It is time to vigorously prosecute Muslims in living in Western countries if they incite hatred, ridicule and contempt against Islam. Like this fellow:

{Omar Hassan} n his 15-page letter to 4BC, ... described Australia as a "racist country . . . No. 1 on the world list for the violation of human rights". He said Fairfax radio is a "human zoo owned by . . . pigs and monkeys". He said of Smith - a former policeman - that "being a cop would write you off as a decent human being for life as you can never recover from that disease of being a cop, as once a cop, the dirt and filth stick to you forever and could never be removed".

And he had plenty to say about women in short skirts. He expressed his disgust at being "forced to look at the backside of a woman who bends over in front of me in supermarket to pick an item off a bottom shelf". It is a health hazard, he says. "Non-Muslim women do not use water to clean themselves when they go to the toilet." Thus, bending over in a supermarket could cause serious health risks, Hassan wrote, especially for little children who "because of their height, may have such [a] scene right in their face".

Instead of dismissing this barrage of invective from Hassan, the ADC has decided that Smith has a case to answer.

It is hight time to persecute and punish all Muslims who bring Islam and Muslims into utter and lasting disrepute by their words or actions, like this man, Omar Hassan. Abu Rashid on this forum, and in whatever real life milieau he moves in, also brings ridicule and contempt upon Islam and Muslims in general.  

Such people do lasting damage to community harmony and to the reputation, perception and acceptance of Muslims.
If Muslim immigration is to continue, such people should be vigorously persecuted for damaging Australia's social peace by exposing the entire Muslim community to ridicule, hatred and contempt.

Two problems with your post soren.

1) I've never stated anything even remotely close to this.

2) I'm not an immigrant. In fact if I remember correctly, you're the immigrant here.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 9:34pm:

Two problems with your post soren. 1) I've never stated anything even remotely close to this. 2) I'm not an immigrant. In fact if I remember correctly, you're the immigrant here.

1. You continue to bring ridicule, hatred and contempt on Muslims and this seems to remain your primary aim, even though you have been alerted many times to the effect of your conduct.
2. Irrelevant. Whether you are an immigrant or convert does not change the fact that within the perview of the the religious vilification laws both Omar Hassan and you bring hatred, ridicule and contempt upon Muslims.

it's also high time to prosecute those who oppose allegiance to australia.

If you are not with us, you are against us.
You have made your bed, sleep in it.

Now it is Pakistani Muslim lawyers who are inciting hatred against Islam and Muslims.

Lahore, Muslim lawyers will "burn alive" anyone who defends murdered 12 year old Christian
by Fareed Khan
No lawyer comes forward to defend Shazia Bashir, the servant girl murdered by her employer. The powerful association of lawyers in Lahore, arrayed in defence of the murderer, launches death threats and prevents access to the Court. Christian Association condemns this new form of terrorism. [/b]
Islamabad (AsiaNews) - Because of the threats posed by the powerful Lahore Bar Association – an umbrella organization of city lawyers - no Christian or Muslim lawyer is ready to take on the defence in the murder of 12 year-old Shazia Bashir, it was reported yesterday by The Pakistani Christian association that deals with legal assistance.  

The girl, of Christian faith, died on Jan. 23 as a result of violence - even sexual – at the hands of her employer, a wealthy and powerful Muslim lawyer in Lahore. The alleged murderess, Chaudhry Mohammad Naeem, is a former president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association. The girl, just 12 years old, had worked as a maid in the home of Naeem in the last six months.

No good Muslim likes to kill their servant - this is against our laws. However, if the servant was sexually arousing the man of the house, it would be their duty to put the matter to rest.

As a Christian, the girl would go to hell. Working in a Muslim household, however, she should have had ample opportunity to hear the word of the Prophet.

Karnal, are you being facetious?

If a 12 year old girl was "sexually arousing" the man of the house, surely he should be the one punished as a pedophile. I'm assuming that even in Pakistan there are laws about having sex with children.

annie - i am sure they do have such laws.


moh was a paed, also had many wives AND sex slaves.
any nonmuslims are inferior to musloims .
men's sex desires are ........... to be satisfied.

i think that covers it

Mrs Anthrax, I think you'll find Pakistani law is based on the British judicial system, so it is more or less the same as Australia in structure.

I am referring more to our system of ethics, which is designed, insh'allah, to orient men towards God. You are asking a man to be punished for the arousal of his pennie. This is both unfair and unjust.

It is the woman's role to cover herself in the house. The bedroom is a different matter. If the girl was invited into the room of the man's bed, it is the man's will what should be worn, as long as they step into the room with the right foot first. A man must not carry a girl into his room or hold her without prior permission from her family.

If the girl painted her face and wore revealling clothes in the man's house, it is a sin against God. As I am not trained in this area, I do not know what her punishment should be. As you can see, however, it is a serious action which requires justice for the man and his family.

Please disregard the above post. As the girl was a Christian, her parents' permission would not be required to carry her into the man's room.

Taken a few too many drugs I think karnal. Best to keep yourself sober mate.

comment on the topic, abn the islamic.

obviously you have been following this thread, without posting your biased viewpoint.
tell us abu, why it is ok for the arrogant raping muzzie man to shaft a young christian girl.
just as moh did

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:

comment on the topic, abn the islamic. obviously you have been following this thread, without posting your biased viewpoint. tell us abu, why it is ok for the arrogant raping muzzie man to shaft a young christian girl. just as moh did

You are looking for a fight, my friend. You will not find it here. You are our brother. Peace be upon you.

Karnal wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 10:32pm:

Please disregard the above post. As the girl was a Christian, her parents' permission would not be required to carry her into the man's room.

You too, bring contempt and ridicule on Muslims. If you are Mossad, congratulations, very cunning.

If you are indeed a devout Muslim, ernstly defending your 'ethical' system, then you are, again unsurprisingly, thicker than the proverbial two planks. Carry on, we need to hear just how repulsive your animating ideas are.

karnal - i am not your brother.

lying muslim

Soren wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 10:47am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 13th, 2010 at 10:32pm: Please disregard the above post. As the girl was a Christian, her parents' permission would not be required to carry her into the man's room. You too, bring contempt and ridicule on Muslims. If you are Mossad, congratulations, very cunning. If you are indeed a devout Muslim, ernstly defending your 'ethical' system, then you are, again unsurprisingly, thicker than the proverbial two planks. Carry on, we need to hear just how repulsive your animating ideas are.

These are not my ideas, my brother, but thoughts that rain down from the very mind of God. I am a mere scribe, so if you want any beef, take it up with Him. Do not blame me!

I feel very sorry for this girl. To deceive one's hosts and commit the sin of adultery is extremely serious in the eyes of God. One must think of the fruit of one's actions. It says she was Christian, but her actions speak more of a Jew. It is not unusual for Jews to target the families of rich Muslims and test their faith. Praise God that the family are still strong in God's Law.

In this life, we must be careful to obey God's will. I am not certain which foot she used to enter the man's bedroom, but her intent is much more serious. If the man was seduced and morally unbalanced by this Jew, his actions can be seen in a new light.

As a Christian, I see you as brother. We have no fight with you, my friend. We can come together to rid the world of this filth. Ultimately, of course, you must submit to the will of God and His law. Once you do this, you can live with a clean mind and body and, insh'alla, enter paradise when God wills it.

Until that day, my brother, you will be stained with ignorance and sin, it cannot be helped.

you and your like disgust me karnal


Quote:

..........thoughts that rain down from the very mind of God.......

No - it is at best 4th hand. via a murdering paedophile


Quote:

.............the family are still strong in God's Law. In this life, we must be careful to obey God's will. I am not certain which foot she used to enter the man's bedroom, but her intent is much more serious. If the man was seduced and morally unbalanced by this Jew, his actions can be seen in a new light......... ...

typical infidel hating muslim speak.

the family are protected by the "muslims are right " mindset.
then you show your woman hating attitude by blaming the young victim.

moh was a scum, yiou are the same

Quote:

However, if the servant was sexually arousing the man of the house, it would be their duty to put the matter to rest.

Everything that is wrong with Islam! The man can bloody well control himself!

Well above time that the Koran got thoroughly revised!  

Karnal, when you say Gawd talks to you, you mean you just dream up crap, right? You have never sat down with Gawd and apoken with him. Your Word of Gawd is just your prejudices, as it always is with every "holy" book!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 10:25am:

you and your like disgust me karnal Quote: ..........thoughts that rain down from the very mind of God....... No - it is at best 4th hand. via a murdering paedophile [quote].............the family are still strong in God's Law. In this life, we must be careful to obey God's will. I am not certain which foot she used to enter the man's bedroom, but her intent is much more serious. If the man was seduced and morally unbalanced by this Jew, his actions can be seen in a new light......... ...

typical infidel hating muslim speak.

the family are protected by the "muslims are right " mindset.
then you show your woman hating attitude by blaming the young victim.

moh was a scum, yiou are the same

[/quote]

I love you, my cousin. We are all in God's family. Your words are soured by hatred, but in the End, you will learn God's will.

Abbat Hazzar!

karnal - i deeply distrust you.
your empty words are false

i am NOT in your family.
where do you think you get your "gods words " from ?
why do you think they ARE gods words ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 12:14pm:

karnal - i deeply distrust you. your empty words are false i am NOT in your family. where do you think you get your "gods words " from ? why do you think they ARE gods words ?

My cousin-in-law, please do not be offended by me. My words shine with the light of truth, praise God. You will agree that all people should treat their slaves with dignity, yes?

I concede that I do not know the individual circumstances of this case and might be mistaken, but I believe a paedophile is a lover of children, correct? I am a lover of God. If the man loves children and God equally, then he is truly a riteous man and will be rewarded in paradise, God willing.

If a man holds hatred in his heart, he shall turn to stone. Therefore, we must love all without exception and let God be judge.

There are many in hell, my cousin's wife, and I know you pray for their souls to reach heaven. Do we not love together? Our flesh is the same. Even the Jew can make his peace with God if he prays sincerely enough.

