I heard an interesting interview with a muslim who is studying why young muslims are radicalised. It was on ABC RN Saturday Extra this morning. (Still looking for a poscast)

He reckoned it starts in the family, where the children are really discouraged from mixing with christians and other religions.

A big fear is marrying into other religions so the children are discouraged from mixing

The children grow up with a sense of not belonging in the local society

They tend to the find like minded individuals in their mosques and this can lead to looking for a purpose in life (ISIS)

What are your thoughts?

Are parents to blame for radicalisation

I blame Ciobo

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Are parents to blame for radicalisation I blame Ciobo

Now why would you say an idiot thing if you were not, in fact, an idiot?

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 5:52pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 4:57pm: Are parents to blame for radicalisation I blame Ciobo Now why would you say an idiot thing if you were not, in fact, an idiot?

I write for an audience of idiots ...

don't ever say I don't try to please you Soren

Blame individual families? That’s exactly what they want you to believe. But the radicalization is a myth which apologists love to use to excuse Islam for atrocities committed in its name by the faithful. Islam is about two things: the belief that Mohamed spoke with angels and is the messenger of God. The other is the Koran. Once people soak up this crap, there is no difference between the any of them as far as us Infidels are concerned. Koran 8:12 “Cut their heads off.” There are fifteen different translations that all come out the same. It’s not radical, it’s just Islam.

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

He reckoned it starts in the family, where the children are really discouraged from mixing with christians and other religions. What are your thoughts?

What is a radical muslim,is it someone who believes in death for apostasy/blasphemy/adultery/homosexuality or do they have to chop heads off and blow up innocent people to be considered fundamental?

Muslims claim to worship the same god,if you read all translations of this verse you will figure out what allah is trying to say.
quran.com/5/51

This video has English subtitles, white Bosnian muslims who followed that war criminal Naser Oric, he provoked the Serbs then claimed they were the victims in a conflict they started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0G7zmbfIh0

The lefties love Islam

I have tried asking Gandalf about the death for homosexuality thing. I think he is still undecided.

Terrorism is caused by alienation. As a fellow Australian, Gandalf shares some of the blame for this. But as a fellow Muslim, it has nothing to do with him. To stop terrorism we need to address the genuine grievances held by all Muslims, except for the terrorists, who are the only Muslims who are not actually pissed off. These grievances boil down to one thing - people drawing pictures of Muhammed. But we mustn't 'get' them to stop drawing the pictures. We must get them to convert to Islam instead, so that they freely choose to stop drawing pictures of Muhammed. It is the only way we can know peace.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:10am:

I have tried asking Gandalf about the death for homosexuality thing. I think he is still undecided.

But you're not undecided are you FD? You decided for me - that I definitely want to slaughter gays for flaunting their sexuality "mardis gras style".

Who is to blame for your radicalisation Gandalf? Who alienated you?

And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people?

At the Mardi Gras, isn't it? You have to kill both the giver and the receiver.

G has always been very specific about this, FD. You've quoted his beliefs that you wrote many times.

It's those kids who spend their most tender and suggestible years growing up in culturally insular Muslim homes where Islam predominates in every aspect of life who end up as the ones fully 'tooled-up' by the time they 'Get the Call' to active jihad.

It's those kids who have embraced Islam the most - not the least, who get the urge to go and try their luck at being a Warrior for Islam against the Unbelievers and the apostates.

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

don't ever say I don't try to please you Soren

You're permitted to do that. It's the offending the old boy can't stand.

He does have rights, you know.

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Who is to blame for your radicalisation Gandalf? Who alienated you? And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people?

Why are you asking? You clearly don't need my input when deciding what gandalf says about such matters. Just make some sh*t up like you always do.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Who is to blame for your radicalisation Gandalf? Who alienated you? And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people? Why are you asking?

Now now, G, sometimes a question is just a question, remember.

Now, which form of execution should we give the hommers (both the giver and receiver)?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Who is to blame for your radicalisation Gandalf? Who alienated you? And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people?

I have never gleaned even the remotest notion that Gandalf is either radicalised or alienated.

What gives you this impression FD?

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

It's those kids who spend their most tender and suggestible years growing up in culturally insular Muslim homes where Islam predominates in every aspect of life who end up as the ones fully 'tooled-up' by the time they 'Get the Call' to active jihad. It's those kids who have embraced Islam the most - not the least, who get the urge to go and try their luck at being a Warrior for Islam against the Unbelievers and the apostates.

You have some very strange ideas inside your head, Herbie.  Very strange.   ::)

Quote:

Why are you asking? You clearly don't need my input when deciding what gandalf says about such matters. Just make some sh*t up like you always do.

I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people?


Quote:

I have never gleaned even the remotest notion that Gandalf is either radicalised or alienated. What gives you this impression FD?

Lately he often claims to be a standard bearer. He has also given a wide variety of responses on the issue of executing gays. Obviously he isn't a radical by Islamic standards.

When is it okay to start executing religious freaks?

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

I heard an interesting interview with a muslim who is studying why young muslims are radicalised. It was on ABC RN Saturday Extra this morning. (Still looking for a poscast) He reckoned it starts in the family, where the children are really discouraged from mixing with christians and other religions. A big fear is marrying into other religions so the children are discouraged from mixing The children grow up with a sense of not belonging in the local society They tend to the find like minded individuals in their mosques and this can lead to looking for a purpose in life (ISIS) What are your thoughts?

I agree with most of the above.

I know for a fact that Muslims are not allowed to marry non Muslims full stop.

It's not tolerated.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

Blame individual families? That’s exactly what they want you to believe. But the radicalization is a myth which apologists love to use to excuse Islam for atrocities committed in its name by the faithful. Islam is about two things: the belief that Mohamed spoke with angels and is the messenger of God. The other is the Koran. Once people soak up this crap, there is no difference between the any of them as far as us Infidels are concerned. Koran 8:12 “Cut their heads off.” There are fifteen different translations that all come out the same. It’s not radical, it’s just Islam.

Gandalf?

Any comments?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 6:47pm:

I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people?

I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay.

Gandalf, would it be fair to say that Muslim parents isolate their kids from the broader Australian community because they don't want them marrying a kuffar?

mothra wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Who is to blame for your radicalisation Gandalf? Who alienated you? And most importantly of all, under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I have never gleaned even the remotest notion that Gandalf is either radicalised or alienated. What gives you this impression FD?

FD once interpreted my argument that gays should not be killed for being gay as a call to execute gays for flaunting their sexuality "mardis gras style". When I refuted this he resorted to the "oh it was so long ago - I can't be expected to remember" defense. Despite this seeming acknowledgement of error, he refused to retract the claim and when pushed decided to dig in with a new defense, which was "thats how I interpreted it at the time". He did this despite being shown the exact quotes showing not only I said nothing of the kind, but in fact said the exact opposite. As you can see now, this line of his has evolved to become "gandalf has never given a straight answer" - on the subject of when gays should be killed.

And thats what FD does - he asks me questions to which I reply with the straightest answer possible. 6 months or so down the track he brings up the same questions, claiming that I had either been tricky and evasive in answering the first time, or completely misrepresenting what my answer was - and very often both.

My "extremism", you see is a product of a) FD deciding I'm deliberately tricky and evasive - specifically as a way of masking my true beliefs which are naturally horrible and extreme, and b) FD literally making stuff up about what I said - killing mardi gras gays being a case in point.

double plus good wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:28pm: freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay. Gandalf, would it be fair to say that Muslim parents isolate their kids from the broader Australian community because they don't want them marrying a kuffar?

No. There is a logical fallacy in your question.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay.

It is my understanding that all religions tolerate people being gay. It is the buggery they take objection to. That is, anal sex. Or in the case of Islam, doing as the people of Lot did (both the giver and the taker).

Nice dodge though, but my actual question was, under what circumstances should we kill gay people? You haven't made up your mind yet have you? That still counts as a straight answer Gandalf. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Quote:

He did this despite being shown the exact quotes showing not only I said nothing of the kind

Can you explain how this works Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 6:47pm:

Quote: Why are you asking? You clearly don't need my input when deciding what gandalf says about such matters. Just make some sh*t up like you always do. I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? [quote]I have never gleaned even the remotest notion that Gandalf is either radicalised or alienated. What gives you this impression FD?

Lately he often claims to be a standard bearer. He has also given a wide variety of responses on the issue of executing gays. Obviously he isn't a radical by Islamic standards.[/quote]

That’s right, FD. G’s responses were so wide as to be interpreted as a call to blow up the Mardi Gras (both the giver and receiver).

I blame Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay.

Looks like we’ve got another response here, FD.

Cunning, no?

Not really.

I blame the parents.

No, hang on, I blame Islam.

Karnal wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 12:01am:

I blame the parents. No, hang on, I blame Islam.

bump


Karnal,

And if you 'follow through' on your pronouncement,   ....then what course should a sane person take ?



Oh, hang on.

You were merely being factitious, and [as per usual] you were not posting a serious comment.

