But Oz is a sleepy little corner of the Globe where “faith” is in footy, fishing and the fifth at Flemington. And anyway we have a sweet little section of our Racial Discrimination Act (18C) where our judiciary requires us to accommodate this Muslim leader’s forecast and prevents us offending him.

It’s probably time we put down the form guide and had a gander at what this Muslim has accomplished so far.

Halal certification is going really well, mosques are still mushrooming, imams are still promising multiple virgins in return for murder and there’s even a bikie gang (Brothers 4 Life) to make sure everything goes smoothly.

The financial arm of the movement, Sharia Banking, is also booming with the assistance of local banks like the NAB. There’s a superannution fund offering good interest rates and a housing scheme where you pay no interest or stamp duty at all, allowing you to give the finger to the infidel next door.

link

But still our politicians ignore the elephant.

"But we didn't know! Nobody told us! We would have done something!"

What a dumb article.

Muslims like footy and fishing.

Is the racial discrimination act only for muslims? Its for all Australians.

Increase in mosques? If they meet the council development plans and LEP then they have a right to build mosques.

Since we live in a capitalist environment, no reason why the government cant make money off halal food.

Sharia loans? People have a misconception that if muslims borrow 500k then they return 500k.Thats is not the case. The Islamic banks still make there money and muslims still pay a hefty increase on top of that 500k, the muslims don't call it interest.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

But Oz is a sleepy little corner of the Globe where “faith” is in footy, fishing and the fifth at Flemington. And anyway we have a sweet little section of our Racial Discrimination Act (18C) where our judiciary requires us to accommodate this Muslim leader’s forecast and prevents us offending him. It’s probably time we put down the form guide and had a gander at what this Muslim has accomplished so far. Halal certification is going really well, mosques are still mushrooming, imams are still promising multiple virgins in return for murder and there’s even a bikie gang (Brothers 4 Life) to make sure everything goes smoothly. The financial arm of the movement, Sharia Banking, is also booming with the assistance of local banks like the NAB. There’s a superannution fund offering good interest rates and a housing scheme where you pay no interest or stamp duty at all, allowing you to give the finger to the infidel next door. link But still our politicians ignore the elephant. "But we didn't know! Nobody told us! We would have done something!"

What a loopy rant!  ;D

Does the government have a 'no stamp duty for Muslims" policy?  :D


Quote:

imams are still promising multiple virgins in return for murder

- I think that you will find is a fallacy initiated by the Israelis, but sure sounds scary, so why not perpetuate this myth? ;)

wally1 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

Sharia loans? People have a misconception that if muslims borrow 500k then they return 500k.Thats is not the case. The Islamic banks still make there money and muslims still pay a hefty increase on top of that 500k, the muslims don't call it interest.

That's Islam in a nutshell: Orwellian Newspeak about everything.

It's interest but don't call it interest. It's peadophilia but don't call it that. It's terrorism but don't call it that. It's subjugation but don't call it that. It's misogyny but don't call it that. It's the suppression of free expression but don't call it that. It's evil - but don't call it that.

Soren wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

wally1 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:30pm: Sharia loans? People have a misconception that if muslims borrow 500k then they return 500k.Thats is not the case. The Islamic banks still make there money and muslims still pay a hefty increase on top of that 500k, the muslims don't call it interest. That's Islam in a nutshell: Orwellian Newspeak about everything.

Truly Islamic banking is totally different to Jewish banking.

In Jewish banking interest is charged and the borrower faces all the risk.

In Islamic banking, the banks owns a share of the house, takes a share in the risk, and therefore is entitled to rent from occupants.

This is a better system for the economy because it encourages more sustainable investment patterns, and discourages banks from financing risky investments such as those that caused the GFC in 2008.