Sprint, Karnal is a sh*t stirrer who knows a little bit about Islam.

Not to be taken seriously.

Quote:

Sprint, Karnal is a sh*t stirrer who knows a little bit about Islam.

Yeh but he's doing a good job of showing these fools up for how gullible they are to swallow anything about Islam as long as it's negative. Why'd you have to spoil it?

and what has karnal said that is unislamic?

Spoiling things is my hobby, along with scaring children and tripping up the elderly.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 1:07pm:

and what has karnal said that is unislamic?

I have said nothing that is uni-slamic, my fiend. We believe in many slams, but only one God.

I pray unto Him you find peace and lose the wish to wage war in your heart.

Abaq Kazzah!

Sprint, I'll give you a few examples here.



Quote:

Even the Jew can make his peace with God if he prays sincerely enough.

Not true.


Quote:

Please disregard the above post. As the girl was a Christian, her parents' permission would not be required to carry her into the man's room.

More bullsh*t.


Quote:

thoughts that rain down from the very mind of God

I'm sure Abu is more qualified than me to comment on this one, but attributing human things like the mind to God is against Islam. I could probably have worded that better, but I'm tired.


Quote:

As a Christian, the girl would go to hell.

The girl was likely pre-pubescent so wouldn't be judged for anything she did.


Quote:

However, if the servant was sexually arousing the man of the house, it would be their duty to put the matter to rest.

No...it wouldn't.


There are more, but as I've said, I'm tired. Karnal is an Islamaphobe. As you can see, Abu knows it too.

SUBJECT REMOVED

Quote:

Karnal is an Islamaphobe. As you can see, Abu knows it too.

No I don't! You can't fool an intellectual giant like sprintcyclist, he can see right through your propaganda for Islam, he knows everything you said is just to try and deceive him!

Abu, I'm interested to know if you think my points are correct. You have much more knowledge about these things than I do.

Yep all spot on, I'm impressed :)

Will just add to the one about thoughts coming down from God, this would also mean claiming prophethood, which would completely contradict the Islamic teaching that Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and final messenger, the seal of the prophets.

who said there will be no more prophets ?
oh, moh the murderer did.
the illiterate one.

bhah bhah bhah bhah

It has often crossed my mind that Abu might doing the same thing as Karnal, only more subtly, and not as funny. One day I'll check out MV to see what is going on.

Freediver, I don't think so. From what I've seen during my admittedly short time on this board, Abu is defensive of his religion because there are so many people here going to great lengths to insult it. He knows that most members are prepared, even enthusiastic to believe the worst of both him and Islam.

I could be wrong...but I doubt it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 11:50pm:

Freediver, I don't think so. From what I've seen during my admittedly short time on this board, Abu is defensive of his religion because there are so many people here going to great lengths to insult it. He knows that most members are prepared, even enthusiastic to believe the worst of both him and Islam. I could be wrong...but I doubt it.

It takes no effort to be aware (it is not a matter of belief) of the worst aspects of Islam and the barbarity of many of its followers. Ignoring it is what takes a lot of effort.

Abu is an Australian convert and so he is intellectually and emotionally more committed than the accidental Muslim. If Islam could be left out of the conversataion he would be quite an OK person. But he is here as a matter of personal jihad, so Islam comes into everything, except discussions on IT.

Soren wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 12:13am:

It takes no effort to be aware (it is not a matter of belief) of the worst aspects of Islam and the barbarity of many of its followers. Ignoring it is what takes a lot of effort.

But it does take effort to see the good in others and risk challenging your own belief system.

It's very easy to play Uncle Scrooge.

This petty Islam argument has ben going on for years on this board - daily - and the same people continue to buy into it.

It's not clever, it's the same script playing over and over.

This need to lance others' boils - while you're covered in your own pus - is endless.

Let's call it for what it is - it's a game. There's no truth in it, no one else is converted by your own words. It's just a way to avoid cleaning the bathroom.

Allah Kazzar!

Karnal wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

But it does take effort to see the good in others and risk challenging your own belief system. It's very easy to play Uncle Scrooge. This petty Islam argument has ben going on for years on this board - daily - and the same people continue to buy into it. It's not clever, it's the same script playing over and over. This need to lance others' boils - while you're covered in your own pus - is endless. Let's call it for what it is - it's a game. There's no truth in it, no one else is converted by your own words. It's just a way to avoid cleaning the bathroom. Allah Kazzar!

More, more metaphor, stormfront of dissent, cesspool of malignant lust, a bog of malcontent.

Yes, the unfortunate fact is that religion plays a dominant role in all our lives, even those of us who utterly discount it's doctrines and claims of supplier of moral values for our world, and therefore we must engage with it, as we would any force which impacts on our lives, if we seek to actively work to improve that life.
To engage we need to try and understand religion at a level greater than that of just the blind acceptance, which they all require.
We need to dispassionately examine just what they do contribute to our society, both positive, and negative.

What we see in here is the plethora of people who are concerned at the range, and degree, of negative elements that the Islamic religion brings to our world, and unfortunately that often elicits a somewhat irrational lashing out at all things Islamic, which is probably more counter productive than we would wish for, if we are to address the ways that we allow religions to impact on our societies, and try to steer those effects away from the negatives, and towards more positive outcomes.

Now all religions make similiar demands, for respect, and tolerance, for "their" views, but when deciding just how far we should go in acquiescence to that demand, we should closely examine just what that religion is bringing to the table, and at the moment, Islam is bringing a lot of conflict, and fear, and we should not be coerced into denying that, but we should perhaps be more systematic in how we try to deal with it.

We must step back from politically correct madness of accepting dangerous and threatening behaviour from a group because they claim it is their religious right to behave that way.
We just need to be true to our own modern principles of equality and fairness, and apply criteria for what is acceptable behaviour on those grounds alone, even if it makes some religions uncomfortable.

I agree Mozza. We must combat the unjust aspects of Islam without discarding justice. We must give them freedom and choice without taking it away from them.

Mozza, I agree with most of what you said in your post, but I think a lot of what's happening around the world with Muslims at the moment is reactionary. The civilian people of Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon - and they're just the ones who come immediately to mind - have suffered terribly at the hands of stronger nations in the last couple of decades. This breeds a sense of frustration and helplessness among all Muslims.

Did you hear about that kid with the Lebanese background that died in a car accident the other day while on his way to school? A facebook page popped up almost immediately so people could leave their condolences for the family of the boy, but it was inundated with disgusting racial slurs. Really offensive stuff. It ended up turning into a Leb v Aussie thing, which was incredibly sad and inappropriate.

We complain that minorities won't integrate, but we don't give them a chance while we still identify 3rd generation Australians from Lebanese backgrounds as 'wogs'.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Muslims feel like they're being persecuted which pushes some of them - especially young males - toward fundamentalism.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

We must give them freedom and choice without taking it away from them.

Up to a point.

We must not give them the freedom to practice their beliefs as they see fit, as they interpret it, without regard to how it impacts on us.

And right there is the rub - no self-respecting Musulman will take advice from infidels on how to practice islam.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Muslims feel like they're being persecuted which pushes some of them - especially young males - toward fundamentalism.

This is really and old 'n tired nonsense. They are not fundamentalists. They simply take Islam seriously. That's all there is to it. Musulmans are in conflict with everyone they come into contact with. Of course, by your reckoning the reason is that everyone is persecuting and oppressing them. But with almost everything concerning Islam, it is the other way around.

"The endless plaint of Muslim victimization is a cynical ploy by those who wish to rule, rather than be ruled. The Muslim in non-Muslim countries typically enjoys more freedom than he does at home. And that is his complaint. He is not free to force women to walk a pace behind him, to beat his children and murder his daughters if they disobey him, and to know that all non-Muslims are beneath his feet. And what good is freedom to him if he cannot have these things?

Tolerance humiliates the Muslim, for in his storied past it was always he who had the choice to extend tolerance to the Kufr who were his social and political inferiors. The Muslim does not wish to be tolerated, he wishes to be obeyed. He does not want his beliefs respected in a plurality of beliefs, thereby equating them with the horrid beliefs of those he despises. He wishes that Islam alone be recognized as a true and unique belief, as the one true faith for all mankind. For by recognizing this, he becomes superior through it."

Muslims bombed westerners in hindu Bali. In 2002, a year before. There were no oppressed and presecuted Muslims. But they were peeved that Catholic East Timor was given back to the East Timorese, with Australian help. To them, once a place is occupied by Islam, it is muslim land, no matter what the demographics.

The US saved the skin of Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars from Christian Serbs and Croats in the '90s. Yet is was attacked by muslims in 2001.

The Muslims just sentenced in Sydney - they were not oppressed or prosecuted in any way. As the judge said, the ringleader 'led a blameless life' until his arrest.  The Muslims who bombed London were not oppressed. The oppressed Muslim, lashing out because that' all he can do, is nonsense of the first order. You have to be a fool to swallow it.

Soren, how many Muslims do you know? Most of the ones I have met are moderate, hard working people who were as horrified at 9/11 as they later were at the invasion of Iraq. I say most, not all because I've met some asshole muslims too - just like I've met asshole christians and atheists.

Hatred and fear of islam and it's followers serves a purpose.

What? It only counts if it's presonal experience? I have to personally know the bali bombers?
You are saying, in effect, that I should not necessarily believe the traffic lights unless I have been involved in a traffic accident.


Quote:

Hatred and fear of islam and it's followers serves a purpose.

Being afraid of crossing at red lights serves a purpose.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

Soren, how many Muslims do you know? Most of the ones I have met are moderate, hard working people who were as horrified at 9/11 as they later were at the invasion of Iraq. I say most, not all because I've met some asshole muslims too - just like I've met asshole christians and atheists. Hatred and fear of islam and it's followers serves a purpose.

