:o

Not many recent updates on this.

Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation?

France likely to close more than 100 mosques

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said.

Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut.

"According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said.

Read some sam harris and his ideas about concentric circles

GordyL wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Read some sam harris and his ideas about concentric circles

Can you summarise the idea?

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

:o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said.

france should repossess all of those mosques and all of the assets every muslim who went there

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:48pm: :o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said. france should repossess all of those mosques and all of the assets every muslim who went there

Well, all property is theft, Sprint.

Do you concur with Sprint’s economic policy here, FD? How about his unique take on contract law?

I’m.curious.

Quote:

France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

They should close EVERY mosque in France.

As should we too, in Australia.

But i am not holding my breath.             :(




.




What the current president of Turkey declared, in earlier years.....

---------- >

Google;
Erdogan, The Mosques are our Barracks, the Domes our helmets, the Minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers





Quote:

May 23, 2007 Turkish PM Erdogan in Speech During Term As Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey's Constitution, Describing it As 'A Huge Lie': 'Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah'; 'One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular'

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD159607

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation?

hmmm is that what I said FD? Exactly?

I think it was more like mainstream mosque attendance, a rather important distinction. And don't take my word for it, this was from British intelligence when they investigated patterns of radicalisation in Britain.

Relevant:


freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he sai

In case you missed it, I highlighted and made bigger the relevant part.

Thanks Gandalf, for diverting my attention away from the hate speech bit. I might have missed the bit about the paperwork not being in order. Those French love their paperwork, don't they? It's not about telling the truth, but about which truth to tell, right?

Do you think the causal link is one way? That is, violently inclined Muslims don't choose to go to the more radical mosques. Rather, they happen to go to a mosque that is more radical, which causes them to become terrorists?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

Thanks Gandalf, for diverting my attention away from the hate speech bit.

unofficial unlicensed illegal "mosques" preach hate speech, while mainstream official mosques don't - why on earth would you think I want to divert attention away from that FD?

You on the other hand seem very keen to divert attention from the most relevant part of this story - that these "mosques" are not official, mainstream - or even legal.


freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

Do you think the causal link is one way? That is, violently inclined Muslims don't choose to go to the more radical mosques. Rather, they happen to go to a mosque that is more radical, which causes them to become terrorists?

Of course. If all terrorists were radicalised from the start they wouldn't need hate-preachers to radicalise them would they?

Quote:

unofficial unlicensed illegal "mosques" preach hate speech, while mainstream official mosques don't - why on earth would you think I want to divert attention away from that FD?

You have latched onto the "official" bit rather quickly Gandalf. I wasn't even aware you needed a licence. Is it the same in Australia?


Quote:

You on the other hand seem very keen to divert attention from the most relevant part of this story - that these "mosques" are not official, mainstream - or even legal.

Thanks Gandalf. Here I was thinking it was the hate speech that was the problem, when really it was just the paperwork.


Quote:

Of course. If all terrorists were radicalised from the start they wouldn't need hate-preachers to radicalise them would they?

So what does this mean the solution is? Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism, because there will be no other source of extremist ideas? How much control over the mindds of Muslims do you think mosques exert?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:42am:

You have latched onto the "official" bit rather quickly Gandalf. I wasn't even aware you needed a licence. Is it the same in Australia?

I would have thought the "illegal" bit would be a bit of a giveaway.

Ooh look what we have here - something else you left out FD - this was a muslim initiative:


Quote:

Muslim leaders in France have called for stringent new measures to help stem religious extremism in the country after the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris that left at least 130 people dead and hundreds more wounded. Representing about 2,500 mosques, the nation’s leading Muslim body has proposed licensing imams to preach and a new religious body to combat extremist propaganda, the Local reported. "The time for action has come. The Muslims of France will play their part," said Anouar Kbibech, the president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, according to the website. The council said it would begin handing out permits after testing imams on adherence to French principles and theological knowledge. It would make religious leaders sign a charter that requires they “respect the laws of the republic.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/french-muslim-leaders-want-extremist-mosques-closed-islamic-preachers-be-licensed-2200224

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:42am:

So what does this mean the solution is? Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism

You mean when muslims themselves don't take the initiative and guide the government on how to clamp down on hate speech - like they did in this instance?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

............... "mosques" preach hate speech..............

yes, we know that Gandalf.
mosques over here do the same, that is why many of us want islam banned.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 10:02am:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:42am: So what does this mean the solution is? Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism You mean when muslims themselves don't take the initiative and guide the government on how to clamp down on hate speech - like they did in this instance?

I don't think they can actually ban mosques without the government, but you are probably right that it would require Muslims to be involved.

Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 10:30am:

Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism?

No, nor is that what is being discussed.

The action taken here is in relation to unlicensed mosques that have been set up independently from the official islamic bodies, and who don't represent the mainstream French muslim population. There is no indication that there is any problem vis-a-vis radicalisation in the the mainstream, licensed mosques that represent the vast majority of muslims in France.

the french should not have to pay for '.......detailed monitoring and control by the government .........' of known terrorists from a specific cult within its own borders.

ban the cult

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 8:00pm:

GordyL wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Read some sam harris and his ideas about concentric circles Can you summarise the idea?

