If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so?

GordyL wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:36pm:

If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so?

Hard to say. If one wanted to observe Buddhism in its purist form, would you go to Burma? Nepal? Vietnam? Bhutan? Thailand?

Burma's a recent military state. Nepal's run by Maoists. Vietnam's communist. Butan's a socialist monarchy. Thailand's a lasse-faire constitutional monarchy run by generals.

All of these countries are devoutly Buddhist, so it begs the question: who are the real Buddhists here?

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:36pm: If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so? Hard to say. If one wanted to observe Buddhism in its purist form, would you go to Burma? Nepal? Vietnam? Bhutan? Thailand? Burma's a recent military state. Nepal's run by Maoists. Vietnam's communist. Butan's a socialist monarchy. Thailand's a lasse-faire constitutional monarchy run by generals. All of these countries are devoutly Buddhist, so it begs the question: who are the real Buddhists here?

Thanks for the answer.

The counties you mentioned don't have legal or political systems based purely on religion.

Isn't everything in SA based on the Koran?


The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia, Islamic law derived from theQu'ran and the Sunnah (the traditions) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The sources of Sharia also include Islamic scholarly consensus developed after Muhammad's death. Its interpretation by judges in Saudi Arabia is influenced by the medieval texts of the literalist Hanbalischool of Islamic jurisprudence. 

GordyL wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:36pm: If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so? Hard to say. If one wanted to observe Buddhism in its purist form, would you go to Burma? Nepal? Vietnam? Bhutan? Thailand? Burma's a recent military state. Nepal's run by Maoists. Vietnam's communist. Butan's a socialist monarchy. Thailand's a lasse-faire constitutional monarchy run by generals. All of these countries are devoutly Buddhist, so it begs the question: who are the real Buddhists here? Thanks for the answer. The counties you mentioned don't have legal or political systems based purely on religion. Isn't everything in SA based on the Koran?

Not purely based on religion, no, just constitutionally, culturally, visually, on government documents and forms, enshrined in institutions like the monarchy, the basis of most welfare, etc, etc, etc.

Not everything in SA is based on the Koran, Gordy. You'll find a big chunk is based on US contracts.

Still, I don't know much about Saudi Arabia either. You?

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:16pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:51pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:36pm: If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so? Hard to say. If one wanted to observe Buddhism in its purist form, would you go to Burma? Nepal? Vietnam? Bhutan? Thailand? Burma's a recent military state. Nepal's run by Maoists. Vietnam's communist. Butan's a socialist monarchy. Thailand's a lasse-faire constitutional monarchy run by generals. All of these countries are devoutly Buddhist, so it begs the question: who are the real Buddhists here? Thanks for the answer. The counties you mentioned don't have legal or political systems based purely on religion. Isn't everything in SA based on the Koran?  Not purely based on religion, no, just constitutionally, culturally, visually, on government documents and forms, enshrined in institutions like the monarchy, the basis of most welfare, etc, etc, etc. Not everything in SA is based on the Koran, Gordy. You'll find a big chunk is based on US contracts. Still, I don't know much about Saudi Arabia either. You?

Btw you missed Laos which in my opinion is the country which actually lives closest to the ideals of Buddhism despite having such a backwards communist regime. Exclude the Laos/Viet border areas where some horrible stuff is going on, the rest of Laos is/was pretty amazing.

The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:55pm:

The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden.

Interesting how things change, eh? They're now one of the most influential minority sects in the world. Their influence trumps that of an ex-Empire, Turkey, a country now struggling with the fruits of the bin Ladens.

What's Qatar like? Are they Wahabist?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:55pm:

The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden.

Yes. I get all that.
If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA.

But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism.

So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration?

http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html

No I think Saudi Arabia is the only wahabist state. The rest of the Gulf Monarchies are quite progressive in comparison. On the foreign policy front, Qatar fancies itself as an imperialist - intervening both financially and militarily all over the place, from Libya to Syria. They actually had boots on the ground in Libya during the uprising against Gaddafi. Since being nationalised, Al Jazeera has become a pretty blatant propaganda tool for the regimes imperialism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:10pm:

No I think Saudi Arabia is the only wahabist state. The rest of the Gulf Monarchies are quite progressive in comparison. On the foreign policy front, Qatar fancies itself as an imperialist - intervening both financially and militarily all over the place, from Libya to Syria. They actually had boots on the ground in Libya during the uprising against Gaddafi. Since being nationalised, Al Jazeera has become a pretty blatant propaganda tool for the regimes imperialism.

Why is Egypt so anti-Qatar?

GordyL wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html

The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS.

What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance.

Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regime is, sadly, the current alternatives are all much worse. There simply is no moderate or progressive opposition in Saudi politics - so if the regime falls, it will inevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve.

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:12pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:10pm: No I think Saudi Arabia is the only wahabist state. The rest of the Gulf Monarchies are quite progressive in comparison. On the foreign policy front, Qatar fancies itself as an imperialist - intervening both financially and militarily all over the place, from Libya to Syria. They actually had boots on the ground in Libya during the uprising against Gaddafi. Since being nationalised, Al Jazeera has become a pretty blatant propaganda tool for the regimes imperialism. Why is Egypt so anti-Qatar?

Qatar supports the muslim brotherhood, which the current Egyptian regime has been spending the last 2 years or so ruthlessly suppressing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:12pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:10pm: No I think Saudi Arabia is the only wahabist state. The rest of the Gulf Monarchies are quite progressive in comparison. On the foreign policy front, Qatar fancies itself as an imperialist - intervening both financially and militarily all over the place, from Libya to Syria. They actually had boots on the ground in Libya during the uprising against Gaddafi. Since being nationalised, Al Jazeera has become a pretty blatant propaganda tool for the regimes imperialism. Why is Egypt so anti-Qatar? Qatar supports the muslim brotherhood, which the current Egyptian regime has been spending the last 2 years or so ruthlessly suppressing.

So that's it. Why aren't Egypt bigger players? Big army, big population. Why are they so touchy about a rich, but tiny country like Qatar?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS. What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance. Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regime is, sadly, the current alternatives are all much worse. There simply is no moderate or progressive opposition in Saudi politics - so if the regime falls, it will inevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve.

So, 19 Wahhabs fly planes into buildings killing 3000 people and it has nothing to do with their religion? Its just "geo-political influences." The Sauds and Wahhabs are going to disappear and things will improve? Of course their are no raving Muzlims in Pakistan or Iran, or the rest Islam. Forget Bali, Paris, Madrid, California, and Africa. No Islamic assassins in any of those geo-political places either. Go ahead and pontificate, there are a lot of people who will want to believe you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS. What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance. Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regime is, sadly, the current alternatives are all much worse. There simply is no moderate or progressive opposition in Saudi politics - so if the regime falls, it will inevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve.