Correct ?

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:28pm: freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay. It is my understanding that all religions tolerate people being gay. It is the buggery they take objection to. That is, anal sex. Or in the case of Islam, doing as the people of Lot did (both the giver and the taker). Nice dodge though, but my actual question was, under what circumstances should we kill gay people? You haven't made up your mind yet have you? That still counts as a straight answer Gandalf. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By "for being gay" I actually meant the acts of 'buggery' as you put it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

Feel free to keep a bookmark to this post for future reference

Are parents to blame for radicalisation ?


QUESTION;
Why would anyone doubt that moslems [and the local moslem community] are those who are primarily responsible, for the 'radicalisation' of all local moslems, and particularly the 'radicalisation' of their own moslem children ?

Duh.


n.b.
In actual fact;    'radicalisation' = = becoming a [devout] moslem.


Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

"There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah."





IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"

Islamic Protest - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012.




ISLAM itself, has an influence upon all adult moslems.

And adult moslems then have a commensurate influence upon all children within their own community.

It isn't rocket science.     !!!!

------------- >




IMAGE....
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet11.jpg

"Behead all those who insult the Prophet"

The result of children, being under the influence of 'Aussie' moslems - Sydney, 2012





.




The influence of ISLAM's hatred [for non-moslems], in the homes of moslems;
IMAGE...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/Parviz.jpg


Quote:

February 18, 2008 UK jihadist taught five-year-old son: "Kuffar -- kill! Sheikh Osama bin Laden I love" ......"Who do you kill?" asked Khan. "America kill," said the boy. "Who else you kill?" said Khan. "Bush I kill," said the boy. "And who else?" demanded Khan. "Blair kill, both people kill." "Who else you kill?" asked Khan. "Saddam, Saddam," said the boy. Then the pair began chanting at each other. Khan said: "Kuffar [non-believers]" the boy said: "Kill." Khan said: "Mushrik [polytheists]" and the boy said: "Kill."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/02/uk-jihadist-taught-five-year-old-son-kuffar----kill-sheikh-osama-bin-laden-i-love.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/18/nkidnap218.xml



It is obvious that ISLAM [i,e, moslems] regard such indoctrination and teaching the hatred of non-moslems [the hatred towards all that is not ISLAM], in moslem children, as 'normal'.

And ISLAMIC doctrines [and 'religious' texts] teach moslems, that infidels are not [actual] human beings [in the eyes of Allah] - because the infidels are not moslems!



"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."
Koran 8.55

Google;
vilest of creatures, koran




.




MORE.....

IMAGE....
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00610/news-graphics-2006-_610974a.jpg

"Whoever insults a Prophet, KILL HIM!"

Moslems resident in the UK, teaching their children, the 'true path'.




.



AND.....

THIS YT.....

#ISIS child trained to behead Teddy bear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeTeqbUobp0


Yeah, but that is obviously a filthy stinking infidel Teddy bear.

So it deserves to, DIE TEDDY, DIE!




.





ISLAM itself, has an influence upon all adult moslems.

And adult moslems then have a commensurate influence upon all children within their own community.

It isn't rocket science.     !!!!

------------- >





AND here in Australia too,        .....many moslem children are going to grow up, into devout adult 'Aussie' moslems.

Adult 'Aussie' moslems, who BELIEVE, that slitting the throat of a filthy infidel is "as meaningless as two goats butting heads".....

--------- >


Quote:

" "You're never too young to be a soldier of Kalifah." ...and [these moslem children] promise to die fighting to end Democracy in Australia"

Watch a group of moslem children, being coached by moslem adults, to hate Australia, and Australians,
......HERE, WITHIN AUSTRALIA.       !!!!

And of course this cultural coaching of moslem children is all happening behind closed doors, and out of the public eye.


------------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 7:31am:

freediver wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 6:24pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 12:28pm: freediver wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:47pm: I don't think you've ever given a straight answer to that question Gandalf. Under what circumstances should we kill gay people? I gave the straightest answer possible the last time you brought it up: gays should not be killed for being gay. It is my understanding that all religions tolerate people being gay. It is the buggery they take objection to. That is, anal sex. Or in the case of Islam, doing as the people of Lot did (both the giver and the taker). Nice dodge though, but my actual question was, under what circumstances should we kill gay people? You haven't made up your mind yet have you? That still counts as a straight answer Gandalf. Not that there's anything wrong with that. By "for being gay" I actually meant the acts of 'buggery' as you put it. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Feel free to keep a bookmark to this post for future reference

You said that Muhammed's command to execute both the giver and the taker was an obvious reference to homosexuality, but then went on to say that the reference to Lot implied all sorts of caveats. Since then whenever I ask what a suitable reason for executing gays might be, you only ever cite reasons that you consider to be insufficient, saying as little as possible by way of clarification.

This is hardly straight, don't you think? Should we only execute gays that are uninviting to us?

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 6:24pm:

You said that Muhammed's command to execute both the giver and the taker was an obvious reference to homosexuality, but then went on to say that the reference to Lot implied all sorts of caveats.

Firstly I didn't say anything of the kind - and certainly nothing about "caveats" - read it again. On second thoughts don't bother - you'll probably turn it into another "quote" of me calling for suicide bombing the mardi gras or something
Secondly, of course its significant that he said "as Lot's people did" instead of simply saying "men buggering each other" or "committing homosexual acts" - given that the Quranic reference to Lot's punishment was not for mere homosexual acts.
Thirdly, I have made clear my scepticism of the ahadith - oral chinese whispers, mostly for propaganda value, only recorded 200 years after the events allegedly happened.

And fourthly, and I want to be absolutely clear here - I don't believe there are *ANY* circumstances in which gays should be executed either for being who they are, or committing any consensual gay acts.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:

Quote: One would imagine that if it was a specific order against sodomy itself, The Prophet would have said something like "If you find anyone committing sodomy..." rather than the slightly more cryptic "if you find anyone doing as Lot's people did..." ...kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. ::) [quote]What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise.

How do we know that?


Quote:

By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy?

What distinction are you trying to make here Gandalf?[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

Nothing of the sort eh?

Did Muhammed make any direct references to anal sex?

freediver wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2015 at 9:24pm:

Nothing of the sort eh?

Correct.

So I am just imagining that you concede it is an obvious reference to homosexuality then try to read all sorts of caveats into the fact that "the giver and the taker" is not a sufficiently direct reference to anal sex?

Did Muhammed make any direct references to anal sex?

What is the answer to this "legitimate question" you raise? Are you still confused about why someone like Muhammed might make an oblique reference to sodomy?

I'm not sure what non-point you are trying to make now FD.

Are we happy now that I don't believe gays should be killed - mardi-gras style or otherwise?

What if they have anal sex in the context of lust rather than genuine love and devotion (like the aging Muhammed with his neighbour's 6 year old daughter)?

Was I not quite clear on the whole gays shouldn't be killed ever thing?

Do you think it is a reference to killing rapists and their victims?

I don't know and I don't care.

All you need to worry about is that gandalf does not think gays should be killed - ever. Thats what you were trolling me about - remember?

Have you changed your mind about this verse?

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 8:50am:

Have you changed your mind about this verse?

You are confused FD - there is a hadith and a verse. Decide which one you are talking about.

In the verse God destroyed the people as is His perogative. The hadith I don't give a damn of worth to - since as I said, is a chinese whisper passed down orally for 200 years. I was happy to speculate on it for purely the sake of argument, but I don't think for a moment it obligates any duty on muslims today.

So in short, there is no justification for men to kill gays - ever.

~ The world according to gandalf.

Quote:

but I don't think for a moment it obligates any duty on muslims today

Are you suggesting some kind of use-by date?

Oh I don't know FD - how about we ask FD?


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion.

This particular command does not sound very specific to me Gandalf. It was not in response to a specific instance of homsexuality. It was a general call to execute gays.

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:19pm:

This particular command does not sound very specific to me Gandalf.

Oh, I know. This one does though.


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion.

Are parents to blame for radicalisation ?

YES in the case of musseys.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:10pm:

Are parents to blame for radicalisation ? YES in the case of musseys.

Apologist.

islam is solely responsible for the false assertion that true muslims are radicals.

muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer. 

It is very obvious that people wanted to live a peaceful life, in total oppositeness to the filth and perversion muhammad preferred as a way of life.

Why do you think he preached the following?

qur'an 4.95:Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward -


qur'an 2.216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

qur'an 2.244: Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things

qur'an 3.142: Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident those of you who fight in His causeand made evident those who are steadfast?

qur'an 3.157: And if you are killed in the cause of Allah or die - then forgiveness from Allah and mercy are better than whatever they accumulate [in this world].

qur'an 3.158: And whether you die or are killed, unto Allah you will be gathered.

qur'an 3.169: And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord,receiving provision,

They all praise the killers as pure muslims, assured a place in paradise with the fabled houri's with big tits.

muhammad made a distinction between the killers and those who wanted to stay at home, the mass murderers are the highest grade of muslim there is.

islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an are the root cause of the so called islamic radicals (who theologically are muslims in the most virtuous form).

moses wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 9:20pm:

muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.