Sorry, had to get on my PC for this:



Harris In your work, you make a distinction between “revolutionary Islamists” and “jihadists.” I think we should define these terms. I would also like to know how you think public opinion is divided in Muslim communities. I picture several concentric circles: At the center are groups like the Islamic State,5 al-Qaeda, al-Shebab, Boko Haram, and so on. Their members apparently wake each morning yearning to kill infidels and apostates. Many of them also seem eager to be martyred in the process. Most of us refer to these people as “jihadists.” Then there is a larger circle of Islamists who are more politically motivated and appear less eager to kill and be killed. Beyond that is a wider circle of Muslims who probably support jihad and Islamism—financially, morally, or philosophically—but are not inclined to get their hands dirty. Finally, one hopes, there is a much larger circle of so-called moderate Muslims, whether they would label themselves that way or not, who want to live by more modern values. Although they may not be quite secular, they don’t think that groups like the Islamic State represent their faith. Perhaps there are also millions of truly secular Muslims who just don’t have a voice. I’m wondering whether you think my understanding of these categories is correct, and if so, what percentage of the earth’s 1.6 billion Muslims you would put into each of them.

Nawaz Obviously, this won’t be an empirical answer, but I’ll give you my gut reaction. Continuing with your concentric-circles imagery, in the center, as you have rightly said, are the jihadists. Beyond them is a larger group of Islamists. So that there’s absolutely no confusion for our readers, when I say “Islamism,” I mean the desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam on society. When I say “jihadism,” I mean the use of force to spread Islamism.

Islamism and jihadism are politicized, contemporary readings of Islam and jihad; they are not Islam and jihad per se. As I’ve said, Islam is a traditional religion like any other, replete with sects, denominations, and variant readings. But Islamism is the desire to impose any of those readings on society. It is commonly expressed as the desire to enforce a version of shari’ah as law.

Political Islamists seek to impose their views through the ballot box, biding their time until they can infiltrate the institutions of society from within. Revolutionary Islamists seek change from outside the system in one clean sweep. Militant Islamists are jihadists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 10:30am: Do you think that detailed monitoring and control by the government of what goes on in mosques will eliminate Islamic radicalism? No, nor is that what is being discussed. The action taken here is in relation to unlicensed mosques that have been set up independently from the official islamic bodies, and who don't represent the mainstream French muslim population. There is no indication that there is any problem vis-a-vis radicalisation in the the mainstream, licensed mosques that represent the vast majority of muslims in France.

Should we introduce a mosque licencing system in Australia? Or just go ahead and shut down every mosque that does not already have one?

Should the licencing system involve control over the content of what the mosque preaches? How is this not "detailed monitoring and control"?

Sorry FD, not really sure where you are going with this.

Are you saying this muslim initiative in France was wrong?

I am saying that it surprises me that they had a licensing system to begin with. France has an odd tendency to place secularism above freedom, which we have witnessed in particular with the efforts to ban the burqa. The idea of the state licensing religious organisations or having "official" religious organisations flies in the face of that value.

I am obviously not familiar with the details, and the closure of 3 mosques may not be a disproportionate reaction to the bloody violence that has happened there.

I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

I am saying that it surprises me that they had a licensing system to begin with. France has an odd tendency to place secularism above freedom, which we have witnessed in particular with the efforts to ban the burqa. The idea of the state licensing religious organisations or having "official" religious organisations flies in the face of that value.

You misunderstand. The licenses were issued at the behest of the head Islamic body in France straight after the Paris shootings. It was an attempt to make all mosques and Imams conform to a set of values that are consistent with French culture:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/25/leading-french-muslim-body-to-create-licence-to-preach-for-imams

My understanding is the French authorities are now working with this Islamic body to identify unlicensed mosques who are preaching hate, and going in and closing them. For the government, they are acting under the emergency rule - still in place since the attack.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea.

Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down.

Should Australia be putting more effort into this sort of thing?

Or should we focus on closing Islamic schools instead?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 12:28pm: I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea. Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down.

You mean like someone saying Australian women who dont cover up are inviting rape? we need to close down every mosque and Muslim school in  Australia then.

ian wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 10:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 3:48pm: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 12:28pm: I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea. Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down. You mean like someone saying Australian women who dont cover up are inviting rape? we need to close down every mosque and Muslim school in  Australia then.

Who said that, Ian?

We’ll have a liittle, look-see, shall we?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 12:28pm: I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea. Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down.

Nonsense. Oppress the bastards.

Karnal wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:18pm:

ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 10:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 3:48pm: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 12:28pm: I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea. Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down. You mean like someone saying Australian women who dont cover up are inviting rape? we need to close down every mosque and Muslim school in  Australia then. Who said that, Ian? We’ll have a liittle, look-see, shall we?

yes. lets

Quote:

A senior Muslim cleric in Australia has sparked a furore by comparing women who do not wear a headscarf to "uncovered meat", implying that they invited sexual assault.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran
And not just any Muslim cleric, an ex grand Mufti. The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. So we have Muslim immigrants attempting to dictate moral values and dress codes to citizens of the country they immigrated to. And their fellow Muslim immigrants support this. What other migrant group in Australia behaves in this way, can you name them Karnal?

ian wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:26pm:

The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening.

