Quote:

THE nation's peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government's re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more moderate variety of Islamic law that fits with Australian values. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the government's new multiculturalism policy, argues that Muslims should enjoy "legal pluralism". In an interview with The Australian, the organisation's president, Ikebal Adam Patel, who wrote the submission, nominated family law and specifically divorce as an area where moderate interpretations of sharia could co-exist within the Australian legal system. In the submission, the AFIC acknowledges some Muslims believe Islamic law is immutable, regardless of history, time, culture and location. "They claim that Muslims may change, but Islam will not," it says.The AFIC argues this is not the case and sharia can be applied in a way that fits in to Australia and is not extreme. "This means most of the regulations in Islamic law may be amended, changed, altered, and adapted to social change. "Therefore, Muslims Australia-AFIC takes the position that Islamic law is changeable according to the requirements of different places and times, and therefore suits the values shared by Australian people," the submission says. A hardline reading of sharia confers unilateral divorce rights on men, while women who initiate divorce are stripped of their property and financial entitlements. A more moderate interpretation and common practice in Islamic countries is to recognise divorce by mutual consent. In the interview, Mr Patel said: "I'm saying that instead of letting the extremists within Islam take over the agenda, we are saying there is a path whereby it will work for all the communities in a moderate way. "It is important for someone who is Muslim or a practising Jew that aspects of our religion which can be incorporated within the greater legal system are introduced. "This is about personal issues about family, and won't affect any other Australian," he said. "It's about a system that does not impinge on the rights of any other Australian." In its submission to the inquiry, the AFIC says criticisms of sharia as being biased against women and treating them as second-class citizens are wrong. "It is important for Muslims to seriously consider this criticism," the submission says. "But it is also important for the Australian government to respect the rights of Muslim women who want to keep and maintain the way they dress, eat and interact with others, as long as such behaviour does not inflict harm to others. "Muslims in Australia should accept the Australian values, and Australia should provide a 'public sphere' for Muslims to practise their belief. It takes two to tango. "This approach demands a compromise from Islam, which should be open to other values, and also to make a similar demand of Australia. "It is not only Australian Muslims who should reconcile these identities, but all Australians." Mr Patel says the AFIC, as the peak body of Islamic organisations in Australia, "strongly supports that multiculturalism should lead to legal pluralism . . . and twin tolerations". The submission cites regulations governing Islamic finance and halal certification in Australia as examples of how legal pluralism can work. British law since 1996 has allowed for alternative dispute resolution through sharia tribunals, the rulings of which are enforceable in county courts and the High Court. The submission calls on the inquiry members to consider "hard questions" from Muslim communities. "Muslims are required to have social integration with the majority of people in Australia: what does this really mean? Should Muslims remove the hijab, dress like others, drink alcohol and go to the pub to demonstrate they have actually integrated?" In most Western countries, the submission notes, the idea of an "Islamic family tribunal or arbitration is likely to fuel the debate on radicalism and liberalism". "But is it true that Australia will never consider Islamic law?" it asks. "It seems that in two areas, namely Islamic finance and halal food, the Australian government has been actively involved. "So although the Attorney-General ruled out introducing Islamic law, or sharia, at the same time Australian financial institutions are encouraged to do much more to attract Muslim business by developing innovative products which comply with Islamic law. "Apart from the economic motive, how can we reconcile the conflicting statement and fact?"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/muslims-use-multiculturalism-to-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057100331

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

"Muslims are required to have social integration with the majority of people in Australia: what does this really mean? Should Muslims remove the hijab, dress like others, drink alcohol and go to the pub to demonstrate they have actually integrated?"

That would be a good start.

It'll never happen

HC wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

It'll never happen

it could WELL happen.
muzzies are like abu - they never stop.

gillard can make a stand here. Howard would have, abbott will.

there's only one way to deal with muzzies, it's to be very hardnosed.
they disrespect you otherwise.

I think it should be introduced gradually. First, muslims found guilty in a crimina court should be punihsed in accordance with sharia law. There are disproportinately large number of Muslims in jail. Cutting off various bits in accordance with sharia may reduce the overcrowding of Muslims in the prison system.

cut off their testicles or ovaries first.

for any offense.

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

I think it should be introduced gradually. First, muslims found guilty in a crimina court should be punihsed in accordance with sharia law. There are disproportinately large number of Muslims in jail. Cutting off various bits in accordance with sharia may reduce the overcrowding of Muslims in the prison system.

I agree, punish moslems, with ISLAMIC punishments.

e.g.
When moslems incite sedition and the overthrow of the lawful state.

IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg






Allah states that whenever the people riot and promote sedition within and against the authority of the state, those persons who incite sedition to overthrow of the lawful state, should be 'seized and slain (without mercy)'.