Was he auditioning for a place in the Liberal Party?

Greg what do you think about the things Muhammed got up to? Like the time he lit a fire on a Jew's stomach to get him to reveal where the Jew gold is? Or the time he slaughtered about 800 of them in one day for being treacherous Jews?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Greg what do you think about the things Muhammed got up to? Like the time he lit a fire on a Jew's stomach to get him to reveal where the Jew gold is? Or the time he slaughtered about 800 of them in one day for being treacherous Jews?

Typical Dark Age antics appropriate for the period and culture they occurred in, FD.   You cannot judge events 1400 years ago by today's standards of moral behavior.   It doesn't work.    ::)

Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 11:43am:

Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in?

For the period?  No.
For the culture they have created?  Yes.
For the culture they aspire to?  No.
For the culture of the rest of the world?  No.

It's not hard, FD, you should have a go at showing some empathy, instead of your universal condemnation for all things Islamic or Muslim...   ::)

Families 'crucial' in stopping radicalisation

Updated: 1:53 pm, Sunday, 4 October 2015

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says families are key to helping prevent the radicalisation of youths after the fatal shooting of a police worker in Sydney.

'When a 15-year-old boy can be so radicalised that he can carry out a politically motivated killing or an act of terrorism, then it's a time for the whole nation to take stock,' she told ABC television on Sunday.

The minister believes families will be crucial in a defence strategy against radicalised youth.

She said a holistic approach must be taken to include families and Muslim community representatives.

Islamic leaders were part of a phone hook-up with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, NSW Premier Mike Baird, federal and NSW police on Saturday.

'It's the families that will be our frontline of defence against radicalised young people, so we will be working very closely with them,' Ms Bishop said.

'No one level of government or no one section of community can do it all alone.'

source

I wonder how long it will take before people tell the truth ?

islam is the cause of the pure virtuous muslim, (the rapist, torturer and mass murderer)

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 9:24pm:

moses wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 9:20pm: muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.  Was he auditioning for a place in the Liberal Party?

You are very tolerant of other people's beliefs, aren't you, Pecksniff.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 11:43am: Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in? For the period?  No. For the culture they have created?  Yes. No. For the culture they aspire to?  No. For the culture of the rest of the world?  No.

Corrected.

If it's not appropriate for the period then the culture they have created in this period is also not appropriate.

SO it's all straight  no for all questions you devised.



Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

It's not hard, FD, you should have a go at showing some empathy, instead of your universal condemnation for all things Islamic or Muslim...

SO there is nothing to empathise with, Brain. But I am not at all surprised that you are desperate to find something about ISIS that you can excuse and so preen and strut about showing just what an empathetic, morally nuanced squishy apologist for evil you are as long as it is Islamic evil. 

ISIS shows the pathology of Islam when it is taken to its doctrinal conclusions.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 11:43am: Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in? For the period?  No. For the culture they have created?  Yes. For the culture they aspire to?  No. For the culture of the rest of the world?  No. It's not hard, FD, you should have a go at showing some empathy, instead of your universal condemnation for all things Islamic or Muslim...   ::)

I have have empathy for the perpetrators of ISIS?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 11:43am: Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in? For the period?  No. For the culture they have created?  Yes. For the culture they aspire to?  No. For the culture of the rest of the world?  No. It's not hard, FD, you should have a go at showing some empathy, instead of your universal condemnation for all things Islamic or Muslim...   ::) I have have empathy for the perpetrators of ISIS?

No, for ordinary, everyday, middle-of-the-road, Muslims, FD.  You're not stupid (like Yadda/Moses/etc) nor foolish (like Soren).  You have demonstrated in the past that you have a brain and can be empathetic.  Why have you stopped?  What was your epiphany moment that closed your mind and made you turn your back on people who deserve understanding and sympathy?   ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 11:43am: Are the actions of ISIS appropriate for the period and culture they find themselves in? For the period?  No. For the culture they have created?  Yes. No. For the culture they aspire to?  No. For the culture of the rest of the world?  No. Corrected. If it's not appropriate for the period then the culture they have created in this period is also not appropriate. SO it's all straight  no for all questions you devised. Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 12:26pm: It's not hard, FD, you should have a go at showing some empathy, instead of your universal condemnation for all things Islamic or Muslim... SO there is nothing to empathise with, Brain. But I am not at all surprised that you are desperate to find something about ISIS that you can excuse and so preen and strut about showing just what an empathetic, morally nuanced squishy apologist for evil you are as long as it is Islamic evil.  ISIS shows the pathology of Islam when it is taken to its doctrinal conclusions.

Perhaps you would care to quote me where I have ONCE been sympathetic to ISIS?  Lets see your best shot!  If you're willing, Soren.   ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 2:19pm:

This particular command does not sound very specific to me Gandalf. It was not in response to a specific instance of homsexuality. It was a general call to execute gays.

You mean a specific command to kill gays doesn't sound very specific to you FD?

Interesting.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 10:38am:

Oh I don't know FD - how about we ask FD? freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 12:46pm: Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion.

FD was a young and naive lawyer, to coin a phrase,  back in 2008

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 2:19pm: This particular command does not sound very specific to me Gandalf. It was not in response to a specific instance of homsexuality. It was a general call to execute gays. You mean a specific command to kill gays doesn't sound very specific to you FD? Interesting.

OK then, let's ask Gandalf. Are you suggesting some kind of use-by date on this command?

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 10:38am: Oh I don't know FD - how about we ask FD? freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 12:46pm: Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion. FD was a young and naive lawyer, to coin a phrase,  back in 2008

So was Abu.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 2:53pm: freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 2:19pm: This particular command does not sound very specific to me Gandalf. It was not in response to a specific instance of homsexuality. It was a general call to execute gays. You mean a specific command to kill gays doesn't sound very specific to you FD? Interesting. OK then, let's ask Gandalf. Are you suggesting some kind of use-by date on this command?

Of course - it expired the minute some schmuck invented it as far as I'm concerned. But thats just me.

Now getting back to what you said, even if some muslims believe the hadith to be authentic, why can't they apply your 2008 logic that nothing should be set in stone? Its like you have some perverted desire to make sure muslims are "locked in" to 7th century society, and any muslims who want to revise Islamic law for the modern world (you know, exactly what you were calling on in 2008), must be ridiculed, mocked, and have it explained to them that Islam's barbaric laws must be for all times and places. Because as we can see, the people who are most determined to keep Islam in the 7th century, are the holier-than-thou critics who rail against Islam's barbarity.

I encourage you to liberally discard this ideology Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

I encourage you to liberally discard this ideology Gandalf.

Nicely dodged fd

Soren wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 9:24pm: moses wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 9:20pm: muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.  Was he auditioning for a place in the Liberal Party? You are very tolerant of other people's beliefs, aren't you, Pecksniff.

Pecksniff ???

PECKSNIFF  ;D ;D ;D

What am I dodging Gandalf? Do I encourage you to discard Islam at the same time as insisting you embrace it in its entirety?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

I encourage you to liberally discard this ideology Gandalf.

That’s because you believe in Freeeedom.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

What am I dodging Gandalf? Do I encourage you to discard Islam at the same time as insisting you embrace it in its entirety?

You seem to be insisting that Islam is unable to change a specific command to kill gays for being gay. Instead your line is - feel free to abandon it all or abandon nothing. ie directly contradicting what you wrote in 2008.

I know it wont happen but I really think Muslims should ease up a bit and get a life.

They seem obsessed with their religious rules and excessive praying.

No wonder their kids become ratbag radicals.

They have no real idea of thinking for themselves and mixing with all types of people/religions.

Is blame actually all that helpful? I mean honestly, have a look at the low brow standard of debate about managing radicalisation, terrorism and other anti social behaviours (including but not limited to) relationship violence, coward punches etc etc etc....

We invest far too much energy in looking to blame individuals (whether that be parents, whole of family, religious belief, institutions etc etc etc) rather than seek genuine and sustainable solutions.

I think it is very symptomatic of an idea I had sometime back, our species is only in its adolescence, hence we don't take responsibility - we look for blame, we do not manage risks but act on impulse and we cause untold hurt and damage.... On the upside, being in our adolescents, there is hope we can mature as a species, some of our "risk taking" pays off with positive dividends (the downside is we still don't manage all the risks) and we invest energy of ourselves into "stuff"...

Are parents to blame, from my perspective, clearly not, or rather not entirely.

This seems to me at least, to be a whole of society problem, yet, we invest our time and energy into exploiting differences in order to gain some non existent higher moral ground in order to crush those we "blame" into submission...

How is that working out so far?

Phemanderac wrote:


Quote:

This seems to me at least, to be a whole of society problem

It's a whole of (a divided society) problem Phemanderac.