Absolute rubbish.

ian wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:18pm: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 10:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 3:48pm: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 12:28pm: I am also interested in what role you see the government having in getting rid of non-mainstream mosques here in an effort to prevent Islamic extremism - ie whether you think it would work, based on a theory of causation, and whether you think it is a good idea. Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence. You don't stop and work out whether or not inciters of violence are causing this or that, you just shut them down full stop. Incitement in and of itself is justification enough to shut them down. You mean like someone saying Australian women who dont cover up are inviting rape? we need to close down every mosque and Muslim school in  Australia then. Who said that, Ian? We’ll have a liittle, look-see, shall we? yes. lets Quote: A senior Muslim cleric in Australia has sparked a furore by comparing women who do not wear a headscarf to "uncovered meat", implying that they invited sexual assault. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran And not just any Muslim cleric, an ex grand Mufti. The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. So we have Muslim immigrants attempting to dictate moral values and dress codes to citizens of the country they immigrated to. And their fellow Muslim immigrants support this. What other migrant group in Australia behaves in this way, can you name them Karnal?

Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear.

Thanks for filling us in, Ian.

But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish.

If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:50am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot.

The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:50am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot. The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

Not by Alan Jones?

Shurely shome mishtake.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:50am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot. The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

You'd have thought they'd have replaced his with an English speaking mufti. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:50am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot. The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

Every current grand mufti of Australia is always [presented as] a paragon of virtue, 'today'.

i.e.
Everyone understands, that the 'public function' of the Australian Grand Mufti is to express views and opinions which are sanctioned by ISLAM,         ....so we all must understand, that every grand mufti is 'unquestionably', a man of considerable virtue.

e.g.
Just as Sheik 'catmeat' Hilaly, was portrayed by the moslem community as a holy man,      .....before his [ISLAMICALLY correct] incessant gaffs, which embarrassed the moslem community, and brought the moslem community in Australia into disrepute!!!

Google;
catmeat Hilaly


Just as Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed [phew!] today, is also viewed as a revered and holy man, who is a representative/spokesman for the moslem community in Australia.



But what about in 6 months time ???

Can we be certain that Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed will still be held in high regard by the moslem community in Australia ???




IMAGE.....
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/05/26/1226650/626045-grand-mufti-ibrahim-abu-mohamed.jpg

Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-10/muslim-village-media-slams-abbotts-islam-hate-speech/7018264

Quote:

Australia's Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammad has taken issue with Mr Abbott's call for a reformation within Islam. "Islam is not in any need of reformation since... .....the normative principles and practices of the religion [i.e. ISLAM] allow Muslims to harmoniously coexist within pluralist societies that are based on the universal values of compassion and justice," he said.

Quote:

Just as Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed [phew!] today, is also viewed as a revered and holy man, who is a representative/spokesman for the moslem community in Australia. But what about in 6 months time ??? Can we be certain that Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed will still be held in high regard by the moslem community in Australia ???

No, Y, we can't be certain that Australian Grand Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed will still be held in high regard by the Moslem community in Australia in 6 months time.

Google: taqiyya.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:50am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot. The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

Absolute nonsense. He resigned. After a number of high profile Muslims went on record as supporting his views.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

[ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear.

Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about. 

Quote:

But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember?

You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:50am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. If I remember rightly, the Muslim community was all over talkback radio and current affairs TV distancing itself from the uncovered meat line. I actually felt sorry for the poor old mufti. The Muslim community turned on him faster than an Alan Jones-inspired race riot. The uncovered meat scandal probably fast-tracked his overthrow - by muslims.

I though Hilaly getting caught red handed on CCTV vandalising his mosque is what fast tracked replacing him.

And heres the current grand Mufti, another fine upstanding Muslim terrorist supporter and inciter of hatred against western values.

Quote:

In 2012 Mohamed visited the Gaza Strip, where he met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and told local news agencies, "I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons".[4][5][6] He is said to support Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who he met in Qatar in April 2013.[7]

Quote:

In his 1993 book An Invitation To Contemplate he said that non-Muslims wanted their women to walk around, “exposed as a piece of sweet pastry ... devoured by the eyes of men"[10] and in 1995 he wrote, "the West does not bring to us any good, all they bring are their diseases".

Quote:

In October 2014 Mohamed and the ANIC called for the offence of "advocating terrorism" to be removed from the "Foreign Fighters Bill", currently before the Australian Parliament, saying a cleric could fall foul of the law simply by "advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land" or if he referred to stories in the Quran, Bible and Torah in his sermons.[12]

Chinese whispers eh karnal? Let me ask you a question, why are you so adamant in your support of terrorist sympathisers and inciters of hatred towards Western values and culture? What causes your self loathing?

Hilali on Egyptian TV-

Anglo-Saxons came to Australia in chains, while we paid our way and came in freedom. We are more Australian than them. Australia is not an Anglo-Saxon country - Islam has deep roots in Australian soil that were there before the English arrived," Sheik Hilaly said.

Hilali on Egyptian TV (same interview)

In the half-hour program Sheik Hilaly said the controversy showed how standards were skewed and claims were fabricated. "There is no freedom and no democracy [for Muslims] - the most dishonest and unjust people are Western people and the English in particular."

He said Australian law allowed freedoms that at times were "close to madness", and that Australia had a third gender of "in-between people who are not male or female".


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D What a racist maggot.

ian wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some.

Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before.

Do you have any quotes that justify rape?

And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing.

double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

Hilali on Egyptian TV (same interview) In the half-hour program Sheik Hilaly said the controversy showed how standards were skewed and claims were fabricated. "There is no freedom and no democracy [for Muslims] - the most dishonest and unjust people are Western people and the English in particular." He said Australian law allowed freedoms that at times were "close to madness", and that Australia had a third gender of "in-between people who are not male or female". :D :D :D :D :D :D :D What a racist maggot.

What's your source, Homo?

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

— Taj El-Din Hilaly


So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him.