Good post - I missed this. I’d like to think the Saudies are declining, but it seems that the brand they helped to inspire will remain. ISIS, it would seem, are worse than the Saudis, at least in their overt aggression and suicidal ideation.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 1:59am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:59pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS. What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance. Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regime is, sadly, the current alternatives are all much worse. There simply is no moderate or progressive opposition in Saudi politics - so if the regime falls, it will inevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve. Good post - I missed this. I’d like to think the Saudies are declining, but it seems that the brand they helped to inspire will remain. ISIS, it would seem, are worse than the Saudis, at least in their overt aggression and suicidal ideation.

I think they're the same actually.
Isis is Saudi without bothering about the veneer of respectability

I don't see the Saudis with much veneer of respectability.

Its just that its easy to have your atrocities fly under the radar when everyone's pretending nothing's wrong, if not actively supporting you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:55pm:

The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden.

So they ARE Sunni Islamic, aren't they?

They are not anything else. They are Sunni Muslims. Wahabi just means VERY, VERY Sunni Muslim.

Most sunnis reject the wahabist ideology. Make what you will of that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS. What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance. Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regime is, sadly, the current alternatives are all much worse. There simply is no moderate or progressive opposition in Saudi politics - so if the regime falls, it will inevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve.

Thanks for the write up.
I agree with the nuts and bolts of this.

I'm also pretty skeptical that the demise of KSA would usher in the good times.

I can only see utter catastrophe that would result from the likelihood of the Iran Saudi war moving from a proxy to direct. Maybe a few green shoots would arise from the scorched earth that would leave behind.

This I see as the main reason why USA/Iran relations are heading towards normalization. They don't want Russia to be Iran's only friend.

Good segue to Iran actually, they're batsh!t crazy in their own right and we can't blame wahhabism.

I totally get why they booted the Shah. He needed to go and every day Iranians are probably better for it, but Iran could have been such an interesting place if it was a secular revolution.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:30am:

I don't see the Saudis with much veneer of respectability. Its just that its easy to have your atrocities fly under the radar when everyone's pretending nothing's wrong, if not actively supporting you.

What the Saudis have are manners. Fair enough. They also have stability, which is the real reason they’re Uncle’s point man on the peninsula.

If Iran.played nice, they could easily play that role too.

Interesting that the only thing that separates potential friends of Uncle is a little thing called manners.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:13am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:59pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The Saudis follow the Wahabist school, which is actually a minority sect in sunni Islam. The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. Then they discovered oil, and they used the petro-dollars to propagate their extremist version of Islam, as well as spawn a new generation of rich and powerful jihadists like bin Laden. Yes. I get all that. If you could be bothered sifting thru all my posts you'd see my idea for a new world order would begin with independence from oil and neutering KSA. But it's 2016 and Islam is lerching towards Islamism. So when I see stuff like this and Im told bugger off you Islamophobe can you not understand the frustration? http://m.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-saudi-cables-reveal-secret-saudi-government-influence-in-australia-20150620-ght4kp.html The way I see it, so much of all this is determined by geo-politics. Saudi influence - and with it the rise of Islamism in the middle east (and to a lesser extent across the muslim world), was instigated by dramatic geo-political changes: first the fall of the Ottoman hegemony, and then the decline of western imperialism. The arab spring was another major geo-political change that emboldened the Islamists even more. And then throw into the mix the catastrophic political vacuum left by the invasion of Iraq that directly led to the rise of ISIS. What I'm saying is, everything to do with Islamism in the muslim world comes down to geo-political influences. It rose only because of changing geo-political factors, and if it falls, it will be because of geo-political factors. Actual philosophical and theological developments in the Islamic religion don't even rate a mention. All the different ideas are already there: extreme, moderate, reformist, conservative - you name it, they all exist, and any of them can become dominant given the right conditions. And the only thing that determines which particular ideology dominates and prevails is mundane and wholly secular political issues. And on that score, my sense is that we are on the verge of another tectonic shift in Islam - brought about by the fact that the petro-dollar economic bonanza and associated western protection racket enjoyed by the Saudis is coming to a shuddering halt. It was revealed recently that the Saudis can only balance their budget with an oil price of around $100 a barrel. For the last 6 months or so it has been around $30-$40. The Saudis have been panicking - ramping up production (and in so doing so putting even more downward pressure on prices) in a desperate attempt to push the North American shale operators out of the market, in the hope that this will eventually enable prices to go back up to where they want it. How long can this brinkmanship go? Not long methinks. Moreover their geo-political rivals - the Iranians, have just stabilized relations with the US, forging a new historic economic agreement that effectively leaves the Saudis out in the cold. Its not hard to see the writing on the wall: economic imperatives will finally merge with a rediscovered moral compass. Saudi Arabia now executes more of its citizens than any other country - beheading people for such crimes as witchcraft and abused women and/or foreign workers defending themselves. Why would the US continue awkwardly pretending that Saudi Arabia isn't actually ISIS on steroids - when there is less and less economic incentive to do so? The US's logistical support for the Saudis current hospital and school bomb-fest in Yemen could well be the last hurrah for this unholy alliance. Long story short, I think Saudi Arabia is about to enter a period of deep economic decline - and with it, the decline of the main source of middle -eastern Islamism. However it could well get worse before it gets better: as extremist as the current Saudi regimevitably be replaced by something much worse. And the new 'even-whackier-than-the-other-guys' regime will doubtless use whats left of Saudi wealth to drag as much as it can of the muslim world into the abyss. But it won't last for long, and eventually a non-Saudi/Wahabist Islam will have its opportunity to dominate, and things will improve. Thanks for the write up. I agree with the nuts and bolts of this. I'm also pretty skeptical that the demise of KSA would usher in the good times. I can only see utter catastrophe that would result from the likelihood of the Iran Saudi war moving from a proxy to direct. Maybe a few green shoots would arise from the scorched earth that would leave behind. This I see as the main reason why USA/Iran relations are heading towards normalization. They don't want Russia to be Iran's only friend. Good segue to Iran actually, they're batsh!t crazy in their own right and we can't blame wahhabism. I totally get why they booted the Shah. He needed to go and every day Iranians are probably better for it, but Iran could have been such an interesting place if it was a secular revolution.

The overwhealming majority of Iranians would agree.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

Most sunnis reject the wahabist ideology. Make what you will of that.

I also thought wahabist ideology was simply Sunni Islam peculated to it's strongest form, taken to it's logical conclusion.

Aren't moderate Muslims just less observant?

As an example, I live in a very Jewish area. Most of the Jews I know 'dig on swine'. I've met a few Hasids and the Jews I know have described them as following the same set of rules, just being sticklers for rules.