On the one side you have people who know that islam is the root cause of all the troubles, (islam is nothing more than the manifestation of the evilness of muhammad's persona) therefore evil will prevail while ever islam exists in it's present form.

To reform, islam has to admit that islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an are all wrong. This means islam implodes.

On the opposing side, muslims know there can be no reform without sounding the death knell for islam, therefore they are letting people die rather than resolving the problem.

Their leftard supporters / apologists are in the trap with them, totally unable to do anything about it, because they would have to admit that the hated Christianity is (shock horror) a better religion that islam, so the leftard apologists let people die rather than criticize islam as being a degenerate belief, which engenders the most inhumane atrocities imaginable.    

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

freediver wrote on Oct 4th, 2015 at 9:37pm: What am I dodging Gandalf? Do I encourage you to discard Islam at the same time as insisting you embrace it in its entirety? You seem to be insisting that Islam is unable to change a specific command to kill gays for being gay. Instead your line is - feel free to abandon it all or abandon nothing. ie directly contradicting what you wrote in 2008.

Islam is an ideology, not a person. As far as people go, you seem to have given up trying to change it. It's kind of hard to get around unless you take obvious liberties with it. You are correct that you are free to choose for yourself.


Quote:

We invest far too much energy in looking to blame individuals (whether that be parents, whole of family, religious belief, institutions etc etc etc) rather than seek genuine and sustainable solutions.

Sounds like you are blaming society.


Quote:

I think it is very symptomatic of an idea I had sometime back, our species is only in its adolescence, hence we don't take responsibility - we look for blame, we do not manage risks but act on impulse and we cause untold hurt and damage.... On the upside, being in our adolescents, there is hope we can mature as a species, some of our "risk taking" pays off with positive dividends (the downside is we still don't manage all the risks) and we invest energy of ourselves into "stuff"...

If we were to take a short sighted risk management approach to this, we would abandon liberty in pursuit of security.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

As far as people go, you seem to have given up trying to change it.

So you are saying that arguing that the conventional view that Islam proscribes death for homosexuality is wrong and should be removed from Islamic law - is not trying to change Islamic law? You'll have to explain that one for me.

You still haven't addressed the issue here FD - namely why do you continue to insist on mocking my view of how Islam should deal with gays by insinuating heavilly that the law in that regard is 'set in stone' - whereas you argued previously that muslims can, and indeed should change the specifics of their laws? I found your initial response to this question - that I should consider abandoning the entirety of Islam rather extraordinary. Even Ayan Hirsi Ali - about the most vehement critic of Islam out there - argues strongly for Islam's ability to reform and become compatible with the modern world. Exactly what you said in 2008. Now you seem to be taking the moses route - Islam is evil incarnate - always has been, always will be, and nothing can be done to change that.

Why do you want Islam to remain in the 7th century?

Quote:

So you are saying that arguing that the conventional view that Islam proscribes death for homosexuality is wrong and should be removed from Islamic law - is not trying to change Islamic law? You'll have to explain that one for me.

Initially you tried to reinterpret the ruling. Now you would discard it entirely. You do not care. You were only discussing the interpretation of Muhammed's command to execute gays in a theoretical sense, for the sake of argument.


Quote:

You still haven't addressed the issue here FD - namely why do you continue to insist on mocking my view of how Islam should deal with gays by insinuating heavilly that the law in that regard is 'set in stone'

There is no good way to reinterpret what Muhammed said about it. I actually agree with you that discarding it is the only appropriate response.


Quote:

I found your initial response to this question - that I should consider abandoning the entirety of Islam rather extraordinary.

Would you mind quoting this question again?

When you get to the stage of consciously 'taking liberties' with it, it is time to move on.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:

Initially you tried to reinterpret the ruling. Now you would discard it entirely. You do not care. You were only discussing the interpretation of Muhammed's command to execute gays in a theoretical sense, for the sake of argument.

Calling for a law and punishment to be discarded entirely is a pretty important way of trying to change the law wouldn't you say?


freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:

When you get to the stage of consciously 'taking liberties' with it, it is time to move on.

Please explain to me the difference between "consciously taking liberties" and what you called for in 2008 that I quoted. Or do you now take the view there is no difference? Do you now think that when muslims do what you called for then, its time for them to simply "move on" from Islam - and that therefore there is literally no scope for muslims to reform Islam? Thats its either 7th century Islam or no Islam at all?

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

If we were to take a short sighted risk management approach to this, we would abandon liberty in pursuit of security.

Freeeeeedom, innit.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

Please explain to me the difference between "consciously taking liberties" and what you called for in 2008 that I quoted.

I believe it has something to do with Freeeedom. Or self censorship. One thing's for sure.

FD won't say.

The price of liberty is eternal Freeeeedom, no?

Quote:

Calling for a law and punishment to be discarded entirely is a pretty important way of trying to change the law wouldn't you say?

What is your point Gandalf?


Quote:

Please explain to me the difference between "consciously taking liberties" and what you called for in 2008 that I quoted.

I did not expect Muslims would need to go to the extent of consciously taking liberties with their religion in order to turn it into something palatable for modern society. Obviously it would strive towards the same end, but it starts to look pointless. Do you think all those other Muslims who cling to the 7th century version are idiots who are going to be tricked into adopting your revisions? Why do you think so many children of apparently progressive Muslim parents are so easily lured back towards extremism? It seems to me that the actions of you and others like you will only ever manage to put a politically correct facade around the problem.


Quote:

Or do you now take the view there is no difference? Do you now think that when muslims do what you called for then, its time for them to simply "move on" from Islam - and that therefore there is literally no scope for muslims to reform Islam? Thats its either 7th century Islam or no Islam at all?

Your floundering and backpedaling demonstrates the futility of the exercise. But I am happy for you to try to prove me wrong. Good luck.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Quote: Please explain to me the difference between "consciously taking liberties" and what you called for in 2008 that I quoted. I did not expect Muslims would need to go to the extent of consciously taking liberties with their religion in order to turn it into something palatable for modern society.

No? That seems to be exactly what the 2008 FD said. His point was that Islam is flexible enough to change with the times. He indicated that such pragmatism is built into the very fabric of Islamic doctrine.

I can see why you wouldn't understand this, FD. You and the 2008 FD have never seen eye to eye on this issue.

You blame Islam, no?

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

What is your point Gandalf?

My point? I just directly refuted what you said about me "giving up" on reforming Islam, and you ask me what my point is?


freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

I did not expect Muslims would need to go to the extent of consciously taking liberties with their religion in order to turn it into something palatable for modern society.

FD this doesn't help answering the question. This is exactly what I'm asking - what do you mean by "taking liberties" - and how does it differ to what you called for in 2008? Do you understand that seeing a non-muslim attempt to differentiate between what is presumably "legitimate" reinterpretation of Islamic doctrine and what you term "taking liberties" is rather non-sensical? Personally, if I was an outsider observing say christians changing christian doctrine to make it more palatable for the western world, I certainly wouldn't be trying to second guess the "true" nature of a doctrine I didn't believe in in the first place - and proceed to lecture them about "not expecting them to consciously take liberties with their religion".

FD what did you mean by what you said in 2008? Do you still agree with it? If so, how do you go about doing those things without making it (in your words) "start to look pointless"?

 

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

It's a whole of (a divided society) problem Phemanderac.

Nope, it is what I said. Particularly in the context of the rest of my post...


moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

To reform, islam has to admit that islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an are all wrong. This means islam implodes.

Really? Did the Christianity implode during the reformation? Did any Christian group admit to being "wrong" or that the bible was wrong during reformation?

Even better, does the new testament mean the old testament is wrong? Are they not both the word of God?

Given the Christian example set, it seems perfectly feasible that Islam can reform and not implode. Obviously reformation is not an easy or smooth process, I believe there are still some significant divisions within the Christian faith all stemming from the reform period.

In fact, it seems illogical to think any religious group can survive without some degree of adaptation (reformation) to keep it relevant to modern life, thinking and needs.

Bare in mind, I am not a supporter of any kind of organised religion - that is the most basic form of exerting power and control to my mind. I have this idea you see that "beliefs" are actually a personal thing. Now you and I might have some common beliefs, yipee...However, the commonality of our beliefs does not make them any more right or wrong than another's beliefs....


moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

muslims know there can be no reform without sounding the death knell for islam,

Some might be strongly of that opinion, any reasoning person though knows that opinions can and frequently are wrong... Just like beliefs...


moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

therefore they are letting people die rather than resolving the problem.

Sorry, that's a pretty basic human condition right there and not exclusively a Muslim one.


moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

Their leftard supporters / apologists are in the trap with them, totally unable to do anything about it, because they would have to admit that the hated Christianity is (shock horror) a better religion that islam, so the leftard apologists let people die rather than criticize islam as being a degenerate belief, which engenders the most inhumane atrocities imaginable

I guess part of the problem here then is that I am obviously not a "leftard" (what a childish word that is...)