An extract from one of the current muftis books-

* Dr Mohammed has written 26 book including Invitation to Contemplate which has been translated into English and French. In this religious book the Mufti claims non-Muslims want their women “with legs and arms ­exposed, filling the shopping malls and the streets, competing for the glimpses of men”.


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

ian wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:08pm:

And heres the current grand Mufti, another fine upstanding Muslim terrorist supporter and inciter of hatred against western values. Quote: In 2012 Mohamed visited the Gaza Strip, where he met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and told local news agencies, "I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons".[4][5][6] He is said to support Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who he met in Qatar in April 2013.[7] [quote]In his 1993 book An Invitation To Contemplate he said that non-Muslims wanted their women to walk around, “exposed as a piece of sweet pastry ... devoured by the eyes of men"[10] and in 1995 he wrote, "the West does not bring to us any good, all they bring are their diseases".

Quote:

In October 2014 Mohamed and the ANIC called for the offence of "advocating terrorism" to be removed from the "Foreign Fighters Bill", currently before the Australian Parliament, saying a cleric could fall foul of the law simply by "advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land" or if he referred to stories in the Quran, Bible and Torah in his sermons.[12]

Chinese whispers eh karnal? Let me ask you a question, why are you so adamant in your support of terrorist sympathisers and inciters of hatred towards Western values and culture? What causes your self loathing?[/quote]

That's not Chinese whispers, Ian. That's good referencing.

I fully agree with the argument about the foreign fighter's bill. The world is full of soldiers of fortune, including non-Muslim Australians. I also don't think it should be illegal to defend a foreign homeland, as some Australian Kurds are now doing against ISIS.

They are equally subject to the legislation as it now stands. A Kurd in just this situation recently had his Australian passport cancelled. 

I'm not sure about the foreign fighter's bill being applied to sermons, but I only think people should be prosecuted if they incite actual violence.

I'm not adamant about terrorist supporters. I'm adamant that people should have every right to defend others against brutal regimes like Syria and ISIS.

I'm also adamant that people should have the right to say what they like about Western culture and values. You criticize Western values continuously on this site, and I don't think it should be illegal to do so.

If you were a professional soldier and joined a foreign militia for a fee, I'd have to think about whether this should pass muster. There are international treaties (including the Geneva Convention) that address this. It is a huge issue now in places like Africa, where mining companies employ militias. It was also an issue in Bouganville, where BHP employed ex-Australian soldiers to defend their Ok Tedi mining lease against local guerillas.

Should Australians have the right to fight locals defending their own land against mining or forestry companies?

An interesting question, but one that I think goes outside our discussion here.

double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him.

What's the source of your quotes, Homo? Ian's next in the queue, after you.

double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly

Actually, you're right. If Hilaly said this, it clearly blames the victim. I'm happy to take back everything I've said on this if you provide sources.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him. What's the source of your quotes, Homo? Ian's next in the queue, after you.

Wikipedia. It's common knowledge sugar muffin.

double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:42pm: double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him. What's the source of your quotes, Homo? Ian's next in the queue, after you. Wikipedia. It's common knowledge sugar muffin.

A link would be nice. I'll definitely look.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:48pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:42pm: double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him. What's the source of your quotes, Homo? Ian's next in the queue, after you. Wikipedia. It's common knowledge sugar muffin. A link would be nice. I'll definitely look.

Just type in Hilali on google. Crikies!!!! The guy is a dirtbag Karnal. you don't always have to blindly back your people.

double plus good wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:49pm: double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:48pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:42pm: double plus good wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly So who's fault is it karnal??? Answer him. What's the source of your quotes, Homo? Ian's next in the queue, after you. Wikipedia. It's common knowledge sugar muffin. A link would be nice. I'll definitely look. Just type in Hilali on google. Crikies!!!! The guy is a dirtbag Karnal. you don't always have to blindly back your people.

There are a number of Hilali's, Homo. I'm trying to establish that Wikipedia is talking about the same guy on Egyptian TV. If you provide a link, I can check it out.

Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority.

Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal.

This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them.

Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 1:10pm:

Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag.

Karnal,

I just wish that you had a reputation, here on OzPol, for being candid and sincere.

:)




If pigs could fly,   .....eh!!!!!!





Dictionary;
candid = = truthful and straightforward; frank.


Dictionary;
sincere = = proceeding from or characterized by genuine feelings; free from pretence or deceit.

Yadda wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 1:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:10pm: Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag. Karnal, I just wish that you had a reputation, here on OzPol, for being candid and sincere. :) If pigs could fly,   .....eh!!!!!! Dictionary; candid = = truthful and straightforward; frank. Dictionary; sincere = = proceeding from or characterized by genuine feelings; free from pretence or deceit.

You wish? That's strange. You have a generic post you keep reminding us all of my diabolical insincerity.

Google: taqiyya.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 2:19pm:

Yadda wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:57pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:10pm: Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag. Karnal, I just wish that you had a reputation, here on OzPol, for being candid and sincere. :) If pigs could fly,   .....eh!!!!!! Dictionary; candid = = truthful and straightforward; frank. Dictionary; sincere = = proceeding from or characterized by genuine feelings; free from pretence or deceit. You wish? That's strange. You have a generic post you keep reminding us all of my diabolical insincerity. Google: taqiyya.

diabolical = = of SATAN




No contest.

