a deep hatred of all non-muslims, ESPECIALLY JEWS.




And there is going to be a bloodbath in the middle east.

Devout muslims unceasingly indicate this bloodbath will soon occur - at their hand.

These words, from the lips of President Ahmadinejad...

"The ocean of rage of the people of the region will surge and eradicate the Zionist regime."

YOUTUBE
"Farewell Israel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-IwwfeLp4M


And the Bible indicates that a bloodbath will happen too.

Ezekiel 35

Numbers 24:23

"Bible verses you like"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214199336/75#75







mantra,

The God of Israel, has said that his curse will be upon ppl like yourself and JP.

It is lucky then, that you have JP on your team,  ....eh?          ;D

Genesis 12:3

Numbers 24:1,9

Quote:

mantra, The God of Israel, has said that his curse will be upon ppl like yourself and JP. It is lucky then, that you have JP on your team,  ....eh?           Genesis 12:3 Numbers 24:1,9

I assume that's the Old Testament you've quoted Yadda as I don't think Christians put curses on people anymore.  I'm so scared.  Does this mean I won't go to wherever Jews go to when they die?  :-?

Why should I hate Muslims?  I don't hate anyone, but most religions are very strange and follow unusual and often unacceptable concepts.  The only reason I accept Christianity is because I've been indoctrinated into it from birth although I don't believe Jesus died for our sins or was resurrected, unless he wasn't dead in the first place.

As far as the quotes I posted - you can't say that they're lies.  Doesn't the Koran also embrace Jews - which also means it's contradictory, but then what religion isn't?

At one point it instructs Muslims to treat Jews as brothers, and at another point commands Muslims to attack Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. The Qur’an also introduces a conflict as to which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Hebrew Scriptures say it was Isaac. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael who Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (in contradiction to Genesis chapter 22). This debate over who was the son of promise contributes to the hostility today.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-Arabs.html

mantra wrote on May 12^th, 2009 at 6:55pm:

I assume that's the Old Testament you've quoted Yadda as I don't think Christians put curses on people anymore.  I'm so scared.  Does this mean I won't go to wherever Jews go to when they die?  :-? Why should I hate Muslims?  I don't hate anyone, but most religions are very strange and follow unusual and often unacceptable concepts.  The only reason I accept Christianity is because I've been indoctrinated into it from birth although I don't believe Jesus died for our sins or was resurrected, unless he wasn't dead in the first place.

mantra,

You shouldn't hate muslims.

But [in my opinion] you should hate the evil philosophy, ISLAM, which motivates the devout muslim community.

We should encourage muslims to separate themselves from ISLAM.




And, ......you should be frightened of your God.          ;)iQuote:

As far as the quotes I posted - you can't say that they're lies.  Doesn't the Koran also embrace Jews - which also means it's contradictory, but then what religion isn't? At one point it instructs Muslims to treat Jews as brothers, and at another point commands Muslims to attack Jews who refuse to convert to Islam. The Qur’an also introduces a conflict as to which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Hebrew Scriptures say it was Isaac. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael who Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (in contradiction to Genesis chapter 22). This debate over who was the son of promise contributes to the hostility today. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-Arabs.html

That last quote, explaining the divergence between ISLAM and Judaism sounds pretty straight.





While ISLAM is happy to piggy-back upon Judaism's history, AT THE SAME TIME,
ISLAM broadly rejects Judaism, and Judaism's 'scripture'.

???

Why?

Because accepting Jewish 'scripture' would repudiate much of ISLAMIC doctrine.

That must say something to any genuine seeker.





ALSO.....

"Comparing Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, God etc"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231556672/7#7

"What does ISLAM portray, about itself?

To the uninformed [non-muslim], ISLAM deceitfully *portrays* and presents itself, as a continuation of Judaism and Christianity.
.....this is a lie.

Muslims try to deceitfully convey an assurance [to uninformed non-muslims], that ISLAM has a common spiritual heritage, with Judaism and Christianity.
.....this is a lie.

And it is a fact that devout muslims always portray ISLAM, within the muslim community, NOT as an equal co-existing religion, or [merely] as a religion which 'evolved' from Judaism or Christianity,
.....but devout muslims assert that ISLAM is at the same time, both a replacement of, and a *repudiation* of, Judaism and Christianity."

Quote:

I can only think this hatred of Muslims has been influenced by the Zionist contolled media who allow propaganda to flourish unabated.

The Zionist controlled media? Now that is raving nutbag stuff.  If it was Zionist controlled (like there is a "Zionist League" of some kind), you wouldn't see the constant bleating about poor Hamas cant fire its rockets and ever be hit back.

FOX and GE are Zionist controlled entities? How dumb is that? Channel 9? Since when were the packers Zionists?  Is there any evidence at all, like real evidence, about some Zionist organisation actually controlling the media - or do you think that this is just something that you have to believe, well, because you just do?