I think I have just pointed out, all organised religion is crap so Christianity is neither better or worse... it's just another organised religion, one that a lot of people in our little corner of the globe are overpowered and controlled by...

ALL humans are capable (demonstrably so) of committing atrocities, yes also in the name of religion...You seem to overlook for example anti abortion campaigners who think it's ok to murder Doctors and Nurses (and no doubt some women who have had abortions) - that's pretty inhumane of itself...

This is why it is a whole of society problem. Society will always be divided at some level so it's hardly necessary to highlight that insignificant factor.

We could just blame the parents... Nothing gets resolved (hmm or reformed).

We could just blame the Islamic religion... Nothing gets resolved/reformed and, guess what, more people die.

We can blame any number of people, or, we can stand up and take responsibility for our SOCIETY and take this problem on board as an issue for all. A whole of society problem...

Hate speech after all is just that, regardless of whether it's a Mufti, you, a priest or a politician. It is divisive and doesn't address the problems, same goes for BLAME...

"To reform, islam has to admit that islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an are all wrong. This means islam implodes. "

Correct as the Qur'an is supposed to be infallible and actually the muslim gods word. The problem is of course every muslim ignores the scientific and historical errors and also the fact it was only invented 60 years after old mo ever existed. If in fact he did ever exist of which there is absolutely no evidence at all.

One error in the Qur'an and it all falls apart. In fact it already has failed science and history.

Go figure.

BTW one is allowed to 'HATE' islam and remain perfectly sane. Just like HATING pedophiles and murderers.

Quote:

No? That seems to be exactly what the 2008 FD said. His point was that Islam is flexible enough to change with the times. He indicated that such pragmatism is built into the very fabric of Islamic doctrine.

Yes, that is what I thought when I knew nothing about Islam.


Quote:

I just directly refuted what you said about me "giving up" on reforming Islam, and you ask me what my point is?

You just explained that you do not care about how to interpret that verse. That sounds like giving up to me, particularly in light of your previous efforts.


Quote:

This is exactly what I'm asking - what do you mean by "taking liberties" - and how does it differ to what you called for in 2008? Do you understand that seeing a non-muslim attempt to differentiate between what is presumably "legitimate" reinterpretation of Islamic doctrine and what you term "taking liberties" is rather non-sensical?

I borrowed the term from you.


Quote:

Some might be strongly of that opinion, any reasoning person though knows that opinions can and frequently are wrong... Just like beliefs...

Is this the extent of your argument Phem - that it is merely an opinion and thus possibly wrong?


Quote:

I think I have just pointed out, all organised religion is crap so Christianity is neither better or worse... it's just another organised religion, one that a lot of people in our little corner of the globe are overpowered and controlled by...

Perhaps instead of seeing it as church's vs mosque's, you should see it as two different ideologies. There are clear differences. Insisting that everything you disagree with is equal on the grounds that you disagree with it is reather childish don't you think?


Quote:

We could just blame the parents... Nothing gets resolved (hmm or reformed). We could just blame the Islamic religion... Nothing gets resolved/reformed and, guess what, more people die. We can blame any number of people, or, we can stand up and take responsibility for our SOCIETY and take this problem on board as an issue for all. A whole of society problem...

What is the distinction you are trying to make? Why would something get resolved merely because you wave your arms in the air and blame society?

What have you learned about Islam, FD?

Abu and Falah?

Everyone here Karnal.

Except you of course.

I haven’t taught you anything about Islam?

I understand. I teach classes on Freeeeedom. Islam’s next door.

Yadda teaches that class.

Muslim == a follower of Islam.

You certainly haven't taught anyone anything about islam. Nice to see you sticking to stuff you actually know something about.

FD is this the season of avoiding simple questions?

This has been a habit of yours lately.

Third time - do you agree with what you said in 2008 (quoted in this thread)? If so, what is the difference between what you called on then and what you now describe as "taking liberties" with Islam, which apparently makes the whole thing "pointless"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

FD is this the season of avoiding simple questions? This has been a habit of yours lately. Third time - do you agree with what you said in 2008 (quoted in this thread)? If so, what is the difference between what you called on then and what you now describe as "taking liberties" with Islam, which apparently makes the whole thing "pointless"?

Abu.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

FD is this the season of avoiding simple questions? This has been a habit of yours lately. Third time - do you agree with what you said in 2008 (quoted in this thread)? If so, what is the difference between what you called on then and what you now describe as "taking liberties" with Islam, which apparently makes the whole thing "pointless"?

What was wrong with my previous answer?

I asked you to reflect on what you said in 2008 about Islamic law not being static, and therefore reformable, and you responded by talking about "taking liberties" and how "pointless" that is.

So again, what do you mean by 'taking liberties', and how exactly does it differ to what you called on muslims to do in 2008? Why was wanting to change Islamic law a "good thing" in 2008, but is "pointless" now?

If you simply changed your mind and you no longer agree with what you said in 2008, then just say.

FD vs FD:


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion.

to which FD replies...


freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

I did not expect Muslims would need to go to the extent of consciously taking liberties with their religion in order to turn it into something palatable for modern society. Obviously it would strive towards the same end, but it starts to look pointless. Do you think all those other Muslims who cling to the 7th century version are idiots who are going to be tricked into adopting your revisions? Why do you think so many children of apparently progressive Muslim parents are so easily lured back towards extremism? It seems to me that the actions of you and others like you will only ever manage to put a politically correct facade around the problem.

Its uncanny.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

I asked you to reflect on what you said in 2008 about Islamic law not being static, and therefore reformable, and you responded by talking about "taking liberties" and how "pointless" that is. So again, what do you mean by 'taking liberties', and how exactly does it differ to what you called on muslims to do in 2008? Why was wanting to change Islamic law a "good thing" in 2008, but is "pointless" now? If you simply changed your mind and you no longer agree with what you said in 2008, then just say.

FD would never change his mind, G. That's self censorship. That's wishy-washy, preening, feigning, heinous, spinelessness.

That's what your Muselman does.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

I asked you to reflect on what you said in 2008 about Islamic law not being static, and therefore reformable, and you responded by talking about "taking liberties" and how "pointless" that is. So again, what do you mean by 'taking liberties', and how exactly does it differ to what you called on muslims to do in 2008? Why was wanting to change Islamic law a "good thing" in 2008, but is "pointless" now? If you simply changed your mind and you no longer agree with what you said in 2008, then just say.

Like I said last time you brought it up, I was borrowing your term.

Keep dodging then fd

So has anyone answered the topic question yet?

Can't be bothered reading through 7 pages to be brutally honest.

Gandalf you said yourself that you take liberties with Islam in order to make it more palatable. That is what I mean when I refer to taking liberties becoming a pointless exercise. I am referring to what you do. Do you understand now?

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 5:52pm: Johnsmith wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 4:57pm: Are parents to blame for radicalisation I blame Ciobo Now why would you say an idiot thing if you were not, in fact, an idiot? I write for an audience of idiots ... don't ever say I don't try to please you Soren

You should write for everyone and not only your friends.

Gandalf, a quick question if I may :

Who do YOU personally think is behind this radicalisation process?

Apologies if you've already answered this in here.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

Gandalf you said yourself that you take liberties with Islam in order to make it more palatable. That is what I mean when I refer to taking liberties becoming a pointless exercise. I am referring to what you do. Do you understand now?

Freeeeedom, you mean? Wishy washy, squeamish, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but, evasive, spinelessness?

Ah. So you do understand.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

Gandalf you said yourself that you take liberties with Islam in order to make it more palatable. That is what I mean when I refer to taking liberties becoming a pointless exercise. I am referring to what you do. Do you understand now?

No I don't understand. Why? Because you contine to dodge my simple question about how it differs from what you called for in 2008. Do you now see your advise then that muslims shouldn't be discouraged from changing specific laws (say, oooh I don't know, like execution for homosexuality???) as a "pointless exercise" in "taking liberties"?

What is the difference between what you said was a "good thing" in 2008 and what you now describe as a "pointless exercise"?

Simple question FD.

Quote:

No I don't understand. Why? Because you contine to dodge my simple question about how it differs from what you called for in 2008.

I have also answered this directly. What was wrong with that answer?


Quote:

Do you now see your advise then that muslims shouldn't be discouraged from changing specific laws (say, oooh I don't know, like execution for homosexuality???) as a "pointless exercise" in "taking liberties"?

Did you throw in one too many negatives here?

How did you answer it directly, FD? I don’t think anyone’s seen your answer. I know I haven’t.

Do you want to say it again?

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

I heard an interesting interview with a muslim who is studying why young muslims are radicalised. It was on ABC RN Saturday Extra this morning. (Still looking for a poscast) He reckoned it starts in the family, where the children are really discouraged from mixing with christians and other religions. A big fear is marrying into other religions so the children are discouraged from mixing The children grow up with a sense of not belonging in the local society They tend to the find like minded individuals in their mosques and this can lead to looking for a purpose in life (ISIS) What are your thoughts?