Is Saudi Arabia Islamic?


QUESTION;
Is the Pope a Catholic ???





polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:30am:

I don't see the Saudis with much veneer of respectability. Its just that its easy to have your atrocities fly under the radar when everyone's pretending nothing's wrong, if not actively supporting you.

gandalf complains that the Saudis are not good exemplars of true ISLAM.

Coz, ISLAM is a much more virtuous faith, than the example of ISLAM which is portrayed by the Saudis !!!

Honest!!!                :D







FACT;

EVERY moslem reveres Mohammed [Allah's Apostle].

According to EVERY moslem,       .....Mohammed [Allah's Apostle] was a paragon of virtue and of moral example, to all humanity !!!!



THE EXAMPLE OF MOHAMMED [Allah's messenger] #1,

Mohammed instructs the moslem, that NOT being a moslem, is a sanction for execution....

THE HADITH....

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




THE EXAMPLE OF MOHAMMED [Allah's messenger] #2,

Mohammed instructs the moslem, that murdering for his 'religion' is halal....

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #005.059.369





THE EXAMPLE OF MOHAMMED [Allah's messenger] #3,

Mohammed [Allah's messenger] instructs the moslem, that murdering a poetess [who is 'threatening' his 'religion'] is halal....



Quote:

Ishaq: 676 “[Context note: Asma bint Marwan was a writer. She wrote critically of Muhammad, telling her tribe to be wary of him, like this:] ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling baby and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’ ”

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Islam_and_peace.htm





But what could a naive non-moslem argue ????

Perhaps, that Mohammed, was just one man ?

Not a religion in himself ?




But what did Allah [ISLAM's deity] have to say, about Mohammed's virtue ???


"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [i.e. Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.021



Yes folks,         ....ISLAM is truly a virtuous religion.

Just ask gandalf.

gandalf is an expert on ISLAM's underlying virtuous nature.            :P

[/quote]The overwhealming majority of Iranians would agree.[/quote]


Yes, I hold more hope for Persians than Arabs, particularly if yearn for their pre-arab invasion glory days.

To put it in a glib way, belly dancing vs burkas ;)

I've met enough Iranians to conclude they want to be rid of the Islamic revolution.

The ones I've met in Sydney are naturally creative, artistic and musical but they still have deeply ingrained Islamic hatreds which would take a few generations of total secularism to expunge.

Any Iranians who want to immigrate to Australia should make a pledge towards secularism.

Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.

And yes, Persian culture is completely different to Arab culture. Iranians have the things you’ve mentioned, possibly due to the influence of Sufism, a branch of Islam the mullahs have been.keen to wipe out.

Perhaps the Islamic revolution could have gone another way without the dominance of Khomeni. While the mullahs are generally hardline  in Iran, they’ve been chosen to be hardline, in much the same way the Anglican church in Sydney has become conservative and evangelical under the dominance of the Jensen.brothers.

Islam is not one set of rules and beliefs, and nor should it be. Every time people insist the Saudis or Ayotollahs are the natural embodiment of Islam, they side with the extremists. There is far too much of a reliance on rules, both within Islam and the gaze we use to view it as outsiders. Islam is a devotional practice - everything Muhammed said needs to be placed in this context. The aim.of Islam isn’t personal obedience to imams or mullahs, but spiritual peace.

Of course you don’t get this by beheading blasphemers or stoning adulterers. That’s just bullsh!t. Cruelty does not bring anyone closer to God. Those who believe that suicide bombing will bring you rewards in the afterlife are in for a nasty surprise.

Islam teaches this - it’s all in the Koran and much Islamic culture throughout central Asia. There is a culture there of treating strangers as God,. People from different religions and cultures are welcomed as guests, not murdered for being infidels.  Go up nto the Hindu Kush, and you’ll find men who will lay down their lives to defend their guests. People here live by very strong codes. I’m not sure if this is the influence of Islam or the Mongals.

I haven’t been there, just read about it. I have, however experienced similar generousity and kindness by Kashmiris, a very civilised people. I’ve also experienced it in Java, but again, whether this is the influence of Islam or an older anamist culture, I’m unsure.

People are people. Some are hard, some are open.and kind. I have not found any major differences between Muslims or anyone else.- while travelling or at home.

This is why I’m such a shameless apologist for Muslims - I live with them, work with them, and often meet them while travelling. A UK.Daily Mail article or a post from Jihadwatch is not going to turn me around.- nor are the words of hate preachers here who admit they don’t know any Muslims.

I’m told I need to be loyal to "my own kind" by agreeing to hate Muslims. And not just this, I’m supposed to agree with blatant lies about Muslims. It’s not good enough to just stay quiet either. Herbie often demands a response from his usual suspects, the appeasers and apologists. FD will quote your post in a thread on its own. If you ignore this, he gets most shirty.

"Your own kind" are presumably white Anglo Saxon Protestants, but this isn’t good enough either. If you disagree, you’re worse than those from other races, you’re a traitor. And traitors, as Herbie says, deserve to be shot.

To not be a traitor, I have to give up all my experiences with people and agree to hate Muslims. I then have to agree with everything "my own kind" says about them -  mostly fabricated stories and facts and statistics.  I have to join in the haw haws about how ugly and stupid Muslims are and side with the campaign to ban them, kill them, nuke them. I have to pretend that we will one day change the constitution to do this, and that we will even develop our own nuclear weapons program for this very purpose.

These are not exaggerations. All these things are said to me here on a daily basis. Sometimes, when I raise the more ludicrous statements people have made, they pretend they never said them. To be fair, many have probably forgotten. People can say ludicrous things in debate that sound dumb when they’ve calmed down, but a number of posters here say them with complete clarity. Sprintcyclist, for example, wants Muslims casterated. Soren wants their headscarves forcibly removed. Many want them.deported, and if there’s nowhere else to send them, detained for life.

And if I raise a slight question about this, or raise the idea later, or even have a harmless chuckle over it, I’m a "thread vandal" who needs to be banned from this board.

And these are "my own kind" I’m supposed to be siding with and calling to ban my work colleagues, neighbours, shopkeepers, and community members.

Which side would you join?

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 11:41am:

Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.

Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists?

Kind of logical really, a Pakistani Sunni Islamists can get more than enough of that back home.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 12:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists?

What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist.

How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope.

A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight.

The cold war was a hoot.

So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work?

One possible strategy is to make Australia unattractive to Muzlims through public education and honesty about Islam's intentions.

I have known some Iranians, they were totally secular and had more freedom during the Shah's regime than under the Islamic assaholahs.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 1:00pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work?

Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective.