Muslim criminals analyse the situation better than most:

Amir claims that Britain's underworld will soon be completely dominated by Islamic gangs - and he says the West's paranoia over terrorism is to blame. "People don't bugger with us because they think we're all in al-Qaeda," he explains. "Our status in the criminal hierarchy changed literally the day the Twin Towers went down. From then, Asians have been associated with terrorism. People, including other criminals, think if you're Asian you'll blow up a Tube train or bomb an aeroplane.  In the past 20 years we've capitalised on that. If we're going to be thought of as extremists, why not use that fear? The reality is that Asian gangs don't give much of toss about religion, but with Islam comes fear, and with fear comes power.

"Through religion we speak the same language, live in the same areas, go to the same schools and can even use mosques as a safe place away from the police or other gangs. If you bugger with a Muslim gang you'd better be able to run fast or hide well, because they will come back at you in numbers."

The Sun discovered that most of Britain's prisons are dominated by Muslim gangs.

We spoke to a former prisoner we will refer to only as Steven, who was repeatedly approached by prison imams - Muslim priests - and asked to convert. Steven, who is British-born and white, rejected the approaches.

He says: "When I went inside the Muslims offered me help from top lawyers on the outside who would fight to get my sentence changed, if I joined them. I always resisted, but you have to understand how tempting it is to convert. First, you have their protection. You're totally alone in prison when you get there, and if you can't look after yourself life is hell. You're beaten, robbed and bullied.

"Second, every Friday Muslims are allowed prayer meetings. This is free time away from the guards, so they can plot, make new contacts and often discuss anti-West ideology. Muslims also get better food. They have money sent in for their kitchens from the Muslim community outside, and they get special Halal dishes stipulated by Islam. Then, when a converted prisoner finishes his time, he leaves as an even bigger criminal with an entirely new contact book of Muslim criminals to do business with."

Steven, who has spent time in eight prisons, adds: "Where the Muslim gangs come into their own is shifting drugs. If a white gang from London buys a kilo of coke, they then have to sell it. You can only sell your gear if you have contacts. The white gang will only know a few people in their area and won't trust or be trusted by other gangs. They won't deal with Eastern European, black or Asian gangs. But the Muslim network is vast and stretches up and down the UK, so they can shift drugs extremely quickly. That makes the money-making potential of a Muslim gang a hundred times that of a British or European gang."

Drug-dealing and credit card fraud are the areas in which London-based Asian gangs are most active. In fact, some dealers get so busy that even their mobile phone SIM cards become a commodity.

Steven says: "A drug gang's number can be worth hundreds of thousands. Say they have 100 punters phoning that number every day asking for a fix - that means thousands of pounds of business.  The SIM card of that phone can be sold to another gang because the junkies who phone don't give a s**t who is dropping off their crack or smack, they'll just keep calling. I've heard of SIM cards selling for up to £250,000."

According to Amir, Asian gangs start early. He says: "If you go to school in an ethnic area you either join a gang or end up bullied, in some cases to the point of being killed.  So to avoid a life of hell a kid joins a gang. Once you're in, life is easy - no more beatings, people to talk to, stuff to do. After school you graduate into more serious gang activity. You've got no qualifications because you've spent your school years resisting authority, and suddenly you need to make money.

"A boss can make up to £8,000 a day running a gang of 40 workers drug-dealing or scamming credit cards, and a worker can make £1,000. With the police getting more intelligent and busting people more, money is getting harder to make. Ten years ago, Asian gangs would go to war with Yardies and white gangs. But now, we've got London all sewn up, so the only people we end up warring with is each other. We have no one to compete with other than our own people, so Muslim gangs are starting to fight.  Muslims have this country under control. Nobody can touch us."
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/25939

You avoided the question. Keep your narrow minded point of view - it couldn't possibly matter to me one way or another.

The fact remains - the average muslim, just like the average christian or jew, are good people that are just trying to get through life the best they can.

Quote:

The reality is that Asian gangs don't give much of toss about religion...

Not really much point in reading beyond that is there?

On the flip side, there's nothing you aren't jealous about Muslims doing better than you, is there? Not only do they come into your country, take all your jobs, all your uni places, your women, but now they take over your crime industry as well!!!  ;D

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:

You avoided the question. Keep your narrow minded point of view - it couldn't possibly matter to me one way or another. The fact remains - the average muslim, just like the average christian or jew, are good people that are just trying to get through life the best they can.

Translation:

"You didn't answer me but I don't care what you answer is, keep it to yourself.
What matters is what I think. I only want to hear agreement."




You'll make a wonderful mother-in-law one day.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 11:01pm:

Quote: The reality is that Asian gangs don't give much of toss about religion... Not really much point in reading beyond that is there? On the flip side, there's nothing you aren't jealous about Muslims doing better than you, is there? Not only do they come into your country, take all your jobs, all your uni places, your women, but now they take over your crime industry as well!!!  ;D

They are exploiting your religion for criminal purposes, bringing hatred and contempt on all of you. And all you, one of the supposedly 'vast majority of law-abiding muslims', can do is repeat the same old adolescent 'you are jealious that we're better at everything' quip? You don't min that islam is used as  front by drug dealers, and violent thugs. You think that in some glorious jihadi way this is one more triumph for the sons of Allah.

Elsewhere Musulmans are the first to shout how much you are discriminated against in employment and education, blocked from jobs and unis - your coreligionists in France burn cars every August for these supposed resons. Annie's tired thesis on the roots of Muslim terrorism also blame the oppressed of and discrimination against the sons of Mohammed.

Take our women? Our women can make their own choices, they are not chattels to be 'taken'. The ones that are attracted to bearded pinheads with minds stuck in the 7th century - you can have 'em all.


In the end you know that it all reflects badly on you and all muslims, regardless of what I think. Hence your customary sh!t-eating grin.

I was interested enough to ask the question, but you avoided it. I lose interest quickly. As for wanting to hear agreement, you're probably right.


Quote:

You'll make a wonderful mother-in-law one day.

Not for a while yet, I hope.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 11:47pm:

I was interested enough to ask the question, but you avoided it. I lose interest quickly. As for wanting to hear agreement, you're probably right. Quote: You'll make a wonderful mother-in-law one day. Not for a while yet, I hope.

You are ready, at any rate: the necessary traits are fully developed, present and correct.

I totally agree with Annie, that ultimately, people are just people, and just want a peaceful, happy life, including muslims.

I have said the same thing always, but I also accept that all religions, and cultures have their own distinct challenges to face, and Islam is most definitely failing to face up to the challenge, of adapting itself into a spiritual system compatible with the modern ideals of secular democracies.

Now that we then see conflict arise from that lack of acceptance of ideals, other than it's own, by Islam, is seen wherever muslims seek to move to western, secular democracies, and to then lay the blame for the conflict at the feet of the westerners, for not adapting to Islam, is where we may disagree.

Imagine if one could magically transpose the catholic church of the dark ages into our modern world, would we still expect people to respect it's teachings and customs?
Of course not, they would be branded as barbaric, and inhumane, without fear of the accusers then being labelled as racist, or xenophobic, yet people who condemn the barbaric practices of Islam are often judged as such.

We just need to respect our own ideals enough to stand up for them, even in the face of unfair demands for religious freedom, which is most certainly the most hypocritical stance you are ever likely to hear, from a religion whose own record on freedom is so appalling.

So while I gladly agree we should offer everyone the chance to share in our freedoms, we also should never offer anybody the right to supplant them.

Mozza - absolutely.

There are Islamic practices that I condemn myself, and the actions of a lot of muslims I find abhorrent. The thing is, too many people paint all adherents with the same brush. Misinformation is rife and the spreading of anti-islamic propaganda is intentional. As is pretty evident on this forum, there are people who want to believe the worst.

Cultural practices like female genital mutilation are attributed to the religion. Contrary to what most people believe, the atrocities committed by the Taliban are unislamic. Stoning people to death, and a plethora of other punishments that islamaphobes use to show muslims as barbaric aren't mentioned in the Koran, but became popular after Muhammad's passing through unsubstantiated stories of his 'sayings'.

Open dialogue with Muslims is necessary to break the cycle of condemnation and the feelings of persecution that result from it. Education for muslims about what is cultural and what is religion - especially where populations are illiterate and uneducated - is imperative.

A few months ago, I saw a news story where two actors were hired to play out a scene in a bakery in America - you may have seen it. One actor portrayed a muslim woman complete with hijab, while the other (a man) played an intolerant sales person. The male actor had to refuse to serve the woman, and make racially offensive comments. The objective was to see how many people stepped up to defend the woman from this attack, and how many joined in or let it slide. The majority of people said or did nothing as the male actor was shooting off his mouth. A few joined in and praised him for his 'patriotism'.

My own niece quit her after school job after her employer refused to serve a muslim woman. While there is this kind of overt racism and prejudice, nothing will change. People get hurt and go on the defensive, neither side sees the point of the other and we get nowhere.

No muslim I personally know wants Australia to adopt Shariah laws. They want to be left to live their lives and worship as they see fit.

The core problem is that Islam is both a religion (in the Christian-centric use of the term) and a political system - Muslims would probably argue that the division does not exist.

The advocates of "politico-Islam" perceive Western-style secular democracy as a rival and it stands to reason that they would. The question is not whether Muslims should be allowed to practise Islam but whether and to what degree does political Islam threaten secular democracy.

How should we deal with those who advocate direct conflict with secular democracy?

annie - what rot.
only muslims practise female genital multilation.
in all muslim countries stonings, hacking off a hand  or head publically is the done thing.
i think muslims in muslim countries know what islam is all about.
i give them credit that they follow it as closely as possible.

infidels don't like muslims. that's cause of muslims inability to assimilate, and want to take over democratic secular countries with their backwardness.

eg, the recent MUSLIM terrorists in aussie, the head muslims jumped up and defended them , saying OUR legal system is bad.
well, he can bugger off.
he said nought about the weapons etc they had.
he said nothing against terrorism.

it's not up to US to pander to those creeps.
they can change or bugger off.


your deception sucks.
just how do the muzzies want to "worship as they see fit"?
it's NOT by assimilating. they make ghettos and have buggered areas of europe and england.
heed the international examples.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:56am:

in all muslim countries stonings, hacking off a hand  or head publically is the done thing.