" ... give the finger to the infidel next door"

Some also do so by considering it their duty to go on welfare, as the equivalent of a jizya tax they are imposing on the infidels to finance jihad, paid for by their infidel neighbors that work for a living and pay taxes.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/26/muslim-cleric-calls-welfare-jihadi-allowance-needed-to-fight-holy-war-64738

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

" ... give the finger to the infidel next door" Some also do so by considering it their duty to go on welfare, as the equivalent of a jizya tax they are imposing on the infidels to finance jihad, paid for by their infidel neighbors that work for a living and pay taxes. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/26/muslim-cleric-calls-welfare-jihadi-allowance-needed-to-fight-holy-war-64738

Yeah, and if you dig deep enough you can find a lot of Christians with some whacky ideas too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XQX9JifgTjc/TRIOgEBh0oI/AAAAAAAAFYI/dG2gksmbwjA/S748/God%2BHates%2BAmerica%2B-%2BWestboro%2BChurch%2B-2.JPG


http://possil.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/westboronuts.jpg

Is it sensible to constantly judge the majority of any group by a tiny minority from within it?

Soren wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

wally1 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:30pm: Sharia loans? People have a misconception that if muslims borrow 500k then they return 500k.Thats is not the case. The Islamic banks still make there money and muslims still pay a hefty increase on top of that 500k, the muslims don't call it interest. That's Islam in a nutshell: Orwellian Newspeak about everything. It's interest but don't call it interest. It's peadophilia but don't call it that. It's terrorism but don't call it that. It's subjugation but don't call it that. It's misogyny but don't call it that. It's the suppression of free expression but don't call it that. It's evil - but don't call it that.

Good idea, old chap. It’s stool, but let’s not call it that...

Quote:

Is the racial discrimination act only for muslims? Its for all Australians.

The only example I have seen of someone using section 18c was a Muslim complaining that someone's comments were unfair.


Quote:

In Jewish banking interest is charged and the borrower faces all the risk.

Did the Jews invent interest?


Quote:

This is a better system for the economy because it encourages more sustainable investment patterns, and discourages banks from financing risky investments such as those that caused the GFC in 2008.

Crap. Islam's archaic economics has helped to keep the middle east one of the most backwards places on earth. The idea that government should decide on behalf o lenders how much risk they are allwoed to take is absurd.


Quote:

Yeah, and if you dig deep enough you can find a lot of Christians with some whacky ideas too.

The funny thing is, even the most extreme examples you can find still don't come close to the familiar Muslim ones.

Soren wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

wally1 wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:30pm: Sharia loans? People have a misconception that if muslims borrow 500k then they return 500k.Thats is not the case. The Islamic banks still make there money and muslims still pay a hefty increase on top of that 500k, the muslims don't call it interest. That's Islam in a nutshell: Orwellian Newspeak about everything. It's interest but don't call it interest. It's peadophilia but don't call it that. It's terrorism but don't call it that. It's subjugation but don't call it that. It's misogyny but don't call it that. It's the suppression of free expression but don't call it that. It's evil - but don't call it that.

wd soren

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Crap. Islam's archaic economics has helped to keep the middle east one of the most backwards places on earth. The idea that government should decide on behalf o lenders how much risk they are allwoed to take is absurd

There are a lot of problems in the Middle East, but I doubt you can really claim their banking system for them.


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

The funny thing is, even the most extreme examples you can find still don't come close to the familiar Muslim ones.

This very forum has two Christian posters who praise genocide and baby killing.  if any Muslim posters had similar sentiments I'd call them out on it too.


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

The only example I have seen of someone using section 18c was a Muslim complaining that someone's comments were unfair.

Oh no.  Can't have Muslims enforcing discrimination acts now can we.  Don't tell the other minorities, they'll want to not be discriminated against either, and we can't have that.

Quote:

There are a lot of problems in the Middle East, but I doubt you can really claim their banking system for them.

The middle east has had problems for 1400 years. The banking system, and all the other pernicious aspects of Islamic economics, is part of it. Extractive economic and political institutions tend to be self-reinforcing. This is why for example TC still, in the 21st century, describes interest as "Jewish Banking".


Quote:

This very forum has two Christian posters who praise genocide and baby killing.  if any Muslim posters had similar sentiments I'd call them out on it too.

How do you feel about Gandalf's justification for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs in one day?