Yadda wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 2:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 2:19pm: Yadda wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:57pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:10pm: Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag. Karnal, I just wish that you had a reputation, here on OzPol, for being candid and sincere. :) If pigs could fly,   .....eh!!!!!! Dictionary; candid = = truthful and straightforward; frank. Dictionary; sincere = = proceeding from or characterized by genuine feelings; free from pretence or deceit. You wish? That's strange. You have a generic post you keep reminding us all of my diabolical insincerity. Google: taqiyya. diabolical = = of SATAN No contest.

Thanks, Y. That should improve my reputation with the Satanists.

Most sincere. Cheers.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing.

How about the rule about what your right hand possesses? Muhammed built his empire on sex slavery.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 7:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. How about the rule about what your right hand possesses? Muhammed built his empire on sex slavery.

So you said, FD. Unlike Ian and Homo, you couldn’t find any sources.

Apart from your own quotes, I mean.

Uncle built his empire on real slavery. As an advocate of women’s rights you must have something to say about this.

I’m.curious. What say you?

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 1:10pm:

Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag.

you are quite a number of years late to realise this well known and documented fact.

If you would apply yourself in any small manner instead of abusing others or making stupid comments you may realise many more such facts.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 1:10pm: Found it. You are completely right, Homo. The guy's a dirtbag - totally out of step with Australian values. His comments on Australians in chains and Muslims as free settlers are also ridiculous, and do, on the face of it, appear to uncover smugness and moral superiority. Ian, your claims below stand. By blaming women who leave the house for rape, Hilali's comments are completely offensive. You're right - they do excuse rapists. His comments on excessive sentences for the Skaf gang also point to his thinking on rape. While he's right that these sentences were passed in the context of Sept 11, his comments do appear to minimize the crimes, which were brutal. This time, I'm impressed with your argument. Hilali deserves to be howled down for such comments. You're perfectly justified in raising them. Good quoting and good arguments. Hilali is indeed a dirtbag. you are quite a number of years late to realise this well known and documented fact. If you would apply yourself in any small manner instead of abusing others or making stupid comments you may realise many more such facts.

Good point, Sprint. I agree.

Cesterete them.

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 7:07pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. How about the rule about what your right hand possesses? Muhammed built his empire on sex slavery. So you said, FD. Unlike Ian and Homo, you couldn’t find any sources. Apart from your own quotes, I mean. Uncle built his empire on real slavery. As an advocate of women’s rights you must have something to say about this. I’m.curious. What say you?

America is not a religion. Islam is. Right now ISIS is recreating the slavery and other BS that Muhammed used to build the first Islamic state. I don't see many Americans demanding we reintroduce slavery in the name of America.

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

:o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said.

It's too late for France - they are finished now.
The Mussies are on the war path & they will just hold prayer sessions at home.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:42pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 7:07pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:20pm: ian wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:45am: [ Ah. So a mufti speaking to an audience of Muslims - in Arabic - about dressing conservatively so as not to attract the gaze of men (the cat) has turned, through a game of knucklehead Chinese whispers, into Muslims justifying rape and telling Australians what to wear. Dont be coy. His comments werent about dressing conservatively, they were about females who dont wear the hijab being compared  to uncovered meat and deserving what they get for it. i.e. rape,. Justification for rape by Muslim men against western females, thats exactly what his comments were about.  Quote: But can I ask? We had this discussion about 7 years ago - at least. I'm sure you were involved. What were you called back then, do you remember? You should take medication for your paranoia.My names remained the same throughout my life. I see no ego boost in fraudulent posts on the internet, unlike some. Are you saying you haven't had any other user names here, Ian? I'm not talking about ego boosts, I'm trying to work out if we've had exactly the same discussion before. Do you have any quotes that justify rape? And not just rape, but the Muslim rape of white women? That's what you're arguing. How about the rule about what your right hand possesses? Muhammed built his empire on sex slavery. So you said, FD. Unlike Ian and Homo, you couldn’t find any sources. Apart from your own quotes, I mean. Uncle built his empire on real slavery. As an advocate of women’s rights you must have something to say about this. I’m.curious. What say you? America is not a religion. Islam is. Right now ISIS is recreating the slavery and other BS that Muhammed used to build the first Islamic state. I don't see many Americans demanding we reintroduce slavery in the name of America.

That’s true, FD, but given your unwillingness to discuss the invasion of Iraq, its unintended consequences, and your support of Muslim women’s rights, I don’t think your words will carry much weight. They will, more likely, fade into your usual support for banning, killing and nuking the Muselman.

As every schoolboy knows.

another idiotic karnal comment

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

another idiotic karnal comment

Now now, Sprint, there is nothing idiotic about Muslim women’s rights. FD won’t have that.

Are you the standard bearer for wishy washy Western morals?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:02pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:48pm: :o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said. It's too late for France - they are finished now. The Mussies are on the war path & they will just hold prayer sessions at home.

Well yes, but can’t we just ban homes?

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 10:02pm: freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:48pm: :o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said. It's too late for France - they are finished now. The Mussies are on the war path & they will just hold prayer sessions at home. Well yes, but can’t we just ban homes?

I blame the Jews

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 10:02pm: freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:48pm: :o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said. It's too late for France - they are finished now. The Mussies are on the war path & they will just hold prayer sessions at home. Well yes, but can’t we just ban homes?

France could always copy Hitler & start some death camps?