That's funny. I've never seen any heads rolling around in Indonesia.

soren,


Quote:

They are exploiting your religion for criminal purposes, bringing hatred and contempt on all of you.

Blind hatred and contempt is the fault of the one who feels the hatred and contempt. If you hate and feel contempt for Muslims based on what some criminal, who clearly says he couldn't give a stuff about Islam, does then you are the one in the wrong here.

helian,


Quote:

The core problem is that Islam is both a religion (in the Christian-centric use of the term) and a political system - Muslims would probably argue that the division does not exist.

You're confusing a few issues here. In an Islamic Caliphate, that division does not exist. Since we are not in an Islamic Caliphate, talk of the division is just moot. Islam and Muslims can act politically only within the confines of the country they live in. IF the political system permits them to for instance lobby for halal sandwiches at the local council picnic, then so be it. That's their right!!

If you'd like to take any other line, then you'd be doing nothing but promoting the fanatical fringe's views that halal meat pies = shari'ah domination.


Quote:

The advocates of "politico-Islam" perceive Western-style secular democracy as a rival and it stands to reason that they would.

On a state to state level, and in the case that a Caliphate actually existed, yes. That's really got nothing to do with Muslim citizens of Australia or any other country though.


Quote:

How should we deal with those who advocate direct conflict with secular democracy?

Same as you deal with it from any other sector of society, whether it be communists, anarchists or anyone else who challenges or questions the ideals of the society.

Is the West going to sacrifice it's political plurality to consolidate it's dominance? Isn't that what it claims sets it apart from the rest? Wouldn't this just prove that the Western system is just the same as all the others, but only now is it actually facing it's foe which makes it apparent?

sprint,


Quote:

only muslims practise female genital multilation.

Actually the vast majority of Muslims do not practise it (nor is it allowed in Islam) and the vast majority of people who practise it are not Muslims but Animists or Christians in Africa.

I think you've been actually made aware of the facts on this, but being the ignorant fool you are, it doesn't seem to have done you any good.

Quote:

A prominent Muslim leader has turned himself in and has been charged with the murder of his wife. Muzzammil Hassan beheaded his wife, Aasiya Hassan, who asked for a divorce. Perhaps the biggest irony is that Muzzammil Hassan is the head of an Islamic television station in upstate New York which is aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes. In 2007 Hassan was given an award for his work by CAIR, the so-called moderate Islamic group

Isn't that like the 5th. time already you've posted that case on ozpolitic?

When you have to just keep re-hashing the same old stories, tends to indicate your argument is a little dead (either that or you suffer severe memory loss). In fact I think you've already posted in in this thread about twice.

Abu

I'm sure most Muslims in Australia would agree with you regarding how they should respond politically to secular democracy. However, radically politicised Muslims do openly admit that they are "at war" with western secular democracy. Those of them who decide to use force against the state and the system upon which it is founded are as dangerous to that state as the communist Red Brigade and Red Army Faction once were and have no more right to express their will in action as have the communist members of those groups.

If Muslims want to lobby for halal meat pies, then good for them.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Isn't that like the 5th. time already you've posted that case on ozpolitic? When you have to just keep re-hashing the same old stories, tends to indicate your argument is a little dead (either that or you suffer severe memory loss). In fact I think you've already posted in in this thread about twice.

Geez can't you have a little fun when you get the chance?

How about :

"Sprint, I'm sick of your multiple posts. I'm reporting this to FD... Heads will roll over this".

OK?.... not that good?... How about

"Sprint, that story's lost its head by now" ... Y'know... like a beer... gone stale... lost it's head....ha ha?  Orgh never mind...

Now... you give it a go.

The sad fact is that Islam has undergone a transition over the last 40 years, from a pretty peaceful, and spiritual religion, to a highly politicised and reactionary religion, and the zealots who claim to be carrying on the true spirit of Islam through jihad are the ones who are driving the majority of the conflict.

The spurious brotherhood of Islam which inspires hatred for infidels because of the suffering of some groups of muslims seems a pretty disingenuous claim, when one considers the actions muslims perpetrate against each other, who do they consider responsible for that?

Yep, they blame the infidels for that too.

So we have a religion being pushed in the wrong direction by extremists, but what we want to see is moderates pushing back the other way.

So far we are still waiting.

Mind you, extremist Islamophobia, and hatred of all things muslim is pretty poor form as well, and having yobbos and lebos facing off in the streets is not something we would wish for.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

soren, Quote: They are exploiting your religion for criminal purposes, bringing hatred and contempt on all of you. Blind hatred and contempt is the fault of the one who feels the hatred and contempt.

Interesting.

I am looking forward to your next post where you attribute similar fault to your Mulism brothers who were recently sentenced in the NSW Supreme Court. They expressed "anger, venom and hatred" towards the Australian government and its policies overseas."  You no doubt agree that their feelings of anger and hatred is entirely their own fault and the Australian government bears no responsibility in any way.

Come on, let's hear it.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

The sad fact is that Islam has undergone a transition over the last 40 years, from a pretty peaceful, and spiritual religion, to a highly politicised and reactionary religion, and the zealots who claim to be carrying on the true spirit of Islam through jihad are the ones who are driving the majority of the conflict.

Good point. I think herein lies a central problem.

Helian, anybody who claims that they are at war with Australia should be treated as an enemy combatant. Muslims that live in Australia need to bide by Australian laws, period. For the most part, they do.

Sprint, you're an idiot if you believe half the sh*t you claimed in that post. Female circumcision can be traced back to pharonic times and Jews and Christians in Africa still practice it now, along with Muslims. It's a cultural thing, like I said. Do your research - I can send you some information if you're really interested in learning.


Quote:

in all muslim countries stonings, hacking off a hand  or head publically is the done thing.

Wrong, but Karnal already answered you better than I could have.


Quote:

i think muslims in muslim countries know what islam is all about.

Wrong..again. A lot of Islamic countries have a low literacy rate, so interpretations of the Koran are handed down from generation to generation. A bit like Chinese whispers, and you know what happens there. In Afghanistan for instance, many muslims believe a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with outdated cultural practices.


Quote:

i give them credit that they follow it as closely as possible.

How nice of you. I'm interested to know, how many Muslim countries have you been to? I'm willing to bet you have no first hand knowledge of how those people live.


Quote:

the recent MUSLIM terrorists in aussie, the head muslims jumped up and defended them , saying OUR legal system is bad

From what I read, they said that people of muslim faith and Arabic backgrounds receive disproportionate sentences. They'd be right.


Quote:

they can change or bugger off.

What is it exactly that you'd have them change, Sprint?

Quote:

The sad fact is that Islam has undergone a transition over the last 40 years, from a pretty peaceful, and spiritual religion, to a highly politicised and reactionary religion, and the zealots who claim to be carrying on the true spirit of Islam through jihad are the ones who are driving the majority of the conflict.

It's always the assholes who stuff it up for everyone else.

Come on, none of you are historians are you.

I can bring you countless incidents of Muslims resisting the colonialists prior to 40 years ago. The idea that all of a sudden something changed 40 years ago is not historically sound.

Mozza has no idea, and neither do those plodding along behind him.

The only thing consistent about Muslim resistance movements is the presence of a colonising power. Stop deluding yourselves and admit where the real fault is. It's the first step to resolving this.

Quote:

The only thing consistent about Muslim resistance movements is the presence of a colonising power.

Can you explain how this applies to Afghanistan? Or are you just giving us the definition of a resistance movement?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Quote: The advocates of "politico-Islam" perceive Western-style secular democracy as a rival and it stands to reason that they would. On a state to state level, and in the case that a Caliphate actually existed, yes. That's really got nothing to do with Muslim citizens of Australia or any other country though.

That doesn;t make much sense Abu. They are rival political systems, whether they exist or not. They do not have to be rival countries to be rival options. If you seek a return of the caliphate, then democracy is a rival. Your constant insistance that the nature of the polical system you seek to establish is irrelevant to the discussion about that system because it does not yet exist is just absurd.

islams never been peaceful.
moh's life is bathed in blood from those who did not wish to follow him.

all through the koran it is gore, it's like the OT having a 'roid rage.


"die killing infidels and you score the 77 virgins" - what sex-crazed fkwt dreamed this one up ?

As an historian of some note, I could point you toward scholarly works which have studied the rise of militant Islam, and have actually posted links to such works before, but you have always refused to acknowlwdge them as credible, because they were not written by muslims.
(A bit of a lol on the noted historian bit, I couldn't resist, but the rest is accurate)

As an exercise in fairness I will ask if you can explain the inter-muslim violence that has been prominent for quite a while longer than any of the resistance movements reacting to colonisation?

The bottom line is that any would be "teacher"/"leader" that can muster the chutzpah to bang on about their own interpretation of Islamic teachings, is pretty much as valid as any other, as Islam has no hierarchy which is universally accepted and recognised, but more of a nut of the day club, where whoever has overwound his headress a little can direct followers to adopt errant behaviours, and claim it is divinely inspired.

It is the reason for all the confllict, because they never agree with each other, or anyone else, and always claim to be inspired by Allah, so they kill each other, they kill those from rival sects, tribes, countries, and also rival religions and cultures.

When these people are reined in, then Islam can go back to being a religion again.

Funny and a good question about intra-muslim civil war going back to the day Mahomet died. But what do you mean by "Islam can go back to being a religion again." When was Islam merely a religion, a state of affairs to which a return is possible? When was it separate and independent from the system of government around it? When was its explicit aim on this earth not sharia government?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:46pm:

Helian, anybody who claims that they are at war with Australia should be treated as an enemy combatant. Muslims that live in Australia need to bide by Australian laws, period. For the most part, they do.

That's right... And therein lies the primary source of angst for those Muslims who, while not motivated by militant Islamism, appear to tacitly support those who are. An internal conflict that no doubt has its parallels with moderate southern Irish of the last century who dared not publicly criticise the IRA for fear of being condemned by their peers as traitors to the cause.

And those perverted by religious militancy clearly understand the psychological power their images present when standing in the dock, in the same way that IRA combatants did... By iconising themselves as defiant, unrepentant warrior zealots, they attempt to become Islamic heroes (in the Australian context of similar legendary defiance, think Ned Kelly).