ISIS is SUNNI

Wahhabism (Arabic: وهابية‎, Wahhābiya(h)) or Wahhabi mission[1] (;[2] Arabic: الدعوة الوهابية‎, ad-Da'wa al-Wahhābiya(h) ) is a religious movement or branch of Sunni Islam.

Adherents often object to the term Wahhabi or Wahhabism as derogatory, and prefer to be called Salafi or muwahhid.

Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[16] He started a revivalist movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd,[17] advocating a purging of practices such as the popular "cult of saints", and shrine and tomb visitation, widespread among Muslims, but which he considered idolatry (shirk), impurities and innovations in Islam (Bid'ah).




It sounds like this dude wanted to clean islam up a bit from the mindless drones and cultish pagan practices borrowed from the pagan religions of the day when islam was invented.


At the end of the day.

Wahhabi
Sheite
Sunni (ISIS)
Muslim forum Apologists
ALL Muslims
Whatever brand of islamic psychotic behavior you subscribe too.

All follow the same evil book that promotes Terrorism, Violence, Murder and Hatred of all non believers in black and white easy to understand text. The evil bile book of filth the qur'an.

ALL Muslims  no matter what brand of islamic psychotic behavior call the same fictitious book their holy book.

Muslims babbling on online about different names for muslims like we give a shyte still can't re-write their bile terrorist handbook of filth they call a holy book. The qur'an.

Because simply when we talk about muslims we are talking about them and their qur'an which is what they believe is holy.

No one ever listens to a person that believes Bigotry Terrorism , Pedophilia is cool and Holy in order to see if their perception of them is wrong ;D ;D ;D.

Common sense dictates no one listens to a person that calls terrorism holy and bigotry and murder holy. Maybe converse to take the piss at their amazement that they think people do listen to them.

The intellectually impaired ones that do will fit right in of course. Which just creates the whole problem because intellectually impaired people can be made to do anything. In this case commit terrorist acts by other intellectually impaired people that follow a a book written by a man so he could go raping and pillaging. He would be probably laughing at them in his grave right now.

What a shame we have islam screwing every country over into a shyte hole that it touches. This stuff isn't from a god that created this world. These people cannot stand to see others be happy. Sick fecks.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 1:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective.

Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve?

GordyL wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:36pm:

If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so?

If you want to see the hypocrisy of islam as opposed to it purist form and in its purist form when it suits go to saudi arabia.

Purist form would be defined by Islams doctrine. That doctrine is in the book called the qur'an. Today if you want to see that in full play in its purist form go do a weekend ISIS camp. There is nothing ISIS does that opposes that book the qur'an. That statement cannot be refuted by any muslim that follows the qur'an.

- So for purity go do a weekend ISIS camp.

- For islamic hypocrisy and barbaric purity when it suits go to saudi arabia.

The richer the muslim the greater the hypocrisy.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:28pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve?

Makes sense doesn't it? 

If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country?

GordyL wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:36pm:

If one wanted to observe Islam in it's purest form, in living every day practice, is Saudi Arabia a good place to do so?

Mecca is a city in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Muhammad and the annual pilgrimage The Hajj. Therefore SA is pretty influential in the Islamic world. A corrupt government which enforces strict laws, yet the very wealthy governing class frequently visit world capitals partaking of alcohol and call-girls, and gorging themselves on the most expensive banquets, buying the most expensive property, vehicles, etc.

Hypocrisy and savagery at its most blatant.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

Most sunnis reject the wahabist ideology. Make what you will of that.

But that doesn't mean that the Saudis are not Muslims. They are. They are VERY, VERY Muslim. Everything in Saudi Arabia is impeccably Islamic. They are the Calvinists of Islam.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 12:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? Kind of logical really, a Pakistani Sunni Islamists can get more than enough of that back home.

EXCLUSIVE: First gay bar opens in Tehran

The unthinkable has happened: an American gay bar called "The Pink Cucumber" has just opened in the centre of Tehran. As an emissary from the European Union's Ministry of Truth I had the honor to take part in a recent cultural visit to Iran to study this phenomenon. I am happy to share my experiences with the most korrekt komrades of the glorious Kube.

http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/peoples_resource/image/37788-Pink_Cucumber_Tehran.jpg

My first visit was to the offices of prime minister Rouhani. The prime minister stressed that his government wanted to show the world how Iran respects the ideas and preferences of other cultures. In his exact words:

We proclaim to have a religion of tolerance and peace. The world would call us filthy hypocrits if we would try to deny these homosexual immigrants their rights. I would of course smother my own son in goat's blood if he ever became gay, but to other cultures we must show respect for their particular values.

Later that day I visited the neighbourhood where The Pink Cucumber is located, a rowdy part of Tehran called Sandersville, filled with American-style burger restaurants and European cafés. My tour guide for the day was no other than Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. The ayatollah explains:

When the first Trump refugees from the West came, we opened our arms to them. They came to live here in the center of Tehran and called this part of town 'Sandersville'. After a while they started to cause problems: the cultural differences were too great to overcome. Scarcely clad young maidens, overt homosexuals, drunk people - and this in the middle of a conservative Muslim community. Everyone with common sense could see that this would cause problems.

We pass some young Swedish-looking boys making cat calls to a local girl in a niqab. They surround her, but when they see our cameras they quickly run away. The girl is safe... for now.

The Grand Ayatollah continues: "Me and my colleagues of the religious police tried to object, but an organisation called the Council of American Iranian Relations defamed us in the press and started legal procedures. In the end we backed down." He added that in his opinion this "council" is sponsored by dark foreign powers, but he has become powerless against them.

Walking through Sandersville we passed piss-drunk Brits vomiting in the gutter, fat Americans chomping down burgers, and young German women flashing their boobs at us. Local women, veiled from head to toes, walk past all the mayhem, trying to continue life as usual - but they are clearly ill at ease in the midst of all this decadent display.

When we reach The Pink Cucumber, a protest action of members of the former Religious Police and the Etela'at (secret police) is just being dispersed by the regular police officers. Amidst shouts of "free speech for religious fascists" and "killing infidels is culture too," the riot police move in and swipe the street brutally. After a while, only the sounds of "Waterloo" by ABBA are heard in the street, coming from the bar. Through the window, we can see naked men dancing on a table.

When I ask Mr. Khamenei if he is not sad to see his Iran change so quickly, he answers, "We must follow the leadership of our Prophet. We must accept these foreign people, even if it harms our own way of life. We cannot ask the Western world to be tolerant towards us if we show no tolerance towards their opinions. Violence against homosexuals cannot happen in Iran. We would make complete fools of ourselves if we would start killing people of a different sexual orientation, and then say that we follow a religion of peace. Nobody would ever take us seriously again."

But as he looked away, I could not help notice a single tear rolling down his cheek.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country?

Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate?