Hitler had many willing followers in France.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 10:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 10:02pm: freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2016 at 7:48pm: :o Not many recent updates on this. Gandalf how does this fit in with your theory that mosque attendance prevents radicalisation? France likely to close more than 100 mosques http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html France is likely to close up to 160 mosques in the coming months as part of a nationwide police operation under the state of emergency which allows places of worship that promote radical views to be shut down, one of the country's chief imams has said. Following news that three mosques have already been closed since the November 13 attacks on the capital, Hassan El Alaoui, who is in charge of nominating regional and local Muslim imams and mediating between the imams and prison officials, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that more were set to be shut. "According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said. It's too late for France - they are finished now. The Mussies are on the war path & they will just hold prayer sessions at home. Well yes, but can’t we just ban homes? I blame the Jews

And why not? You’re Afrikaans.

Afrikaans is the language.

Afrikaners are the people.

Just a minor point there. Hardiest group of people you are ever likely to meet. Built a country from nothing.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:03pm:

Afrikaans is the language. Afrikaners are the people. Just a minor point there. Hardiest group of people you are ever likely to meet. Built a country from nothing.

Nothing?

Karnal wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 11:03pm: Afrikaans is the language. Afrikaners are the people. Just a minor point there. Hardiest group of people you are ever likely to meet. Built a country from nothing. Nothing?

x2

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish.

Remind us - when was the last Muslim demo AGAINST the Islamic State??



Hello?!?  Anyone there?


Oh yes, Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'g, including the nuffin' of IS.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish.

The 'Aussie' moslem will never denigrate the misdeeds of another moslem who attends his own mosque.

But the 'Aussie' moslem will 'stand up', and protest in support of those who murder in the name of their 'peaceful' faith.



http://cache.newzulu.com.au/en/photos/local/2014-01-25/4925/sydney-s-egyptian-community-stages/all_fullscreen/45087-img_3351.jpg

Here we see 'Aussie' moslem women and children in a moslem street protest on Sydney streets,          .....moslems shamelessly exploiting the Australian flag, by seeking to associate themselves publicly, with the values which our Australian flag represent,       .....while these 'Aussie' moslem women and children are marching on Sydney streets, in support of deposed President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

IMO, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt are in the same class of moslem monsters as ISIS, Boko Haram, and every other jihadist group which is promoting violent jihad to pursue their political aims.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768/30#30

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768/31#31

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768/33#33

street theatre, depicting scenes from Egypt [with Muslim Brotherhood cadres of Egypt, depicted as victims];
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768/35#35



Quote:

Hijabed women       proudly waving an Australian flag A crowd of moslems in Sydney, advocating for the Muslim Brotherhood political group of Egypt; What is scandalous, is that moslems should hold up an Australian flag, as though to suggest that Australia and Australians would ever support the political aspirations of ISLAMISTS in Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood political group.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/75#75




COMMENT;
It is scandalous,       ....how deceitful the Australian moslem community are [....in mis-representing themselves, and in mis-representing their 'religiously' motivated ambitions,        ....to other Australians].

And no mainstream political entity, and no mainstream media entity in this country is willing to draw this fact, to the notice of the broader Australian community.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:03pm:

Built a country from nothing.

Like Australians you mean.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. Remind us - when was the last Muslim demo AGAINST the Islamic State?? Hello?!?  Anyone there? Oh yes, Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'g, including the nuffin' of IS.

Do these count?

Organisers of an anti-Isis march in London have spoken of their frustration after mainstream media outlets failed to cover the demonstration.

Indian Muslims protest against deadly ISIL attacks

Hundreds of Calgary Muslims protest ISIS violence in Iraq

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:45am:

Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. Remind us - when was the last Muslim demo AGAINST the Islamic State?? Hello?!?  Anyone there? Oh yes, Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'g, including the nuffin' of IS. Do these count? Organisers of an anti-Isis march in London have spoken of their frustration after mainstream media outlets failed to cover the demonstration.

Yes Soren!

What on earth is there, that could possibly be wrong with these tolerant, peace loving, moslems ????????

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/12/09/09/arbaeen-london.jpg


image source....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-isis-march-not-covered-by-mainstream-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html


from the image above.....
"Terrorism has no religion!"
.......except ISLAM.


Allah's Messenger said,
"I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."
hadith/bukhari #004.052.220


Allah's Messenger said,
".....I have been given superiority......; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies):....."
hadithsunnah/muslim/ #004.1062




.




from the image above.....
"ISLAM promotes human rights!"
.......Really ?
Because that is not my interpretation of ISLAM's intended influence in the world.


The Koran gives witness to Allah's, and ISLAM's utter disregard for the 'human rights' of anyone who is not a devout moslem.


"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land....."
Koran 8.67

Koran [8:67 above] meaning here, first moslems should beleaguer and slaughter their enemies in the land, to terrorise, to cower them.


"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred...."
Koran 58.22


"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers."
Koran 9.23


"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them."
Koran 3.28


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1


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


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4




.





Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Gandalf do you think Australia needs to set up a similar mosque licensing scheme?

You're not really a big fan of 'getting the gist' of what people say are you FD?


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence.

Do you think we need to start doing that in Australia Gandalf?

multiple choice question:

with reference to gandalf's statement in the above quote, do you think gandalf's answer is:

a) yes
b) no
c) gandalf must be scared and is being evasive
d) I'll abstain from trying to understand basic English and continue with childish games

I think its important that you learn to work these things out FD - your level of basic reading comprehension has been a concern of mine for a while now.

I am happy to decide what you think on your behalf Gandalf. It is usually you who gets upset about it.

Do you have any particular places in mind that should be shut down?

so option D it is then.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:04am:

I am happy to decide what you think on your behalf Gandalf. It is usually you who gets upset about it.