There are few, if any, options available to the state other than the handing down of very long prison sentences to diminish the Islamist's potent image.

Helian,

I agree with most of what you said. The thing is, the previous comments I've posted in this thread were regarding average muslims and the price they have to pay for the actions of fundamentalists.

Terrorists need to be dealt with, and harshly. But how many people in Australia have been convicted or even accused of terrorist activity? Very few. Globally the number of people detained and tortured in regards to terrorism are mostly innocent. If the world had as many terrorists as our governments suggest, we would have all been blown to bits by now.

Annie, yes it's usually the innocent who pay the highest price in any conflict, given that the zealot would almost as soon give up his entire family's life as quickly as his own to advance the cause, he gives far less in value than the uninvolved.

A single successful terrorist strike in Australia would in all likelihood have a catastrophic effect on the general population of a magnitude many times greater than the damage done.

How do we motivate the mythical moderate Muslims to publicly denounce militant Islamism and reject their misguided responsibility to Islamic "fraternity"?

Aren't you a little tired of the invoking the likes of the Crusades as the reason that it is we who should be apologising?

Will Muslim Australia ever accept that the Australian state supports the existence of Israel? That the state will identify with the causes of the secular west before those of other regions?

How do we motivate ourselves to trust Australian Muslims enough to believe that they are not all praying for the destruction of our state and our system of government?

Helian, when it comes to the Israel/Palestine debate, I personally come down hard with both feet firmly on the side of the Palestinians. But...while I don't 'support' Israel's right to exist - especially when their government's policy towards the Palestinian people is so destructive - I do think it's too late to change the fact that it does now exist, therefore the only option now is to open some kind of productive dialogue.


Quote:

How do we motivate the mythical moderate Muslims to publicly denounce militant Islamism and reject their misguided responsibility to Islamic "fraternity"?

Mythical? So there are no moderate muslims? I would have thought you knew better than that. Most muslims do denounce terrorism. We need to give them a platform for their voices to be heard though. We need to listen instead of making assumptions about what they think.


Quote:

Aren't you a little tired of the invoking the likes of the Crusades as the reason that it is we who should be apologising?

I don't recall doing that, nor do I see the necessity or even the point of it.


Quote:

How do we motivate ourselves to trust Australian Muslims enough to believe that they are not all praying for the destruction of our state and our system of government?

By learning about them and talking to them without any preconceived notions of what they are thinking. Australian muslims (except that small psycho fringe element) have as much motivation for wanting Australia to be a peaceful, productive place to live as the rest of us.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 10:39am:

Quote: How do we motivate the mythical moderate Muslims to publicly denounce militant Islamism and reject their misguided responsibility to Islamic "fraternity"? Mythical? So there are no moderate muslims? I would have thought you knew better than that. Most muslims do denounce terrorism. We need to give them a platform for their voices to be heard though. We need to listen instead of making assumptions about what they think.

"Mythical" - a mischievous little adjective for rhetorical flourish ;D

Do they (denounce terrorism)? While I may assume that most do (and I do), I hear/read very little of that denunciation.

Platforms are available to all.

We (you and I) make assumptions that the majority of Muslims denounce militant Islam, in the same way many of us made assumptions that the southern Catholic Irish denounced IRA activity... Although whenever I spoke to a southern Irish Catholic, mostly I'd hear equivocation of the same kind many Poles once described the Nazi treatment of Jews.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 10:39am:

Quote: Aren't you a little tired of the invoking the likes of the Crusades as the reason that it is we who should be apologising? I don't recall doing that, nor do I see the necessity or even the point of it.

Sorry, should have said "Aren't you a little tired hearing/readingof the invoking the likes of the Crusades as the reason that it is we who should be apologising?"

Quote:

"Aren't you a little tired hearing/readingof the invoking the likes of the Crusades as the reason that it is we who should be apologising?"

Yes, I am. It all gets old after a while. It happens on both sides though... and that's what I've been trying to say. Instead of accusations, insults and dragging up long ago conflicts when there's already so much of it now, we need to collectively take a deep breath and seriously look at how to close the divide. The only way to do that is, as I said before, communication.

fd,


Quote:

Can you explain how this applies to Afghanistan? Or are you just giving us the definition of a resistance movement?

Not quite sure what you mean there. In recent history, Afghanistan has seen several resistance movements, firstly during the failed British attempt to colonise it in the 19th. century, then during the Soviet attempt, and now during the Western coalition attempt, which is really an extension of the Soviet attempt.


Quote:

That doesn;t make much sense Abu. They are rival political systems, whether they exist or not. They do not have to be rival countries to be rival options. If you seek a return of the caliphate, then democracy is a rival. Your constant insistance that the nature of the polical system you seek to establish is irrelevant to the discussion about that system because it does not yet exist is just absurd.

Actually if you think about it logically it makes perfect sense. The only way in which democracy is a rival to the Caliphate is if democracy is actually the one trying to enforce it's rule onto other people's countries. But then that destroys the whole argument about Muslims supposedly being a threat to Western societies doesn't it?

mozza,


Quote:

I could point you toward scholarly works which have studied the rise of militant Islam, and have actually posted links to such works before, but you have always refused to acknowlwdge them as credible, because they were not written by muslims.

Ok, how about you give it a try. Show me, where in 1970~ all of a sudden militant Islam rose, where before it didn't exist.

I might just inform you first that the main groups who are considered to be "militant" are groups like the Salafis, who have been in existence since about the late 18th. century, when their "Wahabi rebellion" first began against the Ottoman Caliphate, backed by the British. Other groups often claimed to be militant like the Muslim Brotherhood have existed since the 1930's, and were instrumental in fighting the creation of the Zionist entity in Palestine from the 1940's onwards, until their branch was established in Palestine (now known as Hamas).

Other groups like Hezbollah were founded in the mid-1980's. I'm curious which groups exactly do you claim "arose" in 1970~??? I can't for the life of me think of one that was formed or rose to prominence around that time. For that reason alone I think you've got absolutely no idea about the history of this conflict at all, and are therefore speaking nothing but bovine faeces.


Quote:

As an exercise in fairness I will ask if you can explain the inter-muslim violence that has been prominent for quite a while longer than any of the resistance movements reacting to colonisation?

Can you provide an example of it??


Quote:

The bottom line is that any would be "teacher"/"leader" that can muster the chutzpah to bang on about their own interpretation of Islamic teachings, is pretty much as valid as any other, as Islam has no hierarchy which is universally accepted and recognised, but more of a nut of the day club, where whoever has overwound his headress a little can direct followers to adopt errant behaviours, and claim it is divinely inspired. It is the reason for all the confllict, because they never agree with each other, or anyone else, and always claim to be inspired by Allah, so they kill each other, they kill those from rival sects, tribes, countries, and also rival religions and cultures.

Actually this sounds a lot more like Christianity than Islam to me. Islam has a very strict system of authentication of scholarship, which means that it's very hard for any looney to just come along, build a compound, declare himself a messiah-of-sorts, amass weapons and engage in a siege. This kind of thing seems to be the forte of Christians. Likewise any Muslim who claimed to be "inspired by allah" would pretty much instantly be considered an apostate, since we do not believe inspiration exists after the time of Muhammad (pbuh).

This is just another case of your ignorant claims about Islam, which are usually based on transposing your knowledge of Christian extremism onto Islam. Without even the basic knowledge that most of it simply doesn't apply to Islam, and exposes you for the ignoramus you are.

Nevermind though, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your ramblings.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 3:38pm:

fd, Actually if you think about it logically it makes perfect sense. The only way in which democracy is a rival to the Caliphate is if democracy is actually the one trying to enforce it's rule onto other people's countries. But then that destroys the whole argument about Muslims supposedly being a threat to Western societies doesn't it?

Non-democratic countries ARE a threat to democracies. Non-democraic countries that wish to see their particular system of dictatorship across the world - fascists, communists, sharia-based islamists - are by definition grave threats.

Quote:

Not quite sure what you mean there. In recent history, Afghanistan has seen several resistance movements, firstly during the failed British attempt to colonise it in the 19th. century, then during the Soviet attempt, and now during the Western coalition attempt, which is really an extension of the Soviet attempt.

I see. So it was just an exercise in stating the obvious. You could take the word muslim out and nothing would change:


Quote:

The only thing consistent about Muslim resistance movements is the presence of a colonising power.

Quote:

Actually if you think about it logically it makes perfect sense. The only way in which democracy is a rival to the Caliphate is if democracy is actually the one trying to enforce it's rule

That doesn't make sense. Democracy is a system of government that can be used by groups of people with any ideology. It is not an entity that acts of it's own free will. This is like saying that Islam blew up the world trade centre.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

That doesn't make sense. Democracy is a system of government that can be used by groups of people with any ideology. It is not an entity that acts of it's own free will. This is like saying that Islam blew up the world trade centre.

Democracy cannot be used by any ideology. It is not an entity with free will but an entity devised by people who regard exercising their free will as one of their essential characteristics. This immediatly rules out Mohammedans.