True Colours wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:26pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:33pm: " ... give the finger to the infidel next door" Some also do so by considering it their duty to go on welfare, as the equivalent of a jizya tax they are imposing on the infidels to finance jihad, paid for by their infidel neighbors that work for a living and pay taxes. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/26/muslim-cleric-calls-welfare-jihadi-allowance-needed-to-fight-holy-war-64738 Yeah, and if you dig deep enough you can find a lot of Christians with some whacky ideas too. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XQX9JifgTjc/TRIOgEBh0oI/AAAAAAAAFYI/dG2gksmbwjA/S748/God%2BHates%2BAmerica%2B-%2BWestboro%2BChurch%2B-2.JPG http://possil.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/westboronuts.jpg Is it sensible to constantly judge the majority of any group by a tiny minority from within it?

No, as you aptly demonstrated through the false, self-proclaimed Christian, posers.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

So why not judge Islam by the available evidence instead?

Anyone who has ever been fed the big lie that it is only a small minority of Muslims that accept violence, should take a moment to review this very comprehensive listing of 98 Muslim opinion polls taken from around the world, which should easily disabuse any rational person of this preposterously false notion. Here's a small snippet from only one section of one poll:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
"World Public Opinion:
61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S."
http://www.brotherpete.com/jihad_conquest_terrorism.htm#religion_of_peace

CNS reports: "Sunni Muslim terrorists committed “about 70 percent” of the 12,533 terrorist murders in the world last year, according to a report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)."
That's for the year 2011, and that percentage doesn't even include Shiite Muslim terrorist murders. Thus it should be obvious to all non-Muslims, that the world would be largely at peace today, if the followers of Muhammad had not been commanded to "fight and slay" non-Muslims in the "cause" of "Allah".

It is also "sensible" to judge a counter-gospel, antichrist, anti-religion by the way the religion and its stand-alone "messenger" is revealed through its own books:

Quran Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them 

Quran Surah 9.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

How do you feel about Gandalf's justification for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs in one day?

I think there is no excuse ever to execute POWs.  however, you are just moving the goalposts on this, as your original statement was:


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

The funny thing is, even the most extreme examples you can find still don't come close to the familiar Muslim ones.

-referring to Christian beliefs, when as stated, and as you well know, there are two Christians here who have justified genocide and infanticide, even going so far as to say it is a good thing.  If this isn't an "extreme example" I think you need to raise your standards FD

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Did the Jews invent interest?

In Europe, yes. Ursury was prohibited for Christians there until the 16th century.

I'm not sure about Australia though. Maybe the Aborigines invented interest too.

They did invent the stick, you know.

Stratos wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 6:37am:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:35pm: How do you feel about Gandalf's justification for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs in one day?

I feel like this has been explained a million times before. They were traitors not POWs. They had supported and incited an invading enemy, and then turned their swords on people whose state they were living in.



Stratos wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 6:37am:

I think there is no excuse ever to execute POWs.

Execution should be reserved for the worse cases.

After WWII the general attitude in Australia was outrage that not enough Japanese POWs were executed by the American-dominated war crimes tribunals.

Quote:

I think there is no excuse ever to execute POWs.  however, you are just moving the goalposts on this, as your original statement was:

Hardly. This is what you claimed:


Quote:

This very forum has two Christian posters who praise genocide and baby killing.  if any Muslim posters had similar sentiments I'd call them out on it too.

Do I have to find an example that is exactly identical before you will feel forced to criticise a Muslim? Is Gandalf's (and TCs) spineless apologetics for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs not a "similar sentiment"?


Quote:

referring to Christian beliefs, when as stated, and as you well know, there are two Christians here who have justified genocide and infanticide, even going so far as to say it is a good thing.  If this isn't an "extreme example" I think you need to raise your standards FD

I agree that it is an extreme example. However you miss the point of what I said: even the most extreme examples you can find still don't come close to the familiar Muslim ones.


Quote:

I feel like this has been explained a million times before. They were traitors not POWs. They had supported and incited an invading enemy, and then turned their swords on people whose state they were living in.

Yes we are familiar with the semantics of pretending they are not POWs, and the baseless claims without historical evidence. There is no need to remind us.


Quote:

Execution should be reserved for the worse cases.

You mean Jewish POWs?


Quote:

After WWII the general attitude in Australia was outrage that not enough Japanese POWs were executed by the American-dominated war crimes tribunals.

Nice. We can always rely on Muslims to speak on our behalf.

traitorous POWs then?

Spineless apologists.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

Is Gandalf's (and TCs) spineless apologetics for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs not a "similar sentiment"?