Certainly the parents as they cannot refute the qu'ran. The core of islams problem lies with the qu'ran that was solely written for one purpose to control the population and motivate them to take over the rest of the world. Its so outdated and obvious its laughable.. Parents cannot simply refute its commands to their children to commit these atrocities. For them to do so they would be calling mohammed and allah liars which of course they are only myths. Thats why we have nutjobs running around everywhere trying to explain it away of course which they obviously fail miserable and just look fools.

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:

Gandalf, a quick question if I may : Who do YOU personally think is behind this radicalisation process? Apologies if you've already answered this in here.

Oi!

Stop ignoring me Mr Gandalf  >:(

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 8:17pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 4:56pm: I heard an interesting interview with a muslim who is studying why young muslims are radicalised. It was on ABC RN Saturday Extra this morning. (Still looking for a poscast) He reckoned it starts in the family, where the children are really discouraged from mixing with christians and other religions. A big fear is marrying into other religions so the children are discouraged from mixing The children grow up with a sense of not belonging in the local society They tend to the find like minded individuals in their mosques and this can lead to looking for a purpose in life (ISIS) What are your thoughts? Certainly the parents as they cannot refute the qu'ran. The core of islams problem lies with the qu'ran that was solely written for one purpose to control the population and motivate them to take over the rest of the world. Its so outdated and obvious its laughable.. Parents cannot simply refute its commands to their children to commit these atrocities. For them to do so they would be calling mohammed and allah liars which of course they are only myths.

Moslem parents [in a nation like Australia] cannot simply refute the Koran's commands, i.e. the Koran's commands which encourage moslems [i.e. and to teach their children] to commit religious violence against 'disbelievers'.

Why not ?

If they did; The moslem parents would lay themselves open to charges of religious apostasy [from their own community] and therefore make themselves targets of moslem religious violence.

as per the command of their religion

--------- >

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260





And non-moslems cannot be permitted to simply [i.e. 'openly'] refute the Koran's commands, which encourages moslems [i.e. and to teach their children] to commit religious violence against 'disbelievers'.

Why not ?

Because that would be an act of religious intolerance, by a 'racist'.          < ------ I am not kidding!!     That is how both left liberals and moslems, often portray any criticism of the 'peaceful religion' of ISLAM.      e.g. In just that last day or two, no lesser person that Malcolm Turnbull has come very close to characterising opponents of ISLAM in Australia, in this way.




AND YET;
In places [nations] where the Koran is held in high regard, AND, where the Koran is protected by local law,      ....to refute the Koran's commands [i.e. to insult Allah's perfect religion] often results in the summary execution of the individual simply accused of that crime, at the hands of an enraged mob.




.





LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 8:17pm:

Thats why we have nutjobs running around everywhere trying to explain it away of course which they obviously fail miserable and just look fools.

I don't blame the 'nutjobs' for the appearance of religious violence and the threat of religious violence, on the streets our cities and suburbs in Australia.

I blame people like Malcolm Turnbull.





In actual fact;    'radicalisation' = = becoming a [devout] moslem.


Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441436180/31#31

Quote:

Are parents to blame for radicalisation ? QUESTION; Why would anyone doubt that moslems [and the local moslem community] are those who are primarily responsible, for the 'radicalisation' of all local moslems, and particularly the 'radicalisation' of their own moslem children ? Duh. n.b. In actual fact;    'radicalisation' = = becoming a [devout] moslem. Dictionary; Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

I have also answered this directly. What was wrong with that answer?

Whats wrong with it is that it doesn't exist.

Have another go. Maybe if I phrase it slightly differently:

When I call on muslims to abandon the specific law to execute gays, is that not exactly what you called on muslims to do in 2008? Why are you now calling it a "pointless exercise"?

Supplementary question if I may, which you also repeatedly dodged: do you still agree with what you said in the 2008 quote? Thats a simple yes or no.

I don't consider Islam to be as flexible as I did then.

Previously you were calling on Muslims to reinterpret that command. You have now realised that is a pointless exercise and have thus abandoned it. Like I already said, I support and encourage this.

No fd i never called on muslims to "reinterpret" that command. My position on the hadith has been the same as its ever been: it shouldnt be part of islamic law.  Is that what you thought i backtracked on? Sorry for your self-inflicted confusion.

Anyway you sort of made a token gesture to finally address my question, but it doesn't really get to the point of it. You seem to be hell bent on making a distinction between a sort of healthy evolution of the specifics of islamic law and what you now term as the "pointless exercise" of "abandoning" the laws of the religion. Im curious as to why you wouldn't see something like this - ie a call to reject this basis of the ruling on executing gays comitting gay acts - as an admirable attempt at reformation of religious law that should be commended, as opposed to treating it with the disdain and cynisism you are treating it with - to the extent that it is simply dismissed as a "pointless exercise".

Quote:

No fd i never called on muslims to "reinterpret" that command.

Right. You tried to reinterpret it yourself.


Quote:

Anyway you sort of made a token gesture to finally address my question, but it doesn't really get to the point of it. You seem to be hell bent on making a distinction

Is this the same distinction you accuse me of avoiding?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Is this the same distinction you accuse me of avoiding?

You're not avoiding the inferring of a distinction, but you are avoiding an explanation of it.

It needs explaining.


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Im curious as to why you wouldn't see something like this - ie a call to reject this basis of the ruling on executing gays comitting gay acts - as an admirable attempt at reformation of religious law that should be commended, as opposed to treating it with the disdain and cynisism you are treating it with - to the extent that it is simply dismissed as a "pointless exercise".

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 3:05pm: Is this the same distinction you accuse me of avoiding? You're not avoiding the inferring of a distinction, but you are avoiding an explanation of it. It needs explaining. polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10th, 2015 at 2:38pm: Im curious as to why you wouldn't see something like this - ie a call to reject this basis of the ruling on executing gays comitting gay acts - as an admirable attempt at reformation of religious law that should be commended, as opposed to treating it with the disdain and cynisism you are treating it with - to the extent that it is simply dismissed as a "pointless exercise".

It certainly does need explaining. Which of the two FDs is right?

It would be great if 2008 & 2015 FD could sort this out.

Actually 2015 FD still hasn't confirmed whether or not he agrees with 2008 FD. All he has said is that in this particular example - rejecting the basis of the law to kill gays for committing gay acts - is something that "looks pointless" because muslims are "consciously taking liberties with their religion". But he has yet to confirm whether or not he still agrees with the principle that muslims should be encouraged to "change the specifics of their laws" and that this represents a "good thing".

Now I don't know whether his comments on the gay example are a result of him no longer believing the sentiment he expressed in 2008, or if he somehow thinks that his 2008 sentiment doesn't apply to the gay example. Either way he hasn't explained despite numerous requests.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Im curious as to why you wouldn't see something like this - ie a call to reject this basis of the ruling on executing gays comitting gay acts - as an admirable attempt at reformation of religious law that should be commended, as opposed to treating it with the disdain and cynisism you are treating it with - to the extent that it is simply dismissed as a "pointless exercise".

I'm curious too. FD credits Christianity and the British for ending slavery around the world. There's no point telling FD British Christians started the British Empire and the slave trade used to work it, he'll just celebrate the fact that they finally woke up to themselves and called it off.

Your Muslim, of course, stopped a lot of things at various points in history - the Moors, the Persians, the Ottomans. Beheading the giver and the taker is just one. Meanwhile, in pre-modern Europe, they were putting the giver and the taker on those anal dilation torture machines Bobbie loves to show us.

But FD is cunning. It all comes down to Aisha, that Jew and his gold and the 600, 800, 1000 Jews killed in a day. Islam hasn't changed since.

That's the 2015 FD, I mean. The 2008 FD had quite a different take. I wonder where he went?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:

Either way he hasn't explained despite numerous requests.

That's the Muselman for you. Cunning.

Do you think 2015 FD is censoring himself?

Non-Muslims are responsible for every negative aspect of Muslims' lives.
Radical Muslims? It's the police, it's racism, it's Amerikkka, It's the Zionist entity, it's [your kuffar hate figure here]

Anyone who says Muslims are responsible for jihad, sharia, ISIS, Al Qaeda, terrorist acts and Muslim separatism is obviously an Islamophobe, a xenophobe and tereby is wholly responsible for 15 year old Mohammeds creeping up behind Chinese accountants in Australia and shooting them dead.

No Muslim parent, academic, imam, shikh, cuz, sista, bruvva can ever be responsible.

It's all the Islamophobes' fault.  They MAKE 15 year old Mohammeds do such things.

That's strange, old chap. The Muselman is responsible for every negative aspect of your life too, no?

You two should be making cheese together.

Quote:

You're not avoiding the inferring of a distinction, but you are avoiding an explanation of it. It needs explaining.

Obviously.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Quote: You're not avoiding the inferring of a distinction, but you are avoiding an explanation of it. It needs explaining. Obviously.

Indeed.

I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself.

Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings.

As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today.

Karnal wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

That's strange, old chap. The Muselman is responsible for every negative aspect of your life too, no?