And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?"

But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?"

"Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?"

"Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?"

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:35pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate?

The evidence is that Muslims moving to the West do not leave behind their aspirations for a caliphate, for sharia, they do not leave the idea of an Islamic Ummah behind them. SO as the number of Muslims grows in any country, the agitation for sharia, caliphate, Islamic laws and customs grows.

There is nothing unexpected about this. Previous waives of migrants had no religio-polititical identities. The Greeks and Italians and the Vietnamese or even the Chinese are not bringing a distinctive religio-political identity and idea of social organisation. Muslims do. 
To be a Muslim is to be consciously distinct from Christians, Jews. Hindus, atheists, idolaters.


The Greeks and Italians and Vietnamese didn't want you to become Greek, Italian, etc.
Islam is an intolerant religion. It demands submission, one way or another. 

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:35pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?" But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?" "Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?" "Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?" A simple yes or no will suffice.

You've just taken a nice turn into the land of the slippery slope fallacy.

I was talking about secularism in Govt, nothing more.

What would be wrong with a nicely worded clause on any immigration form/citizen test pointing out that Australia is committed to a secular Govt and expects all immigrants to support secularism in Govt institutions?

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:35pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?" But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?" "Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?" "Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?" A simple yes or no will suffice. You've just taken a nice turn into the land of the slippery slope fallacy. I was talking about secularism in Govt, nothing more. What would be wrong with a nicely worded clause on any immigration form/citizen test pointing out that Australia is committed to a secular Govt and expects all immigrants to support secularism in Govt institutions?

Good idea, Gordy. That’ll weed them out, shurely.

If they don’t tick the box -

DENIED.

Frank wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:35pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? The evidence is that Muslims moving to the West do not leave behind their aspirations for a caliphate, for sharia, they do not leave the idea of an Islamic Ummah behind them. SO as the number of Muslims grows in any country, the agitation for sharia, caliphate, Islamic laws and customs grows. There is nothing unexpected about this. Previous waives of migrants had no religio-polititical identities. The Greeks and Italians and the Vietnamese or even the Chinese are not bringing a distinctive religio-political identity and idea of social organisation. Muslims do.  To be a Muslim is to be consciously distinct from Christians, Jews. Hindus, atheists, idolaters. The Greeks and Italians and Vietnamese didn't want you to become Greek, Italian, etc. Islam is an intolerant religion. It demands submission, one way or another.

What evidence, Frank?

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 7:42pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:50pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:35pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?" But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?" "Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?" "Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?" A simple yes or no will suffice. You've just taken a nice turn into the land of the slippery slope fallacy. I was talking about secularism in Govt, nothing more. What would be wrong with a nicely worded clause on any immigration form/citizen test pointing out that Australia is committed to a secular Govt and expects all immigrants to support secularism in Govt institutions? Good idea, Gordy. That’ll weed them out, shurely. If they don’t tick the box - DENIED.

So what's wrong with trying?  If you tick the box then show up at the HuT meeting, onya bike

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:07am:

Most sunnis reject the wahabist ideology. Make what you will of that.

What did Muhammad Wahhab do that is unislamic, is it nothing zip zilch?

What exactly do they reject?

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 7:42pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:50pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:35pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?" But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?" "Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?" "Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?" A simple yes or no will suffice. You've just taken a nice turn into the land of the slippery slope fallacy. I was talking about secularism in Govt, nothing more. What would be wrong with a nicely worded clause on any immigration form/citizen test pointing out that Australia is committed to a secular Govt and expects all immigrants to support secularism in Govt institutions? Good idea, Gordy. That’ll weed them out, shurely. If they don’t tick the box - DENIED. So what's wrong with trying?  If you tick the box then show up at the HuT meeting, onya bike

Because it’s not trying anything, Gordy. You know this.

These sorts of boxes on forms are no more than pointless buraucracy.

Do you think these sorts of questions are not covered in an application for citizenship?

And do you know the amount of forms and assessments required to immigrate to Australia? Skilled migration takes at least 7 years. Spousal visas take at least 5. Language tests, skills tests, insurance, bonds, tens of thousands of dollars. Australia is one of the hardest countries in the world to move to. Even the tourist visas are hard to get.

And have you seen a longer customs form? I haven’t.

So sure, lets add one more question everyone will happily tick.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 7:43pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:44pm: The evidence is that Muslims moving to the West do not leave behind their aspirations for a caliphate, for sharia, they do not leave the idea of an Islamic Ummah behind them. SO as the number of Muslims grows in any country, the agitation for sharia, caliphate, Islamic laws and customs grows. There is nothing unexpected about this. Previous waives of migrants had no religio-polititical identities. The Greeks and Italians and the Vietnamese or even the Chinese are not bringing a distinctive religio-political identity and idea of social organisation. Muslims do.  To be a Muslim is to be consciously distinct from Christians, Jews. Hindus, atheists, idolaters. The Greeks and Italians and Vietnamese didn't want you to become Greek, Italian, etc. Islam is an intolerant religion. It demands submission, one way or another.  What evidence, Frank?

Every evidence.  There is simply no evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence of Muslim integration, assimilation, there is no evidence of any Islamic improvement of the West.
There is Islamic terrorism in the West following Islamic immigration to the West.   There is no evidence of Islam making any Western country better on any measure. There is overwhelming evidence, however, that countries that do not allow Muslim immigration have zero Islamic terrorism.



WHat exactly did you expect?  Do you think Islam improves any society? If so, explain.

I think it makes every society worse.  Show how this is wrong, if you can. I don't think you can. The first requirement of a functioning and pleasant society is that it must have no Islam.  Islam is detrimental to every society.ii

Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:58pm:

Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim.

Well some seem to be
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir_(Australia)

I'm pretty familiar with the Viet and Laos communities in Sydney and I've yet to hear of them joining s communist party. ;)

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:58pm:

Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim.

The caliphate is a an Islamic notion, like jihad and submission. The caliphate comes with Islam.

Muslims coming to the West, including Australia, do not become any less Muslim  than they were before. If anything, their children become even more fanatic.

GordyL wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 9:58pm: Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim. Well some seem to be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir_(Australia) I'm pretty familiar with the Viet and Laos communities in Sydney and I've yet to hear of them joining s communist party. ;)

Sure, but they do say this:


Quote:

Conference spokesman Wassim Doureihi said the work of Hizb ut-Tahrir was not to change the political landscape in Australia. He added, "It is because of Islam and my allegiance to Islam that I am responsible for ensuring to do what I can to protect the safety and security of all peoples in this country and beyond."[12]

Does anyone believe it?

I doubt that very much, but it looks like Hizb ut-Tahrir have ticked your box.