That Islam blew up the world trade centre, as a shortand, is a very apt summary of what is happening - Muslims are exporting their civil wars everywhere. ANd their civil wars are fought about the meaning of Islam, which, evidently, includes blowing up the world trade centre and trains in Spain, England, India, bars in Bali and so on and on and on and on. And on.
It is the same civil war that started in 632.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 3:52pm:

mozza, Quote: I could point you toward scholarly works which have studied the rise of militant Islam, and have actually posted links to such works before, but you have always refused to acknowlwdge them as credible, because they were not written by muslims. Ok, how about you give it a try. Show me, where in 1970~ all of a sudden militant Islam rose, where before it didn't exist. I might just inform you first that the main groups who are considered to be "militant" are groups like the Salafis, who have been in existence since about the late 18th. century, when their "Wahabi rebellion" first began against the Ottoman Caliphate, backed by the British. Other groups often claimed to be militant like the Muslim Brotherhood have existed since the 1930's, and were instrumental in fighting the creation of the Zionist entity in Palestine from the 1940's onwards, until their branch was established in Palestine (now known as Hamas). Other groups like Hezbollah were founded in the mid-1980's. I'm curious which groups exactly do you claim "arose" in 1970~??? I can't for the life of me think of one that was formed or rose to prominence around that time. For that reason alone I think you've got absolutely no idea about the history of this conflict at all, and are therefore speaking nothing but bovine faeces.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 3:52pm:

mozza, Quote: I could point you toward scholarly works which have studied the rise of militant Islam, and have actually posted links to such works before, but you have always refused to acknowlwdge them as credible, because they were not written by muslims. Ok, how about you give it a try. Show me, where in 1970~ all of a sudden militant Islam rose, where before it didn't exist. I might just inform you first that the main groups who are considered to be "militant" are groups like the Salafis, who have been in existence since about the late 18th. century, when their "Wahabi rebellion" first began against the Ottoman Caliphate, backed by the British. Other groups often claimed to be militant like the Muslim Brotherhood have existed since the 1930's, and were instrumental in fighting the creation of the Zionist entity in Palestine from the 1940's onwards, until their branch was established in Palestine (now known as Hamas). Other groups like Hezbollah were founded in the mid-1980's. I'm curious which groups exactly do you claim "arose" in 1970~??? I can't for the life of me think of one that was formed or rose to prominence around that time. For that reason alone I think you've got absolutely no idea about the history of this conflict at all, and are therefore speaking nothing but bovine faeces.

Harvard uni press OK with you?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ROUEVE.html

Here's the jist: Palestinian refugees comprise about 12 percent of Lebanon's population. Considered foreigners by law (only a handful have obtained Lebanese citizenship since 1948), they are subject to a number of onerous restrictions, and somewhat more than 60 percent live in 12 United Nations Relief and Works Agency camps that have become semisovereign small towns. Everyday Jihad builds on an in-depth case study of everyday politics in one such camp, Ain al-Helweh, to explain the larger role of the Palestinians in Lebanon. It is a complex and depressing story. The organizing theme, as the subtitle suggests, is that the Palestine Liberation Organization, once the preeminent force among Palestinians in Lebanon, is losing out to jihadists as nationalist ideology gives way to Islamism. An implicit theme is that of the Palestinians as an alien underclass in Lebanon and the region -- caught up in ongoing Lebanese politics while remaining outsiders, manipulated by Syria, and embracing political programs, once nationalist and now increasingly Islamist, that hold out scant chance of being realized.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62784/l-carl-brown/everyday-jihad-the-rise-of-militant-islam-among-palestinians-in-



Militant Islam has existed  since 632 but in modern times it rose to prominence when it succeeded Arab nationalism (an incomprehensible notion for clannish, tribal people) proved to be, predictably, unable to rouse and bind them to defeat Israel in 1967 and 1973.

The spelling, by the way, of one of those toxic outfits is is Hizb 'Allah, the party of Allah. Hezbollah conceals the true name of these thugs. Or are you now worshipping Ollah?

you incite hatred against yourself abu.

same as many muzzies

Quote:

Harvard uni press OK with you?

I'm fine with it, but nowhere in that excerpt does it say militant Islam arose in 1970~.


Quote:

...bollah conceals the true name of these thugs. Or are you now worshipping Ollah?

Since you're obviously not aware of the complexities of a language which has case endings, and initial consonants that can be elided, I guess it escapes you why it becomes ollah or ullah when the word is placed in construct state. Nevermind.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 11:45pm:

Quote: Harvard uni press OK with you? I'm fine with it, but nowhere in that excerpt does it say militant Islam arose in 1970~. [quote]...bollah conceals the true name of these thugs. Or are you now worshipping Ollah?

Since you're obviously not aware of the complexities of a language which has case endings, and initial consonants that can be elided, I guess it escapes you why it becomes ollah or ullah when the word is placed in construct state. Nevermind.
[/quote]



Take it up with these guys:
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/nationalsecurity.nsf/Page/What_Governments_are_doing_Listing_of_Terrorism_Organisations_Hizballah_External_Security_Organisation

[quote author=abu_rashid link=1265797120/60#66 date=1266395874]
I can bring you countless incidents of Muslims resisting the colonialists prior to 40 years ago. The idea that all of a sudden something changed 40 years ago is not historically sound. [quote]

Muslims resisting western imperialism is old news. If you want, you can go back to the crusades, and following that, to the expansion of the Ottoman empire into Western Europe.

But imperial warfare is hugely different to what we see today. Geopolitically, it's like the difference between WWI and the Cold War. Afghan tribesmen defending their territories against the British is different to the various forces and ideas battling it out in Afghanistan right now. Of course, you'd think the west would learn from history.

They never do...

There are a number of influences that have occurred over the last 50 years or so that have changed the face of Islamic struggle (and conflict with the west). Technological changes like the invention of light arms (AK47s and hand-held missile launchers) have played a huge role, not to mention the internet.

But these things always occur within a history of ideas. One of the chief influences on Al Qaida and the whole notion of militant jihad was the writer/martyr Sayyid Qutb, executed in Egypt in 1966 for allegedly plotting to overthrow the Nasser regime. Qutb focused the struggle onto the US and western materialism, and he advocated the notion of struggle as miltant in the persuit of defending the Islamic faith against the creep of western corruption and decadence.

After his execution, Qutb's brother, Mohamed Qutb, moved to Saudi Arabia, and went on, through connections in the "Muslim Brotherhood", to personally influence Osama bin Laden.

Then Osama moved to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s, and the rest is history.

In the 1960s, the main theme in Arab foreign policy was Pan-Arab nationalism (or Nasserism), which centred around the 1967 war with Israel, but stretched to a range of treaties and shared agendas. Pan-Arab nationalism was a shared nationalist cause, not Islamic, but of course the two influenced each other.

Also fundamental was the rise of OPEC (with its offshoot branch, OPAEC: Organisation of ARAB Exporting Petrolium Countries), who flexed their collective muscle and implimented the oil crisis in 1973, causing a global recession that the west didn't forget - especially Dick Cheney.

The oil embargo was a response to the 1967 war, and the inability/unwillingness of the UN to move Israel back to its former borders. So Israel, and the US using its Security Council veto power in the UN, were crucial in pissing off the Arabs, and then militant groups like Al Qaeda, since 1967.

But I'd say it was Sayyid Qutb's writings, particularly his 30 volume treatise on the Koran, In the Shadow of the Qur'an, that placed Islam's gaze outwards and re-interpreted the notion of jihad as a form of physical warfare against various external enemies (like Western materialism). For Qutb, jihad should not be defensive, but offensive. Also, through his influence on groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic concepts like Ummah (or community) have been re-interpreted into the geopolitical realm, manifesting in the dream of some for an Islamic Caliphate to spread out and rid the world of non-Muslim evil.

Qutb's "martyrdom" at the hands of the US-collaborating Nasser government occurred in 1966. The shockwaves from this event - and Qutb's writings - have influenced the modern idea of militant jihad.

Defending your tribe or empire's borders through conventional warfare is one thing. Strapping on an explosive belt and committing suicide (which is unforgivable in Islam) - not to mention mass murder - is another.

And it is in the last 40 years or so that we've seen such a fundamental re-interpetation of Islam's core teachings.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

And it is in the last 40 years or so that we've seen such a fundamental re-interpetation of Islam's core teachings.

For some, that is, not all. Islam is by no means monolithic.

I agree with Karnal, Islamist extremism does seem to have emanated from sayid qutb, and his reinvigorating the brotherhood of Islam, after his time in the US in the 1950's, where he was outraged and disgusted to see teenagers dancing together, and even holding hands in public.

He returned to egypt to see the US culture creeping into the youth culture of egypt, where some women were even immoral enough to wear T Shirts in public.
That was it, obviously it was his duty to try and have the president of egypt assassinated, and stop the slide into decadence which would spell doom for decency as he saw it.

Meanwhile we had a corrupt regime in Iran, and a crazy ayatollah in exile, colluding with lunatic french socialist extremists, and VOILA, we had a muslim revolution, and the Isllamic state of Iran was born.

The extremist muslims had found a voice on the world stage, and as they say, the rest is history.

The Ummah, the Caliphate - the Ottoman Empire -  was so degenerate that it was, as everyone knows, the sick man of Europe by the late 19th century.
If not Qutb, then someone else whould have revived the idea - it in not an invention - that jihad is conquering war for islam.
Nationalism is not for tribal people. Work, dispiclined organisation beyond tribal allegiances, industrialisation - these are not for tribal people. Jihad is the only thing Muslims can agree on, as Muslims,  and rally around as their own distinctive 'thang'. Everything else means acceptance of western (Christian, infidel) leadership. Can't have that.

But it is too late.

Militant Islam arose with Muhammed.

And it was a great contest while both Christians and Muslims believed their own dogma.

But now that Christians believe in modernity - the thing that beat the dogma out of them - Muslims have nothing left but to cling on.
So Christianity is not the threat to islam. Modernity is. Modernity, combined with Islam's built-in sclerosis,  means the end of Islam as it knows itself. It is now either that the world will have to turn back or Islam will have to break. With the spread of literacy, Islam has left that fight far, far too late.

Quote:

I agree with Karnal, Islamist extremism does seem to have emanated from sayid qutb

You say that with such an air of authority mozza, as if you actually known something about it, other than what you gleaned from a documentary which tried to paint all Islamist movements as springing from him.

Although Sayyid Qutb (may God shower his soul with mercy) was indeed a very influential intellectual in the Muslim world, his influence was restricted to certain 'strands' of Islamist movements. It's nowhere near as wide reaching and influential as you think.

Go and google a picture of him and see what he looks like, the guy doesn't even have a beard, he's hardly an Islamist ideologue. Many Islamists, most notably the Salafi/Wahabi movement reject him and his writings, and inevitably that's where OBL's teachings come from, not from the MB. OBL did respect him for his unflinching stance in the face of the tyrant Nasser, but he's not quite the "al-Qaedah Godfather" that documentary makes him out to be. In fact this idea has largely been promoted by the Salafi/Wahabis because they want to remove any association of al-Qaedah from themselves (they being closely allied with Americas favourite little Arabian Monarchy and all).