Can you provide one case of Muslim army killing Jewish POWs? If you search through history you will find that Muslim armies did not kill Jewish POWs.

The only Jewish captives ever killed were the traitors from the Qurayza tribe.  They were not POWs because to be a POW you have to be a soldier from a foreign state. The Qurayza were traitors inside the Islamic state who helped the enemy in time of war.

In wars fought between Muslims and Jews POWs were not killed, but rather routinely released. In Prophet Muhammed's time thousands of Jewish POWs  were mercifully given their freedom. This occurred in a time when freeing POWs was unheard of - in 7th century Arabia the norm had been to kill all POWs or at least enslave them.

True Colours wrote on Apr 9^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 9:00pm: Is Gandalf's (and TCs) spineless apologetics for Muhammed executing 800 Jewish POWs not a "similar sentiment"? Can you provide one case of Muslim army killing Jewish POWs? If you search through history you will find that Muslim armies did not kill Jewish POWs.

At least 86 Israeli POWs were killed in 1973 war, new documents reveal.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.548609

To be POWs, the Qurayza would had to have openly renegged on the treaty they had with Muhammad, and declared their sessession from the Medinan state they were then part of. Then we would have two separate, independent powers, who could wage war against each other, and take POWs from each other.

That is not what happened. The Qurayza led the muslims to believe they remained faithful to the treaty, and therefore remained as part of the medinan state. However at the same time they secretly conspired with the Meccans - who at that stage were trying to anhialate the Medinan state - to open up a second front from within - and according to the Sealed Nectar, conducted actual operations against the muslims. All the while the Qurayza were 'keeping up appearances' by sending the muslims supplies, so as to not arouse suspicion. The negotiations they were having with the Meccans fell through over the issue of hostages (each side would take hostages as insurance policies). Since the Qurayza were in the business of treachery, they knew full well the danger of themselves being stabbed in the back.

When the Meccans abandoned the siege and went home, the Qurayza knew the game was up. Their treachery exposed, they immediately barricaded themselves inside their fort. Muhammad, having barely survived an attempted genocide, wasn't about to let one of the conspirators in that attempted genocide to remain a threat. Having let another hostile tribe leave with all their possessions and watched as they launched hostilities against Medina, Muhammad wasn't about to make the same mistake. So after offering a reprieve for any individuals who abandoned their treacherous tribe (which a few accepted), off came their heads.

Quote:

Can you provide one case of Muslim army killing Jewish POWs?

Yes. I can give an example of them killing 800 of them in one day.


Quote:

The only Jewish captives ever killed were the traitors from the Qurayza tribe.

I am familiar with the argument. They cannot possibly be POWs because they are treacherous Jews who turned against their own leader, Muhammed. We know this because Muhammed told them he was their chosen one.


Quote:

They were not POWs because to be a POW you have to be a soldier from a foreign state.

So there are no POWs in civil wars? There was no state at the time. Slaughtering the Jews was part of Muhammed's campaign to establish a state, with him at the top. At the time he had already kicked the only other two powerful Jewish tribes out of Medina. This was the last tribe standing in his way. Despite his open treatment of the other two tribes and generously informing them that he was their prophet and that should convert in case he kills them, they inexplicably turned against him.


Quote:

In wars fought between Muslims and Jews POWs were not killed, but rather routinely released.

Except of course when it was more convenient for Muhammed to slaughter them en masse. In one of Muhammed's more generous gestures, he once freed his war captives to work Muhammed's own land with Muhammed's equipment, and only had to pay him half of what they produced. The land and equipment was Muhammed's because he had just stolle it all from them, but it was generous of him to let them stay on it.


Quote:

This occurred in a time when freeing POWs was unheard of - in 7th century Arabia the norm had been to kill all POWs or at least enslave them.

Crap. The slaughtering of POWs was almost unheard of. Muhammed enslaved plenty of war captives. The rest just had everything stolen from them and had to pay exhorbitant taxes to compensate Muhammed for the inconvenience they caused in in obtaining their land and posessions.


Quote:

To be POWs, the Qurayza would had to have openly renegged on the treaty they had with Muhammad

More Muslim spineless apologetics. To be a POW, you merely have to be a prisoner of war.