As for communists, you raise a very interesting point. Quite a few immigrants believe in communism. I've met quite a few. None, however, believe there will be a communist revolution anytime soon. None of the ones I've met have joined communist-style parties or are politically active.

None of the Muslims I've met are politically active either. Strangely enough, none want a "caliphate".

Frank wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 9:58pm: Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim. The caliphate is a an Islamic notion, like jihad and submission. The caliphate comes with Islam. Muslims coming to the West, including Australia, do not become any less Muslim  than they were before. If anything, their children become even more fanatic.

A caliphate is just a kingdom, Frank. Australia is a constitutional democracy. Muslims who come to Australia know this quite well. They vote in elections, and a couple of them are even in parliament.

Caliphates do not come with Islam, just as the divine right of kings does not come with Christianity.

Do you have evidence for anything you're saying, or shall we move on?

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Frank wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 8:48am: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 9:58pm: Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim. The caliphate is a an Islamic notion, like jihad and submission. The caliphate comes with Islam. Muslims coming to the West, including Australia, do not become any less Muslim  than they were before. If anything, their children become even more fanatic. A caliphate is just a kingdom, Frank. Australia is a constitutional democracy. Muslims who come to Australia know this quite well. They vote in elections, and a couple of them are even in parliament. Caliphates do not come with Islam, just as the divine right of kings does not come with Christianity. Do you have evidence for anything you're saying, or shall we move on?

Yadda being 'alarmist' again.

--------- >

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458847754/7#7

RE MOSLEMS/ISLAM, IN AUSTRALIA,     ....WATCH THE YOUTUBE CITED THERE!

Watch the words coming out of their own mouths.

The Struggle for Islam in the West....      




There is only one, 'legitimate' ISLAM,       ......the ISLAM which is murderous, and brutal, and oppressive, to those who are not moslems.

Real ISLAM [its doctrines, and tenets, and laws] does not give sanction to, nor tolerate, pluralism nor 'multiculturalism' [the multiculturalism, which moslems living in the West, are exploiting - giving citizen rights to moslems, who are living in western nations, is like giving a firearm to a violent criminal!].

ISLAM promotes a brutal, oppressive mono-culture, with moslems as masters, overlords, and slave-masters.



QUESTION;

Who or what, is a moslem ???

A moslem is a follower of ISLAM.       < -------- dictionary definition.

And mainstream ISLAM is a philosophy which [within its doctrines, and tenets, and laws] teaches every moslem,        .....that a moslem who murders an enemy of Allah, is a good and virtuous person.



But, what or who, is 'an enemy of Allah' ???

ISLAM [in the Koran] defines anyone who is a disbeliever, as an enemy of Allah!


Seriously,          ......is it any wonder that so many 'nice' people, suddenly buy an airline ticket for Turkey [i.e. Syria], or walk into a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney, or go to the local mosque to obtain a pistol,               .....and then turn into homicidal maniacs ?

No,    ....it isn't.


Because;

Every moslem, is a moslem.

I had hopes that this might have reduced the number of Yadda's Islamophobic posts.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 10:37am:

I had hopes that this might have reduced the number of Yadda's Islamophobic posts. [http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hundreds-of-prescription-drugs-will-now-be-cheaper/news-story/5feb892ca9d86ccaf041013aecd39f80]

You are a wicked, immoral person, greggery, imo.

Seeking to divert people's attention, away from the truth of their circumstances.

Very naughty!!!



Dictionary;
palliative = = relieving pain or alleviating a problem without dealing with the cause.

Taking a 'happy pill', so i won't worry so much ???

A psychotropic drug?

Dictionary;
psychotropic = = relating to or denoting drugs that affect a person’s mental state.

No thanks.

But clearly, people like yourself, are happy to 'push' such [FALSE, AND EMPTY!!!] 'solutions', onto others, your fellow citizens.



THE PROBLEM IN QUESTION ?

Wanna-be murderous ISLAMISTS, living here, in Australia.....

greggery's 'prescription', to 'solve' the problem ?                  ----------- >

"Moslems [in Australia] are peaceful tolerant people.    There is nothing to see here.      Move along. Move along."




Yadda's prescription, to solve problems which i encounter.....

Personally, i see little or no benefit, in seeking to [only] alleviate the symptoms [i.e. the consequence], of the problems which i encounter in this life.      .....Leaving the cause of a problem, to continue to fester on.

To me, it seems much more logical, and beneficial, if i were to seek to address [or even remove] the cause of the obvious problem(s) which confront me [and those i care about].

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:55pm:

The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans.

How did the British fund and empower them?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 8:55pm: The wahabists were an irrelevancy in the Islamic world until they were funded and empowered by the British who used them as a tool against the Ottomans. How did the British fund and empower them?

Have you ever seen Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I think I have seen clips from it, of a kid killing himself after putting detonators in his pocket.

And no I am not going to watch the movie for an answer.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

I think I have seen clips from it, of a kid killing himself after putting detonators in his pocket. And no I am not going to watch the movie for an answer.

Don’t want to see it, eh?

Maybe you could read the book.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:40pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 8:02pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 7:42pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:50pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:35pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:28pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:30pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 1:00pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 11:41am: Most of the Iranians I’ve met are avowed secularists, if not atheist Marxists.  Would you be open to the idea of limiting immigration to Australia to people who are avowed secularists? What would this do? Our public and corporate sectors are secularist. We have anti-descrimination legislation. Equal Opportunity Employment, secularist civil and corporate law. Our constitution, even though it references God, is avowedly secularist. How would you assess the beliefs of those immigrating? Ask them a series of questions they could lie to? And what do you do wiith tthe Bible Belt crowd and Catholics? A similar campaign once existed to ban Catholics because they held allegiance to a foreign leader, the pope. A similar plan.once existed to ban communists. Of course this was impossible to do, but that didn’t stop ASIO and Immigration officials from having this as their primary reason for being. We even.encouraged anti-communist troublemakers to come to Australia from places like Croatia. ASIO then.pointed them towards the supposedly communist Serbians to start a fight. The cold war was a hoot. So again, what would your plan.achieve, and how could you make it work? Well we screen for a lot of things, I don't have all the answers but I like the objective. Why do you like the objective? What purpose does it serve? Makes sense doesn't it?  If someone is happy with a theocracy but wants to move to Australia for a better standard of living, wouldn't it be better to get the candidate who wants a better standard of living PLUS wants to live in a secular country? Do you think people move to Australia in the hope that it will become an Islamic caliphate? And do you think there are so many with this intention that we need to  weed them out by asking everyone who comes to Australia, "have you ever had a yearning to live in a theocracy?" But why stop there? We could screen for all sorts of beliefs, religious and political views.  "Do you believe in a beard tax?" "Do you believe women should be kept indoors during menstration?" "Do you think political leaders should be circumcised prior to taking their oath of office?" A simple yes or no will suffice. You've just taken a nice turn into the land of the slippery slope fallacy. I was talking about secularism in Govt, nothing more. What would be wrong with a nicely worded clause on any immigration form/citizen test pointing out that Australia is committed to a secular Govt and expects all immigrants to support secularism in Govt institutions? Good idea, Gordy. That’ll weed them out, shurely. If they don’t tick the box - DENIED. So what's wrong with trying?  If you tick the box then show up at the HuT meeting, onya bike Because it’s not trying anything, Gordy. You know this. These sorts of boxes on forms are no more than pointless buraucracy. Do you think these sorts of questions are not covered in an application for citizenship? And do you know the amount of forms and assessments required to immigrate to Australia? Skilled migration takes at least 7 years. Spousal visas take at least 5. Language tests, skills tests, insurance, bonds, tens of thousands of dollars. Australia is one of the hardest countries in the world to move to. Even the tourist visas are hard to get. And have you seen a longer customs form? I haven’t. So sure, lets add one more question everyone will happily tick.