Also keep in mind the guy never even lived in the time of al-Qaedah, never committed a single act of violence against a Western target, nor any target as far as we can tell. So to link him so intrinsically to al-Qaedah and global terrorism is just ridiculous and wrong.


Quote:

obviously it was his duty to try and have the president of egypt assassinated

Come on mozza you completely threw your credibility in the bin there. It's well known and admitted, even by his detractors and opponents, that he was framed for that. Nasser was nothing but a despot who wanted to get rid of the MB, because they helped him into power (naively) and now wanted him to reciprocate, by giving them some say in his new government. He refused and began liquidating their leadership.

Quote:

With the spread of literacy, Islam has left that fight far, far too late.

Unfortunately for you soren, your beliefs about Islam all rest on this set of fallacies. The concept that Islam is some backwards primitive tribalistic cult, that's just waiting for modernity to bust it open and assign it to the trashcan of history. But we both know that this is not what happens. When Muslims become more educated, more literate etc. they become stronger in Islam. And this is what worries you (and the rest of the Western world). You expected Islam to whither amongst immigrants, once they saw the great dazzling Western civilisation in practise... but they didn't, in fact those who were astray from Islam began to return to it.

Now you just need to make the connection as to why this is the case, and reject your misguided notion that Islam is backwards, primitive, tribalistic or a cult. Remaining in a state of self-delusion forever is not good for your soul.

Quote:

But we both know that this is not what happens. When Muslims become more educated, more literate etc. they become stronger in Islam. And this is what worries you (and the rest of the Western world).

Doesn't 'worry' me. My biggest worries are the leftist enablers of Islam. If we did not have the leftist muslim enabler traitors in our midst, Islam would be easily squashed.

Recently - good news - your trade union former allies are deserting you, right across the EU. So you are left with Leftist Academics and the Leftist Press. Real solid allies there.

Soon Islam in the West will be isolated and crushed.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 8:55pm:

Quote: With the spread of literacy, Islam has left that fight far, far too late. Unfortunately for you soren, your beliefs about Islam all rest on this set of fallacies. The concept that Islam is some backwards primitive tribalistic cult, that's just waiting for modernity to bust it open and assign it to the trashcan of history. But we both know that this is not what happens. When Muslims become more educated, more literate etc. they become stronger in Islam. And this is what worries you (and the rest of the Western world). You expected Islam to whither amongst immigrants, once they saw the great dazzling Western civilisation in practise... but they didn't, in fact those who were astray from Islam began to return to it. Now you just need to make the connection as to why this is the case, and reject your misguided notion that Islam is backwards, primitive, tribalistic or a cult. Remaining in a state of self-delusion forever is not good for your soul.

The educated Muslims who are leading the revival are the twins of the Bolshevik and the Nazi party - they are the vanguard. The educated class that has the leisure to dream up the new dawn. They are after political power.
But you can't have political power based on primitive, tribal dogmas. Except among tribalistic, backward, illiterate people - Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Aceh.  

Well one thing I must say Muslims should thank the West for, is giving them the opportunity to learn about Islam in it's pure unadulterated form, without the confusion of nationalism and cultural baggage that can sometimes cloud people's knowledge of it in the Muslim lands. The clear perspective Muslims have been able to get of Islam, whilst living in the West has facilitated the revival in many ways by helping to break down the innovation which had crept into some countries' cultures.

You should feel proud for having facilitated this :)

Just like expert Mozza said, Sayyid Qutb (may God shower him with mercy) didn't even come to his realisations until he went to America :) Thank you America!!

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 9:33am:

The clear perspective Muslims have been able to get of Islam, whilst living in the West has facilitated the revival in many ways by helping to break down the innovation which had crept into some countries' cultures. You should feel proud for having facilitated this :) Just like expert Mozza said, Sayyid Qutb (may God shower him with mercy) didn't even come to his realisations until he went to America :) Thank you America!!

Just like communism itself, with Britain allowing Karl Marx to continue developing his ideas.

Stalinism... Thanks Britain! ;)



And what's the bet the American "Nation of Islam" deviates from Islamic "orthodoxy".

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 8:48pm:

[quote]but he's not quite the "al-Qaedah Godfather" that documentary makes him out to be. In fact this idea has largely been promoted by the Salafi/Wahabis because they want to remove any association of al-Qaedah from themselves (they being closely allied with Americas favourite little Arabian Monarchy and all).

I'm not sure if we all saw the same doco. The one I saw paralleled the ideas of Qutb (an Arab) and Leo Strauss (a Jew) and showed how they both fermented their ideas in Chicago in the 1960s.

Strauss was a disillusioned liberal, and went on to articulate a foreign policy stance called neoconservatism. This, of course, was the stance taken up by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al, and much of Bush's team.

But Mazzoak brings up another important change in the past 40 years: the Iranian revolution. Reagan was elected on a promise to end the Iranian hostage crisis. It ended, but Reagan went on to devote his energies to his main enemy: the Soviet Union.

This was the primary cause of Strauss's neoconservatism - to defeat communism. Once this happened, the neocons were left in a bit of a vacuum. The main change to occur in the last 40 years, of course, was the end of the Cold War.

It meant that the shifting sands of Arab alliances no longer had a choice between two rival superpowers. During Bush's first election campaign, the Hawks in the Republican Party (Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz et al) were claiming that Clinton had squandered his chance at numero-uno status. Why, for example, was Saddam still in power?

After Sept 11, the new foreign policy of with-us-or-against-us emerged. This, of course, rallied more to the militant Muslim cause. Two ideologies, who had once formed an uncomfortable alliance when the Soviets were around, came to loggerheads: militant Islam and neoconservatism, or what some have called the "clash of civilizations".

These ideas can't exist without the other. Militant Islam needs the US, and Fox News needs images of Muslims chanting and burning the US flag.

And the economy needs secure surpluses of oil.

The Global Financial Crisis showed us who the real meanie is: deregulated financial markets. But I'm sure we'll come to forget the evil bankers as the flag-burning Muslims come back on TV.

And there seems to be so shortage of suicide car bombers.

So the war will go on. The war must go on. And we have always been at war with Eurasia - haven't we?

Quote:

I'm not sure if we all saw the same doco

Yes Karnal, I think we did, and I must admit to finding it very well balanced and informative, and the fact that fanatics from both sides decry it as biased, is a pretty good indication of it's even handedness.

Fox news commentators can label it as "un-american", and islamic fanatics like abu could call it unfair to Islam, but most people without a personal political agenda to defend will see it as a pretty good overview of just how we saw Islamism and Western Neo-Conservatism come to be such bitter enemies.

The BBC documentary is called , "The Power Of Nightmares" and here is a link to the full one hour program at google videos if anyone would like to see what we are talking about.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&ei=hNiFS6WJFIHaqAOz1dWSBw&q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en#

Also there is a "Wikipedia" page about the doco with further links to opinions and reference material which is also relevant to the subject matter.
Here is the link for that;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

So check it out, and make up your own mind, and see if you agree with Fox media, and Islamist extremists, that it is unreliable, or whether like most normal people you consider it a fair and informative documentary.

Right. I love stories that can trace streams of thought to one shared narrative. But, to be honest, I don't know how influential Qutb really was/is.

What he represents to me, however, is a shift in the notions of jihad and globalisation. What the war represents to me is the essence of modernity. Despite what Soren says about the "primitive" nature of Islam, I think the move to a form of external jihad is an essentially modern thing.

And both sides are/must be caught up in it. Soren is as much a modern subject as Abu. Modern global politics require an external enemy/presence to keep us in check. We are enscribed with a "healthy" expression of anger, whether we get it from Today Tonight or some militant website.

And we are enscribed with an unyielding, impermeable "truth".

That's why I liked that doco - it showed both sides coming from the same place. And this is a threat to the maintenance of permanent war.

The jihad is a personal liberation from desire, not a global Caliphate. But the more anger you produce in yourself, the less you can submit to God, which is the very meaning of Islam.

I disagree with Soren about Islam - I believe it's about peace.

But then, so was Christianity, wasn't it?

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 1:04pm:

The jihad is a personal liberation from desire, not a global Caliphate. But the more anger you produce in yourself, the less you can submit to God, which is the very meaning of Islam.

A new age Buddhification of Islam ;)


Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 1:04pm:

I disagree with Soren about Islam - I believe it's about peace.

Pax Islama?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 1:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 1:04pm: The jihad is a personal liberation from desire, not a global Caliphate. But the more anger you produce in yourself, the less you can submit to God, which is the very meaning of Islam. A new age Buddhification of Islam ;)

Well, you won't hear Buddhists talking about God, but yes. I'd prefer Islam went the in the direction of Sufism, for example, to militant Nazism.

Whether it does, of course, is a matter for Muslims. But in the end, none of us are Muslims or Christians or Buddhists. We're just people. And after that, we're corpses.

I'll bet you God cares about your brand of religion as much as the worms, but it'll be a bit hard to pay you off, I know.

Which part of the cemetary we get dropped in matters little in the real scheme of things, don't you think?

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 1:12pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 1:04pm: The jihad is a personal liberation from desire, not a global Caliphate. But the more anger you produce in yourself, the less you can submit to God, which is the very meaning of Islam. A new age Buddhification of Islam ;) Well, you won't hear Buddhists talking about God, but yes. I'd prefer Islam went the in the direction of Sufism, for example, to militant Nazism. Whether it does, of course, is a matter for Muslims. But in the end, none of us are Muslims or Christians or Buddhists. We're just people. And after that, we're corpses. I'll bet you God cares about your brand of religion as much as the worms, but it'll be a bit hard to pay you off, I know. Which part of the cemetary we get dropped in matters little in the real scheme of things, don't you think?

You may hear Buddhists talking about gods (plural) as in Tibetan Mahayanic Buddhism, but that wasn't my point. The liberation from desire is certainly the most fundamental tenet of all Buddhist traditions without dissent.