No.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself. Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings. As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today.

This is a good characterisation of the differences.
Christianity is transformative, a religion that requires you to change within. Islam is performative, it requires you to act in a certain way, prescribing minute codes of behaviour without much care about what is inside you.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself. Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings. As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today.

Sounds like a copout to me. Grasping for an excuse to stubbornly maintain a bigoted anti-Islamic stance. 

Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes Islam can and should be reformed - and just like you, she buys into the whole "Muhammad the warmonger" schtick.

Soren wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 3:03pm: I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself. Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings. As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today. This is a good characterisation of the differences. Christianity is transformative, a religion that requires you to change within. Islam is performative, it requires you to act in a certain way, prescribing minute codes of behaviour without much care about what is inside you.

Islam is entirely about inner transformation. You know nothing about the religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:

Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes Islam can and should be reformed -

Provided that the five most fundamental changes in Islamic belief and practice she calls for are implemented:

• Renunciation of Muhammad’s semi-divine and infallible status along with the literalist reading of the Koran, particularly those parts that were attributed to Muhammad’s sojourn in Medina, where he started resorting to violence against unbelievers;

• A shift from investment in an imagined life after death to concentration on life in the actual world, before death;

• Abandonment of sharia law in favour of civil law;

• Abandonment of the practice of “commanding right and forbidding wrong” which empowers families, communities or vigilante gangs to harass others in the name of strict religious codes;

• The radical revision of teachings about jihad, to remove the calls for Islam to be spread by force against infidels.








In other words, Islam is reformable as long as Mohammed's status is renounced together with the toxic parts of the Koran, sharia and jihad are abandoned in favour of civilisation and reason and the large claims Islam and Muslims amake for themselves (“commanding right and forbidding wrong”) are ditched.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 3:33pm: freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 3:03pm: I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself. Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings. As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today. This is a good characterisation of the differences. Christianity is transformative, a religion that requires you to change within. Islam is performative, it requires you to act in a certain way, prescribing minute codes of behaviour without much care about what is inside you. Islam is entirely about inner transformation. You know nothing about the religion.

No, it's not.   You utter the abracadabra or whatever it is called and you are in, you are a Muslim. Performance before your coreligionists.

Look at all the Muslim advise manuals - all about which foot to put first, what ritual to perform when looked at by a dog or a woman, how often to wash after the congress of the antelope.

I say, old boy, are you a baptised Lutheran, or did you recite the proclamation?

Every day, in every way, things are getting better and better.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 3:33pm: freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 3:03pm: I think that what has changed more than my impression of the flexibility of Islam, is the inescapable character of Muhammed himself. Christianity is more flexible in a political sense, because unlike Islam it was never intended as a political system. Muhammed on the other hand used Islam to build his empire. If you see this as a downside to Christianity (eg, it allows people to get all 'old testament') then it is redeemed by the character of Jesus - the common and inescapable themes of forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. Any ideology can be twisted and reinterpreted, but the further you push it, the more likely it is to snap back to the original settings. As you try to make Islam more palatable, you take it further from the intention of Muhammed and from the nature of Muhammed. Islam will always drag it's followers back. This was not imposed on Muhammed by circumstance, rather he imposed it on the world, just as his more conservative followers are doing today. This is a good characterisation of the differences. Christianity is transformative, a religion that requires you to change within. Islam is performative, it requires you to act in a certain way, prescribing minute codes of behaviour without much care about what is inside you. Islam is entirely about inner transformation. You know nothing about the religion.

That's not quite true.

What you should have said, is:

"You know nothing".

Karnal wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 5:13pm:

I say, old boy, are you a baptised Lutheran, or did you recite the proclamation? Every day, in every way, things are getting better and better.

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-Catholic


http://www.wikihow.com/Become-Lutheran


Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process.  All that a person has to do is to say a sentence called the Testimony of Faith (Shahada), which is pronounced as:

I testify “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”

These Arabic words mean, “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.”  Once a person says the Testimony of Faith (Shahada) with conviction and understanding its meaning, then he/she has become a Muslim.

Drive-by conversion, what?

Ah. You won’t say. That’s your Lutheran for you.

Shifty. Evasive. Rat-cunning.

Gott mit uns, nein?

Karnal wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 6:52pm:

Ah. You won’t say. That’s your Lutheran for you. Shifty. Evasive. Rat-cunning. Gott mit uns, nein?

Why not simply say, "lying"?   ::)

Quote:

Sounds like a copout to me. Grasping for an excuse to stubbornly maintain a bigoted anti-Islamic stance.

Would you like to hazard a guess at my true reasons?


Quote:

Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes Islam can and should be reformed

Well, I suppose that settles it.


Quote:

In other words, Islam is reformable as long as Mohammed's status is renounced together with the toxic parts of the Koran, sharia and jihad are abandoned in favour of civilisation and reason and the large claims Islam and Muslims amake for themselves (“commanding right and forbidding wrong”) are ditched.

Sounds good. Is that what you are peddling Gandalf?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 6:52pm: Ah. You won’t say. That’s your Lutheran for you. Shifty. Evasive. Rat-cunning. Gott mit uns, nein? Why not simply say, "lying"?   ::)

That would be impolite.

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2015 at 8:41pm:

Sounds good. Is that what you are peddling Gandalf?

If muslims started saying that certain specific commands (allegedly) coming from Muhammad should be relegated to the "its only for that place and time" category - Islamic law could dispense with a whole range of barbaric laws - including stoning for adultery, death for apostasy and executing gays.

Its what you called for in 2008. You haven't explained properly why you don't support it now - and why you think such an exercise is "pointless".

Objectively, there is no logical reason why anyone should think its not a worthwhile way to start reforming Islam.

Quote:

Its what you called for in 2008. You haven't explained properly why you don't support it now

As I keep telling you, discard away, with my blessing.

Let me know when you convince someone.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 8:41pm: Sounds good. Is that what you are peddling Gandalf? If muslims started saying that certain specific commands (allegedly) coming from Muhammad should be relegated to the "its only for that place and time" category - Islamic law could dispense with a whole range of barbaric laws - including stoning for adultery, death for apostasy and executing gays.

'commands 'allegedly' coming from Muhammed'.
I like that. Who alleges that they come from Mohammed?  Muslims.

What you are calling for, Gandy, is that Muslims have an internal dialogue about Islamic doctrine and Mohammed's role and ongoing influence in Islam. Seeing that Muslims would rather blow up, burn alive, behead and otherwise murderously degrade each other, I don't see where the motivation for internal dialogues about doctrine, alleged or otherwise, would come from. There is simply no history of Muslims engaging in fruitful, reasoned, peaceful ecumenical dialogue with each other.

I don't see your Paki, Saudi, Labian, Egyptian, Afghan and other tribal imam rethinking Islam and Mohammed.

Nor do you.  So you are talking fantasy and you know it - ie taqiyya.

There you go, G: taqiyya. Not stupid, mendacious. We apologists are the stupid ones.

Right, old boy?

Karnal wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 7:25pm:

There you go, G: taqiyya. Not stupid, mendacious. We apologists are the stupid ones. Right, old boy?

Soooo.... which particular Islamic doctrine will Muslims give up in order to reform themselves along the lines Gandy suggests they want to?



It's all very well for you to fap and sneer and be snide on the sidelines, Paki Bugger. You do this every single time when the need is for some constructive ideas.  You wank, you sneer, you duck and grin and sVck Gandys' d!ck but at the end of it all you are lost for ideas.  All you have is glibness and idiocy.

You are Gandy most eloquent supporter. That should be massive warning to him and all Muslims which he studiously ignores. Neither of you will honestly face the massive task before Muslims.  You both make it out as if it was still the non-Muslims who carry the responsibility for Muslim actions and reputation. But that has long past. You both live in circa 2003.

Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment in the last 15 years. Has it abated or has it increased? It has increased despite the millions of dollars of propaganda and the endless media inclusivity. There is a disconnect here that will erupt rather than melt away. What is at stake is too important.

Constructive ideas. What are they again, old boy?

Soren wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 12th, 2015 at 7:25pm: There you go, G: taqiyya. Not stupid, mendacious. We apologists are the stupid ones. Right, old boy? Soooo.... which particular Islamic doctrine will Muslims give up in order to reform themselves along the lines Gandy suggests they want to? It's all very well for you to fap and sneer and be snide on the sidelines, Paki Bugger. You do this every single time when the need is for some constructive ideas.  You play, you sneer, you duck and grin and sVck Gandys' d!ck but at the end of it all you are lost for ideas.  All you have is glibness and idiocy. You are Gandy most eloquent supporter. That should be massive warning to him and all Muslims which he studiously ignores. Neither of you will honestly face the massive task before Muslims.  You both make it out as if it was still the non-Muslims who carry the responsibility for Muslim actions and reputation. But that has long past. You both live in circa 2003. Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment in the last 15 years. Has it abated or has it increased? It has increased despite the millions of dollars of propaganda and the endless media inclusivity. There is a disconnect here that will erupt rather than melt away. What is at stake is too important.