Thats funny FD - cause its usually when I do give you a clear answer that the misrepresentations occur - like saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardis gras style from my crystal clear statement that gays shouldn't be killed for being gay.

Do you think we need to start following France's lead Gandalf?

Do you support the closure of the French mosques?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

Its not a matter of closing mosques because they are "unofficial" or "unlicensed" - its about closing down anyone - muslims or non-muslim who incites hatred and violence.

gandalf,

Please clearly define what you mean by the phrase;

'who incites hatred and violence'



Are you talking about ANYONE who offends moslem sensibilities ???


i.e.
Is a person,     'who incites hatred and violence',          any person who does something, OR BELIEVES SOMETHING, which a moslem finds offensive ?


e.g.
Like, an infidel, who chooses to critically, read and determine, what the words in the Koran mean.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:22am:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:04am: I am happy to decide what you think on your behalf Gandalf. It is usually you who gets upset about it. Thats funny FD - cause its usually when I do give you a clear answer that the misrepresentations occur - like saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardis gras style from my crystal clear statement that gays shouldn't be killed for being gay.

Yes, but you did evade that one, G. Most mendacious of you.

You should have agreed with FD.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

Do you think we need to start following France's lead Gandalf? Do you support the closure of the French mosques?

What are you going to ask when G says no, FD?

How about this: are you a standard bearer for Western liberal values?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be.

Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well.

We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD.

You believe in Freeeeeeeedom.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:45am:

Soren wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:33am: ian wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:26pm: The silence from the Muslim community in Australia after his comments was deafening. Absolute rubbish. Remind us - when was the last Muslim demo AGAINST the Islamic State?? Hello?!?  Anyone there? Oh yes, Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'g, including the nuffin' of IS. Do these count? Organisers of an anti-Isis march in London have spoken of their frustration after mainstream media outlets failed to cover the demonstration. Indian Muslims protest against deadly ISIL attacks Hundreds of Calgary Muslims protest ISIS violence in Iraq

Er....  no.  I want to see the 'vast majority of peaceful Australian Muslims' go on the streets. I don't want the sole Muslims guy on these boards to pretend that you Muslims are putting in a maximum effort when you are nowhere near to even an anaemic and enervated effort.



London, India, Calgary - not Australia.


The demo in India, a country of hundreds of millions of Muslims - 12 turned out for the demo. They dress and deport (beards, pajamas) like it's 1521 but have iPhones.
http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2015/11/19/bf0caa047bf5403fb5bc8d3c3d9d94f4_18.jpg

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 5:32pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom.

He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it.

Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks.

No matter, since you gave me a direct and sensible response in the other thread, I'll give you one here.

No I don't agree we should start licensing mosques - because that would be redundant. The criteria is simple: if they are preaching hate, they should be banned. How would licensing add any value to this? You still have to determine whether or not they are preaching hate - license or no license.

You have not actually expressed an opinion on any of it previously Gandalf. You have tried to clarify 'factual' issues - what it is, what is isn't, what is is 'about', but not whether it is good or bad.

Do you think the licences are of any value to the French? If not, why go to such effort to stress that they were illegal, unlicenced mosques?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:05pm:

Do you think the licences are of any value to the French? If not, why go to such effort to stress that they were illegal, unlicenced mosques?

It probably suits the French more given their near-militant insistence on secular values in all aspects of public life. We are a bit more relaxed about these things.

Its important to emphasise because unlicenced/illegal mosques go hand in hand with non-mainstream mosques. I was not making an endorsement of licensing per se, but rather reaffirming the fact that its only the non-mainstream, unofficial mosques that are a problem. And again, I don't believe introducing a licensing system adds any value to identifying problem mosques.

Do you see the irony in suggesting that officially licensed mosques are compatible with a militant insistence on secularism?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:41pm:

Do you see the irony in suggesting that officially licensed mosques are compatible with a militant insistence on secularism?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it. Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks.

Gandy - you are a Muslims. Your thoughts are as far from patently obvious as thoughts can possibly be. You have many, many more than two corners of your mouth and god knows, you speak out of all of them.

It's a Muslims thing, I know, we know, you know. Truth, honesty, consistency - all infidel constructs. You speak Muslim truth. That's your abiding meme, Muslim truth. Infidel objectivity doesn't apply to the bruvvers and sistas. It's the glory of Mohammed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:05pm: Do you think the licences are of any value to the French? If not, why go to such effort to stress that they were illegal, unlicenced mosques? It probably suits the French more given their near-militant insistence on secular values in all aspects of public life. We are a bit more relaxed about these things. Its important to emphasise because unlicenced/illegal mosques go hand in hand with non-mainstream mosques. I was not making an endorsement of licensing per se, but rather reaffirming the fact that its only the non-mainstream, unofficial mosques that are a problem. And again, I don't believe introducing a licensing system adds any value to identifying problem mosques.

Mainstream???


WTF is that?


YOU can't tell mainstream Muslims from jihadis. How can you tell mainstream mosques from jihadi mosques? 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:05pm: Do you think the licences are of any value to the French? If not, why go to such effort to stress that they were illegal, unlicenced mosques? It probably suits the French more given their near-militant insistence on secular values in all aspects of public life. We are a bit more relaxed about these things. Its important to emphasise because unlicenced/illegal mosques go hand in hand with non-mainstream mosques. I was not making an endorsement of licensing per se, but rather reaffirming the fact that its only the non-mainstream, unofficial mosques that are a problem. And again, I don't believe introducing a licensing system adds any value to identifying problem mosques.