From what I know of Islam, it doesn't preach liberation from desire at all. On the contrary it promises an afterlife where one's desires are indulged in an orgiastic sense.

Yeah, but it's not to be taken at face value, old boy. All that virgins in paradise stuff is myth. The truth lies under the surface as metaphor.

Of course, there's medicine for the weak, and there's medicine for the strong. When you're ready for strong medicine, you'll get it.

The gods in Tibetan Buddhism are deities - supposedly a form of strong medicine, but I've never tried it. Gabriel, who spoke to Mohammed, was probably one of these higher forms/beings.

Islam, even its outward version, is all about erradicating desire. They just call it sin.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Yeah, but it's not to be taken at face value, old boy. All that virgins in paradise stuff is myth. The truth lies under the surface as metaphor.

Metaphor may be what you'd prefer to call it (and what I'd certainly call it, but then I reject religious dogma), but Muslims and Christians are quite certain that desires are indulged in an afterlife. Islam goes into more graphic detail about what desires specifically will be indulged. But in both traditions, it's quite clear that desires will be indulged.


Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Of course, there's medicine for the weak, and there's medicine for the strong. When you're ready for strong medicine, you'll get it.

A rather presumptuous statement, there old boy. ;D


Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

The gods in Tibetan Buddhism are deities - supposedly a form of strong medicine, but I've never tried it. Gabriel, who spoke to Mohammed, was probably one of these higher forms/beings.

Are you suggesting there's a difference between deities and gods? ;D


Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Islam, even its outward version, is all about erradicating desire. They just call it sin.

Is it really?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 2:49pm:

[quote author=Karnal link=1265797120/105#105 date=1267071791] Are you suggesting there's a difference between deities and gods?

Maybe not - it's just the terminology they use.

What you do tend to find, however, is that very similar "deities" seem to pop up in different cultures and histories.

Now I'm not trying to convert you or anything, but there does seem to be something there that unites us rather than divides us. Call me a Jungian, call me religious, call me old fashioned, call me anything you want.

It all depends on your focus, of course. If you look for the gaps, that's all you'll find. But if all you see is conflict - if all you seek is conflict - then I'd say the conflict lies within. Seek and ye shall find.

We're in a very privalleged situation in this country. We don't live in Israel, for example, where there's a hightened state of alert, where your religion brands you, and where military service is compulsory.

We live mainly in multicultural cities where, on the whole, things are very laid back and where we pretty-much get on. Most people arguing in this forum have had no experience of the evil forces of which they speak. In Australia, we mainly see these things on TV.

Ah, the omniscient gaze from the antipodes...

It's a very human trait to see the speck in someone else's eye without seeking to remove the cataracht in your own. The faultlines in the so-called clash of civilizations lie within.

I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

What you do tend to find, however, is that very similar "deities" seem to pop up in different cultures and histories.

Yes, the human condition renders a finite set of sensibilities and general experience to us all such that all cultures deal metaphysically with war, peace, love, anger, fertility... etc.


Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

Now I'm not trying to convert you or anything, but there does seem to be something there that unites us rather than divides us. Call me a Jungian, call me religious, call me old fashioned, call me anything you want. It all depends on your focus, of course. If you look for the gaps, that's all you'll find. But if all you see is conflict - if all you seek is conflict - then I'd say the conflict lies within. Seek and ye shall find.

I think we would all agree that religions generally have a lot in common with each other and agree on most things as they all attempt to answer the questions "How should we live?" and "what should our relationship be to the cosmos"?. But it's the difference that divides and those divisions are viciously contested, particularly where a religion claims its dogma is absolute TRUTH (a la Christianity and Islam, including their internal divisions, all contesting their claim to custodianship of truth)... Naturally, for those believers, any deviation from their respective absolutist arrogation must, by definition, be false.

Where that is not so much the case (say between Mahayanic and Theravadic traditions in Buddhism), the differences are not so vehemently contested.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view.

Genious.

The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet?

Quote:

Islam, even its outward version, is all about erradicating desire. They just call it sin.

Not true. Islam is about channeling desire into healthy and beneficial outlets. Islam doesn't say sex for instance is bad, it says it's good (in fact a rewardable act), but it must be carried out within the proper confines (marriage) to prevent corruption of society.

Quote:

And what's the bet the American "Nation of Islam" deviates from Islamic "orthodoxy"

Come on helian, they believe in a trinity and a man-god. They have ministers.... yet they put the word Islam in their name, so they gotta be Muslims... right???

Karnal,


Quote:

I'm not sure if we all saw the same doco. The one I saw paralleled the ideas of Qutb (an Arab) and Leo Strauss (a Jew) and showed how they both fermented their ideas in Chicago in the 1960s.

I know it's the same doco, because outside of Saudi apologist circles (who wish to disassociate OBL from Wahabism by creating the new term Qutbism and attaching him to that), that doco is the only place the claim about Qutb has ever been made. Besides, I've heard mozza parrot this stuff enough times to know where he got it from :)

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 9:44pm:

Quote: Islam, even its outward version, is all about erradicating desire. They just call it sin. Not true. Islam is about channeling desire into healthy and beneficial outlets. Islam doesn't say sex for instance is bad, it says it's good (in fact a rewardable act), but it must be carried out within the proper confines (marriage) to prevent corruption of society.

Right. Same as any other religion I can think of. If anyone banned sex, we'd be in a bit of a dither, wouldn't we?

But I understand your point. We know, however, that there are other sects of Islam that seek a direct experience of God, rather than concentrating solely on the rules of family/social life.

I'd say any practice that sought to repress desires - rather than channel them - would be quite unhealthy, anyway.

This is not to say that many in the name of various religions haven't tried.

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 4:01pm: I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view. Genious. The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet?

Sounds like such "liberal appeasement" makes you froth at the mouth, dear.

However, none of the Muslims I've met have blown up anything - bar the occasional blow-up doll, perhaps (obviously a sin if not married).

Are all the Muslims you've had intercourse with been such bomb-happy die-hards, Soren?

With the exception of the regulars on this board, of course, whom we all know are card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.

Soren wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

Genious. The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet?

The only reason for dialogue would be to stop them from blowing up more innocent people.

I noticed that some think that this reason is enough.

Some people just don't care who is wrong and who is right, they just want to live in relative safety and this is a worry to me.

Karnal wrote on Feb 26^th, 2010 at 9:02am:

Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 5:47pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 4:01pm: I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view. Genious. The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet? Sounds like such "liberal appeasement" makes you froth at the mouth, dear. However, none of the Muslims I've met have blown up anything - bar the occasional blow-up doll, perhaps (obviously a sin if not married). Are all the Muslims you've had intercourse with been such bomb-happy die-hards, Soren? With the exception of the regulars on this board, of course, whom we all know are card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.

It matters not one bit how nice or ugly individual Mohamedan's interpretation or conduct is.

What matters is that the dogmas, practices, aims and methods of Mohamedanism are against every single  principle of the culture, human conduct and ethics that I regard essential for humans to flourish and therefore want my children to inherit. I do not want them, or anyone else, to live under any of the various interpretations of Mohamedanism.

Is that unambiguous enough for you, in a caring and sensitive kind of way?

Quote:

I do not want them, or anyone else, to live under any of the various interpretations of Mohamedanism.

You and your line are destined for dhimmitude soren, just submit to this fact. The inescapable fate that you know awaits :)

Hence your resistance, since you find yourself slipping closer and closer to that which you know you've always been destined for.

Better for you to spend your time accumulating wealth, so they'll inherit plenty of funds to make their jizyah payments.

Channeling Karnal now Abu?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 26^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:

Quote: I do not want them, or anyone else, to live under any of the various interpretations of Mohamedanism. You and your line are destined for dhimmitude soren, just submit to this fact. The inescapable fate that you know awaits :) Hence your resistance, since you find yourself slipping closer and closer to that which you know you've always been destined for. Better for you to spend your time accumulating wealth, so they'll inherit plenty of funds to make their jizyah payments.

;D ;D

You are a funny bugger - and I use the word advisedly. (Cf afghan boy love thread.)

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2010 at 7:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 26th, 2010 at 9:02am: Soren wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 5:47pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2010 at 4:01pm: I might be wrong, but along with philosophers like Habbermas, I see the purpose of dialogue to come to a united - not divided - point of view. Genious. The 'communicative action' of blowing up bars in Bali, trains in London, Madrid, India, flying planes into New York buildings is actualy communicating to me that these fvckers are past dialogue. Are you interpreting it differently? Like they are friends at heart whose grievances we haven't accommodated yet? Sounds like such "liberal appeasement" makes you froth at the mouth, dear. However, none of the Muslims I've met have blown up anything - bar the occasional blow-up doll, perhaps (obviously a sin if not married). Are all the Muslims you've had intercourse with been such bomb-happy die-hards, Soren? With the exception of the regulars on this board, of course, whom we all know are card-carrying members of Al Qaeda. It matters not one bit how nice or ugly individual Mohamedan's interpretation or conduct is. What matters is that the dogmas, practices, aims and methods of Mohamedanism are against every single  principle of the culture, human conduct and ethics that I regard essential for humans to flourish and therefore want my children to inherit. I do not want them, or anyone else, to live under any of the various interpretations of Mohamedanism. Is that unambiguous enough for you, in a caring and sensitive kind of way?

Sorry, love. Just to make it perfectly clear: you're saying you wouldn't want your daughter to marry one?

You don't want them teaching in our schools.

And you don't want them molesting our children (Cf Afghan boy love jizzm payments).

I'm glad we've cleared that one up. I thought for a minute there you were saying you didn't want them taking over the state, establishing a one-world caliphate and replacing our beloved Westminster system with the mullahs in charge and sharriah law.

Mind you, they only want to do all that so they can get their hands on your children.

Allah Akbar!

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 1:33pm:

I'm glad we've cleared that one up.

I have noticed that you like to note down what both the voices in your head are saying. Carry on, it's fascinating.

Ha! You're right.