So why not also completely abandon the "good character" style clauses? Do you think this amounts to nothing more than ticking a box?

Do you think we should add a question on secular government too, FD?

I’d like.an answer to this. Yes or no, thanks.

We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means.

Is that a  yes?

What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked?

Should they be denied for evasion?

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion?

Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported?

GordyL wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion? Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported?

Gordy, I’ve asked you about a quote you said you provided, but didn’t.

Are you playing for time?

Does a quote exist?

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion? Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported? Gordy, I’ve asked you about a quote you said you provided, but didn’t. Are you playing for time? Does a quote exist?

Sheet. I even sent you a PM.
The exact quite is in kindle format

GordyL wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:56pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion? Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported? Gordy, I’ve asked you about a quote you said you provided, but didn’t. Are you playing for time? Does a quote exist? Sheet. I even sent you a PM. The exact quite is in kindle format

Thanks for the reply, Gordy. If you could just open your book and read out the quote, that would be great.

Cheers.

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 11:57pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:59pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:56pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion? Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported? Gordy, I’ve asked you about a quote you said you provided, but didn’t. Are you playing for time? Does a quote exist? Sheet. I even sent you a PM. The exact quite is in kindle format Thanks for the reply, Gordy. If you could just open your book and read out the quote, that would be great. Cheers.

Buy it yourself, interesting book.

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-A-Dialogue/dp/0674088700

GordyL wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:59am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 11:57pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:59pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:56pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Is that a  yes? What do you do if this box doesn’t get ticked? Should they be denied for evasion? Would you care if an immigrant who turns up at HuT gets deported? Gordy, I’ve asked you about a quote you said you provided, but didn’t. Are you playing for time? Does a quote exist? Sheet. I even sent you a PM. The exact quite is in kindle format Thanks for the reply, Gordy. If you could just open your book and read out the quote, that would be great. Cheers. Buy it yourself, interesting book. http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-A-Dialogue/dp/0674088700

Gordy, are you trying to hide something here?
You know, like a quote?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means.

Do you reckon sinister terrorists would give the wrong answer? Also what do you mean by "follow it up" - sounds creepy to me.

Reminds me of a scene in Battle for Algiers - the counter-terrorism guy watches in dismay as police are checking people's papers and points out that the terrorists will be the ones most likely to have their papers in order.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:42am:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:45pm: We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means. Do you reckon sinister terrorists would give the wrong answer? Also what do you mean by "follow it up" - sounds creepy to me. Reminds me of a scene in Battle for Algiers - the counter-terrorism guy watches in dismay as police are checking people's papers and points out that the terrorists will be the ones most likely to have their papers in order.

I'd want immigrants who join right wing and fascist parties deported.

Are you ok with Islamists who join HuT etc being deported?

GordyL wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:42am: freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:45pm: We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means. Do you reckon sinister terrorists would give the wrong answer? Also what do you mean by "follow it up" - sounds creepy to me. Reminds me of a scene in Battle for Algiers - the counter-terrorism guy watches in dismay as police are checking people's papers and points out that the terrorists will be the ones most likely to have their papers in order. I'd want immigrants who join right wing and fascist parties deported. Are you ok with Islamists who join HuT etc being deported?

I disagree, Gordy. We’d lose Herbie, Sprint and the old boy.

GordyL wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

I'd want immigrants who join right wing and fascist parties deported. Are you ok with Islamists who join HuT etc being deported?

Frankly no.

Who determines what is 'fascist'? I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with having laws that arbitrarily decides 'this group is fascist enough to warrant deportation but this one isn't'. Because its subjective. Reclaim Australia for example are widely labelled fascist, but no one who is a member or supports them would accept that label. Also you mention Hizb-ut Tahrir, whose Australian chapter at least has categorically rejected violence. So what makes its members 'fascist' and therefore so undesirable that they deserve deportation?

So thats the problem with proposing blanket bans on organisations based purely on someone's subjective judgement that they are 'fascist'. Far more sensible is to simply act on a case by case basis: if an individual immigrant muslim engages in criminal behaviour that threatens our way of life, deport him. Simple. You punish people based on their individual actions and behaviours. And that goes for any immigrant, muslim or non-muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:42am:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:45pm: We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means. Do you reckon sinister terrorists would give the wrong answer? Also what do you mean by "follow it up" - sounds creepy to me. Reminds me of a scene in Battle for Algiers - the counter-terrorism guy watches in dismay as police are checking people's papers and points out that the terrorists will be the ones most likely to have their papers in order.

They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have.

Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them.

And yes, a lot of the terrorist sympathisers we are importing are in the "incredibly stupid" basket and would end up giving the wrong answer in an interview.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:02am: I'd want immigrants who join right wing and fascist parties deported. Are you ok with Islamists who join HuT etc being deported? Frankly no. Who determines what is 'fascist'? I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with having laws that arbitrarily decides 'this group is fascist enough to warrant deportation but this one isn't'.

Australians voted on this in Menzies' referendum to ban the Communist Party. They voted overwhelmingly against the proposal.

And this, in the height of the cold war. Menzies even had internment camps ready to go. ASIO had already identified the targets.

The idea that Australians would vote to ban a religion - even if a majority of parliament agreed to propose this - is similarly far-fetched.

And that is the only way you'll ban or deport Muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 12:55pm:

They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them.

You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 12:55pm: They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them. You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers.

Oh, I think FD will disagree with you there. The latter will just give them things to evade and tell porkies about.

Google: taqiyya.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 4:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 12:55pm: They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them. You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers.

They can educate themselves. What I was suggesting was that any effort to lie would be difficult to distinguish from a self-motivated education session about freedom and democracy.