I think you'll agree its low intellect when it comes to PB. The old boy is resigned to the fact he's never going to be accepted so its keyboard mufti time. That's about all he can muster and is very repetitive at that. Hide, moan, groan and snicker and pretend everyone else is the old boy and not him. Poor old chap he is.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 12:23am:

Soren wrote on Oct 12th, 2015 at 9:09pm: Karnal wrote on Oct 12th, 2015 at 7:25pm: There you go, G: taqiyya. Not stupid, mendacious. We apologists are the stupid ones. Right, old boy? Soooo.... which particular Islamic doctrine will Muslims give up in order to reform themselves along the lines Gandy suggests they want to? It's all very well for you to fap and sneer and be snide on the sidelines, Paki Bugger. You do this every single time when the need is for some constructive ideas.  You play, you sneer, you duck and grin and sVck Gandys' d!ck but at the end of it all you are lost for ideas.  All you have is glibness and idiocy. You are Gandy most eloquent supporter. That should be massive warning to him and all Muslims which he studiously ignores. Neither of you will honestly face the massive task before Muslims.  You both make it out as if it was still the non-Muslims who carry the responsibility for Muslim actions and reputation. But that has long past. You both live in circa 2003. Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment in the last 15 years. Has it abated or has it increased? It has increased despite the millions of dollars of propaganda and the endless media inclusivity. There is a disconnect here that will erupt rather than melt away. What is at stake is too important. I think you'll agree its low intellect when it comes to PB. The old boy is resigned to the fact he's never going to be accepted so its keyboard mufti time. That's about all he can muster and is very repetitive at that. Hide, moan, groan and snicker and pretend everyone else is the old boy and not him. Poor old chap he is.

Good show, Ordinary. You've even convinced moi. It's keyboard mufti-time for all, no?

Now, we know you have some convincing ideas, dear. Come on - out with them. Convince away.

I'm listening.

I couldn't care if you were standing on your head with your head in a full dunny can. You add nothing here or anywhere else.

Now now, Ordinary, don’t you play coy with us. You tell us all your convincing ideas. We’ll start a petition.

I’ll start you off, dear:

Carpetbomb them.

Who is us ? , you and your qu'ran roll that is on the wall beside your dunny.

Why even come to our country ? you are big and tuff behind your keyboard stirring shyte up. That's your life, hiding behind your keyboard. You're nothing but a coward.

Why not go back to the dump you came from instead of creating one of your dumps here, and coming here just to piss people off. You learn nothing, you contribute nothing.

And a child shall lead them.

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 11:31pm:

And a child shall lead them.

Yeas mohammed the pedophile did like his little children didn't he. No surprises you are keeping your eye out in that department mate.

Soren wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

It's all very well for you to fap and sneer and be snide on the sidelines, Paki Bugger. You do this every single time when the need is for some constructive ideas.  You play, you sneer, you duck and grin and sVck Gandys' d!ck but at the end of it all you are lost for ideas.  All you have is glibness and idiocy.

;D ;D ;D

Bravo!


Soren wrote on Oct 12^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment in the last 15 years. Has it abated or has it increased? It has increased despite the millions of dollars of propaganda and the endless media inclusivity. There is a disconnect here that will erupt rather than melt away. What is at stake is too important.

Very well said.

The prime ministers and presidents; the governments of whichever of the major parties; the Christian churches; the print and television media; the top brass in the police forces; school boards; and the vast majority of the commentariat in every Western country have been acting as the unpaid support team and apologist professionals for Brand Islam over these past few years.

My niece (with a PhD in science) who has just returned from a holiday in Germany, made the comment ... "Pity those towns which have to take large numbers of these so-called Syrian refugees" ...

Most ordinary people have no illusions as to what eventually this Muslim immigration madness will lead Western societies to. Violence and mayhem, blood and tears.

Karnal wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

Now now, Ordinary, don’t you play coy with us. You tell us all your convincing ideas. We’ll start a petition. I’ll start you off, dear: Carpetbomb them.

... with pork sausages.

Here we see leading representatives of 'Muslim parents' once again bitching and whining about government proposals for dealing more effectively with the terrorist threat from their community.

If they were 'fair dinkum' - these 'leaders' would be supporting these initiatives - not bitching and whining about them.

And frankly, I have no idea why our government should 'consult' with these 'Muslim leaders' about new policy initiatives to better control the threat that Islam poses for the general public.

Our politicians going cap-in-hand to these self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community is tantamount to taking us back to when church and State were part and parcel of government.

This is yet another instance of the 'Islamisation' of our secular Western ethos.

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 6:19am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Now now, Ordinary, don’t you play coy with us. You tell us all your convincing ideas. We’ll start a petition. I’ll start you off, dear: Carpetbomb them. ... with pork sausages.

Pork them?

The alt jungend should like that one.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 6:41am:

Here we see leading representatives of 'Muslim parents' once again bitching and whining about government proposals for dealing more effectively with the terrorist threat from their community. If they were 'fair dinkum' - these 'leaders' would be supporting these initiatives - not bitching and whining about them. And frankly, I have no idea why our government should 'consult' with these 'Muslim leaders' about new policy initiatives to better control the threat that Islam poses for the general public. Our politicians going cap-in-hand to these self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community is tantamount to taking us back to when church and State were part and parcel of government. This is yet another instance of the 'Islamisation' of our secular Western ethos. link

I love the way they refer to them as muslim leaders as though they have some reason to deserve some respect from all australians. The last I saw of these maggots was them telling our government who to allow in and who not to allow in like they owned the joint. ;D ;D ;D

What a bunch of stupid buffoons everyone knows all about them holding the muslim extremist lectures at lakemba mosque that the media wasn't allowed to attend. A known terrorist organization I might add and this lot piss their pants at a politician named Mr Geert Wilders who has not spoken one untrue word about the filth to date.

Yet they have the hide to run around stirring up the muslim enablers crying sooking bitching and moaning and breast beating that he is an extremist ;D ;D ;D . They should bugger off back to any muslim shyte hole that will have them. I am sure any will.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 14th, 2015 at 6:41am: Here we see leading representatives of 'Muslim parents' once again bitching and whining about government proposals for dealing more effectively with the terrorist threat from their community. If they were 'fair dinkum' - these 'leaders' would be supporting these initiatives - not bitching and whining about them. And frankly, I have no idea why our government should 'consult' with these 'Muslim leaders' about new policy initiatives to better control the threat that Islam poses for the general public. Our politicians going cap-in-hand to these self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community is tantamount to taking us back to when church and State were part and parcel of government. This is yet another instance of the 'Islamisation' of our secular Western ethos. link I love the way they refer to them as muslim leaders as though they have some reason to deserve some respect from all australians. The last I saw of these maggots was them telling our government who to allow in and who not to allow in like they owned the joint. ;D ;D ;D What a bunch of stupid buffoons everyone knows all about them holding the muslim extremist lectures at lakemba mosque that the media wasn't allowed to attend. A known terrorist organization I might add and this lot piss their pants at a politician named Mr Geert Wilders who has not spoken one untrue word about the filth to date. Yet they have the hide to run around stirring up the muslim enablers crying sooking bitching and moaning and breast beating that he is an extremist ;D ;D ;D . They should bugger off back to any muslim shyte hole that will have them. I am sure any will.

Good point.
If they were leaders, they would lead, not always carp and hold their hands out for more government funding bakhshish. I they were leaders they would have influence. What they do is re-create the tribal, sectarian, corrupt Middle East here, in Europe, North America. It's the culture of corruption, nepotism, tribes, kick-backs.

Deputy mayor of Auburn:

Salim Mehajer: Controversial Auburn deputy mayor allegedly says 'don't you know who I am?' before threatening to kidnap man's children
What a freaking mutt.




His enforcer:
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/j/5/6/o/x/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gj4zud.png/1440811806036.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/identity-of-auburn-deputy-mayor-salim-mehajers-muscle-revealed-20150821-gj4zud.html

Salim Mehajer would piss his pants without someone else to prop him up. He comes across as a little narcissistic muslim poofter pretending to be hetero. Gawd his wife even, my goodness what a clown she is.

Its disappointing the media and magazines run stories on this little gutless weasel just because he threw around daddies cash. We all know he wouldn't have the brains to make money from property development. All deals he does are clearly criminal. He is nothing but a buffoon.

He wouldn't have lasted a week back in the 70's or 80's with the utter bullshit he goes on with. These days is all PC more ons pandering to the filth. I love the fact he thinks he is big and tuff and that everyone wants to be him when in reality every single video he has ever posted or article run on him that allows replies all call him a bloody waynker, silly poofter or dickhead.

Soren wrote on Oct 15^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

'don't you know who I am?'

Do you know who I am??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5iEK-IEzw

Salim Mehajer is a typical muslime douchbag and so is his muslime bride aisha. He is only here to profit from criminal activity which we clearly enable him to do.