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




+++

Google;
uk islam choudary calls on muslims to rise up overthrow state

Google;
islam and democracy are incompatible

Google;
islam can never share power, islam must have superiority





ISLAM'S TRUE POLITICAL AGENDA is clearly revealed within ISLAMIC texts.

Moslems must rule over all other peoples...

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


And that agenda does not match, or align, with the portrayal of ISLAM, by moslems.




All moslems know that ISLAM can never be tolerant of any other authority, except Sharia [ISLAMIC law].


Pakistani cleric: 'We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.'
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-pakistan-and-then-the-world-we-would-like-to-do-this-by.html



Creed of the sword
September 23, 2006
...the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh.
...Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained.....THE THIRD OPTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS WAS ONLY A LAST RESORT, IF THEY REFUSED TO CONVERT OR SURRENDER PEACEFULLY TO THE ARMIES OF ISLAM.
...The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/story-e6frg6n6-1111112254761


"...either by persuasion or by force."




To moslems, the word 'persuasion' is a euphemism, for using deceit against 'unbelievers'.

e.g.
Persuading, assuring 'unbelievers' that ISLAM is a 'tolerant', and meritorious philosophy.

IMAGE...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/London_Bus_2.jpg

No place for sharia law here
Barnaby Joyce From: The Australian May 21, 2011 12:00AM

I take people as they come and, call me old-fashioned if you like, but I quite like the idea that we are all equal before the law.

But sometimes naivete in Australia knows no bounds and when I hear someone justifying the introduction of sharia law while enjoying the benefits of the rights this country recognises I get upset.

Our grandads did not fight for some religious, unelected body to impose themselves on my freedom, stone adulterers or create a stratified society.

I know this is a Judeo-Christian society and I respect that when I go to Saudi Arabia it is not.

If you slipped a development application into Riyadh Council for a Catholic church on the corner of King Fahad and Mecca roads, you would be waiting some time for a reply. Am I a bigot? No, just holding desperately to the separation of mosque and state here.

When Maria Vamvakinou, federal member for Calwell in Melbourne, says sharia law should be "part of the debate", she might think she is the shining orb of new-age light. But some of us have a soft spot for the Enlightenment.

I applaud Attorney-General Robert McClelland in his immediate stand against this nonsense, which goes beyond political allegiances; this is about who we are. So where are our little green friends on this issue? After all, they have a lot to lose if theocracy is allowed to triumph over freedom.

Under sharia law, gay marriage would be another excuse for a good public stoning. How many Islamic countries are introducing a carbon tax?
Contrast the Greens' silence on this with the furore on Monday's Q&A about the evils of state school chaplains. The Greens are happy to muscle up against Christianity but for some reason barely engage Islam, except when Greens senator-elect Lee Rhiannon marches with Taj Din al-Hilali at a "boycott Israel" rally. Perhaps they don't believe in giving all believers equal opportunity or perhaps they are just worried about jihad-inspired retribution.

You get the feeling that in pre-Reformation Germany, the Greens would have been silent on Martin Luther's 95 theses, preferring instead to rail against the injustice of the trees that were chopped down to create the door of the Wittenberg church.

I hope Australia's attention is clearly focused in dealing with this issue. If it isn't, then in a couple of years it will be prescribed that I cannot say I dissent.

That is the end game for the civilisation that gave us Mozart, penicillin, equality of men and women, the man on the moon, Shakespeare, habeas corpus, Hemingway, splitting the atom, James Joyce, electricity, man-made flight, locomotion, Jimi Hendrix - actually let's include the stockmarket, the mechanical wheat harvester and iPads.

Barnaby Joyce is leader of the Nationals in the Senate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/no-place-for-sharia-law-here/story-e6frgd0x-1226059923445

Soren wrote on May 22^nd, 2011 at 12:50pm:

No place for sharia law here Barnaby Joyce From: The Australian May 21, 2011 12:00AM I take people as they come and, call me old-fashioned if you like, but I quite like the idea that we are all equal before the law. But sometimes naivete in Australia knows no bounds and when I hear someone justifying the introduction of sharia law while enjoying the benefits of the rights this country recognises I get upset....

Those who would naively call for tolerance of ISLAM, in Australia, and would allow Sharia law to get its foot in the door [within Australia], need only examine how moslems themselves, in unguarded moments, candidly describe ISLAM/Sharia intent in the world....


IMAGE...
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200508/r54561_147958.jpg
August 4, 2005      
Australian Islamic leader defends jihad
"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.
"The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, is Islam."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1430551.htm


n.b.

"I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate," he said.





+++




"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196


"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i


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