Quote:

.........I don't believe introducing a licensing system adds any value to identifying problem mosques........

ban all mosques then

Apparently in Aceh the mainstream Muslims are trying to ban Sufi mosques and schools for being strange and misleading.

Soren wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it. Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks. Gandy - you are a Muslims. Your thoughts are as far from patently obvious as thoughts can possibly be. You have many, many more than two corners of your mouth and god knows, you speak out of all of them. It's a Muslims thing, I know, we know, you know. Truth, honesty, consistency - all infidel constructs. You speak Muslim truth. That's your abiding meme, Muslim truth. Infidel objectivity doesn't apply to the bruvvers and sistas. It's the glory of Mohammed.

And yet, dear boy, you champion oppression.

But claim to be a liberal.

Quote Voltaire.

But want to ban beards.

A Christian?

You want a quarter of the world carpetbombed - and that’s just the Muslim quarter.

Turn the other cheek?

Snatch their clothing off them. Round them up. Ban them. Kill them. Oppress the bastards.

How many corners does your mouth have?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

Apparently in Aceh the mainstream Muslims are trying to ban Sufi mosques and schools for being strange and misleading.

How many corners on FD’s mouth?

FD won’t say.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it. Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks. Gandy - you are a Muslims. Your thoughts are as far from patently obvious as thoughts can possibly be. You have many, many more than two corners of your mouth and god knows, you speak out of all of them. It's a Muslims thing, I know, we know, you know. Truth, honesty, consistency - all infidel constructs. You speak Muslim truth. That's your abiding meme, Muslim truth. Infidel objectivity doesn't apply to the bruvvers and sistas. It's the glory of Mohammed. And yet, dear boy, you champion oppression. But claim to be a liberal. Quote Voltaire. But want to ban beards. A Christian? You want a quarter of the world carpetbombed - and that’s just the Muslim quarter. Turn the other cheek? Snatch their clothing off them. Round them up. Ban them. Kill them. Oppress the bastards. How many corners does your mouth have?

Who the bloody hell is talking to YOU, PB?  Are you the Keysar Trad to Gandy's Sheikh Al Hilarious?

Do you have a beard and 6 kids?

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it. Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks. Gandy - you are a Muslims. Your thoughts are as far from patently obvious as thoughts can possibly be. You have many, many more than two corners of your mouth and god knows, you speak out of all of them. It's a Muslims thing, I know, we know, you know. Truth, honesty, consistency - all infidel constructs. You speak Muslim truth. That's your abiding meme, Muslim truth. Infidel objectivity doesn't apply to the bruvvers and sistas. It's the glory of Mohammed. And yet, dear boy, you champion oppression. But claim to be a liberal. Quote Voltaire. But want to ban beards. A Christian? You want a quarter of the world carpetbombed - and that’s just the Muslim quarter. Turn the other cheek? Snatch their clothing off them. Round them up. Ban them. Kill them. Oppress the bastards. How many corners does your mouth have?

Do you see any inconsistency in those characterisations you presented of me?

Ya fik, fik, mendatious Officer Krapki.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:41pm:

Do you see the irony in suggesting that officially licensed mosques are compatible with a militant insistence on secularism?

Cant say i do

Soren wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:43pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 5:32pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 4:07pm: Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. Gandalf gets upset when I make assumptions about what his answers are going to be. Good point. Maybe G will agree with mosques being banned. With the right.question, you might get him to agree with banning prayer as well. We all know that someone like yourself would never support such a thing, FD. You believe in Freeeeeeeedom. He appears to support what is going on in France. Hence the question. Not sure why he is so touchy about it. Because my thoughts on the matter should be patently obvious from my previous remarks. Gandy - you are a Muslims. Your thoughts are as far from patently obvious as thoughts can possibly be. You have many, many more than two corners of your mouth and god knows, you speak out of all of them. It's a Muslims thing, I know, we know, you know. Truth, honesty, consistency - all infidel constructs. You speak Muslim truth. That's your abiding meme, Muslim truth. Infidel objectivity doesn't apply to the bruvvers and sistas. It's the glory of Mohammed. And yet, dear boy, you champion oppression. But claim to be a liberal. Quote Voltaire. But want to ban beards. A Christian? You want a quarter of the world carpetbombed - and that’s just the Muslim quarter. Turn the other cheek? Snatch their clothing off them. Round them up. Ban them. Kill them. Oppress the bastards. How many corners does your mouth have? Do you see any inconsistency in those characterisations you presented of me? Ya fik, fik, mendatious Officer Krapki.

Good to have you back, old boy.

Yes, we may differ, we may disagree, but we’ll fight for the right to exchange our views in our jolly old way. Do you know what we are, dear boy?

We’re seekers. No one will ever be able to take that away from us, yes?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:41pm: Do you see the irony in suggesting that officially licensed mosques are compatible with a militant insistence on secularism? Cant say i do

True secularism would oppose any government interference in religion. The licensing scheme is anathema to secularism.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:27pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:41pm: Do you see the irony in suggesting that officially licensed mosques are compatible with a militant insistence on secularism? Cant say i do True secularism would oppose any government interference in religion. The licensing scheme is anathema to secularism.

Which is probably why I wasn't talking about 'true secularism' (whatever that is), but French secularism. Its perfectly consistent with their version of secularism.

What is their version of secularism? Government interference in religion?