Not that I would particularly oppose such education sessions. It would be a good opportunity to find the lunatics. The risk is that you end up needing a degree in civilised behaviour to immigrate and it turns into an enourmous bureaucracy. It is really not that difficult a concept, and if you make it a requirement, they will naturally discover how easy it is to get your head around.

At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex.

Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries?

I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them?

I'd be very very worried about that.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 4:12pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 12:55pm: They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them. You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers. They can educate themselves. What I was suggesting was that any effort to lie would be difficult to distinguish from a self-motivated education session about freedom and democracy. Not that I would particularly oppose such education sessions. It would be a good opportunity to find the lunatics. The risk is that you end up needing a degree in civilised behaviour to immigrate and it turns into an enourmous bureaucracy. It is really not that difficult a concept, and if you make it a requirement, they will naturally discover how easy it is to get your head around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that what you are calling for is already in place.

Dustwun wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that.

We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here.

Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban.

I blame Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:42am:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 9:45pm: We should add a question (and follow it up) on people's views on freedom and democracy. I have said this plenty of times. I would happily add separation of church and state to the list, but a lot of people struggle with what it means. Do you reckon sinister terrorists would give the wrong answer? Also what do you mean by "follow it up" - sounds creepy to me. Reminds me of a scene in Battle for Algiers - the counter-terrorism guy watches in dismay as police are checking people's papers and points out that the terrorists will be the ones most likely to have their papers in order.

Muslim immigrants should prove that they are pro-democracy and plurality.

It must not be assumed as most of them are against these thing in their own countries.


It is not for the West to assume that they are all good until they start shooting.

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam.

Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia?

Karnal wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Frank wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 8:48am: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 9:58pm: Sorry, Frank, I mean what evidence are you sourcing to.show Muslims who.move to.Australia want to turn it into.a caliphate? That was your claim. The caliphate is a an Islamic notion, like jihad and submission. The caliphate comes with Islam. Muslims coming to the West, including Australia, do not become any less Muslim  than they were before. If anything, their children become even more fanatic. A caliphate is just a kingdom, Frank. Australia is a constitutional democracy. Muslims who come to Australia know this quite well. They vote in elections, and a couple of them are even in parliament. Caliphates do not come with Islam, just as the divine right of kings does not come with Christianity. Do you have evidence for anything you're saying, or shall we move on?

The caliphate is JUST a kingdom, jihad is JUST a spirituial striving, FGM is JUST a custom, beheading all who diss the prophet is JUST a too much hummus, carrying on like its the 7th century is JUST cultural difference, killing apostates is JUST Koran sanctioned righteousness as is gender segregation, child sexual exploitation, seething resentment, gay murdering, slave trading and the rest of it.
All JUST positive enriching aspects of Islam. You JUST help yourself to it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:29pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 4:12pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 12:55pm: They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them. You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers. They can educate themselves. What I was suggesting was that any effort to lie would be difficult to distinguish from a self-motivated education session about freedom and democracy. Not that I would particularly oppose such education sessions. It would be a good opportunity to find the lunatics. The risk is that you end up needing a degree in civilised behaviour to immigrate and it turns into an enourmous bureaucracy. It is really not that difficult a concept, and if you make it a requirement, they will naturally discover how easy it is to get your head around. I have a sneaking suspicion that what you are calling for is already in place.

There is stuff about good character and civilised behaviour. As far as I can tell it is usually restricted to criminal convictions in the old country. When our politicians talk about immigrants accepting Australian culture, they often talk about "rule of law". Freedom and democracy rarely if ever get a mention.

GordyL wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia?

But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give.

You?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:10pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:29pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 4:12pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 12:55pm: They are not necessarily intent on terror when they turn up Gandalf. As I explained earlier, I expect it would be backed up in a similar way to the "good character" provisions we already have. Even if they lie, getting people thinking about freedom and democracy before they turn up would have benefits. They need to at least know what it means to pass themselves off as a supporter of freedom and democracy. And it would set clear expectations for them. You seem to be shifting from a test they need to pass, to an education session. So which is it? The latter seems sensible, concluding with the message 'we expect you to adhere to this'. The former seems redundant and pointless to me - especially after such an education session in which case they'll know the "correct" answers. They can educate themselves. What I was suggesting was that any effort to lie would be difficult to distinguish from a self-motivated education session about freedom and democracy. Not that I would particularly oppose such education sessions. It would be a good opportunity to find the lunatics. The risk is that you end up needing a degree in civilised behaviour to immigrate and it turns into an enourmous bureaucracy. It is really not that difficult a concept, and if you make it a requirement, they will naturally discover how easy it is to get your head around. I have a sneaking suspicion that what you are calling for is already in place. There is stuff about good character and civilised behaviour. As far as I can tell it is usually restricted to criminal convictions in the old country. When our politicians talk about immigrants accepting Australian culture, they often talk about "rule of law". Freedom and democracy rarely if ever get a mention.

Yes, FD, but what’s the Islamic penalty for raping your wife?

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You?

Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with?

GordyL wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with?

The lot.

I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any.

You?

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with? The lot. I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any. You?

Do you have a daughter? If so would you like a daughter to be raised in SA by religious fanatics?

GordyL wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:20pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with? The lot. I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any. You? Do you have a daughter? If so would you like a daughter to be raised in SA by religious fanatics?

I don't, Gordy, but if I did, I most certainly would not.

How about you, dear?

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:25pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:20pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with? The lot. I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any. You? Do you have a daughter? If so would you like a daughter to be raised in SA by religious fanatics? I don't, Gordy, but if I did, I most certainly would not. How about you, dear?

Yes, dear. My first born is of the girl variety.

You mentioned you're ok with Saudis immigrating to Australia. How many would be ok with you?

GordyL wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:26pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:25pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:20pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with? The lot. I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any. You? Do you have a daughter? If so would you like a daughter to be raised in SA by religious fanatics? I don't, Gordy, but if I did, I most certainly would not. How about you, dear? Yes, dear. My first born is of the girl variety. You mentioned you're ok with Saudis immigrating to Australia. How many would be ok with you?

No, dear, I said they boost high end retail.

Are you suggesting they should be prevented from immigrating to Australia?

Please explain.

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You?

Oh, so Wassim Doureihi, Uthman Badar, Ismail Al-Wahwah and the rest of the bearded Hizbies are here and accommodated because they all have DJ store cards??

I din't know that.

Frank wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Oh, so Wassim Doureihi, Uthman Badar, Ismail Al-Wahwah and the rest of the bearded Hizbies are here and accommodated because they all have DJ store cards?? I din't know that.

Not only that, they own some of the biggest property developments in our cities.

Do you think we should blame Islam?

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 9:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Oh, so Wassim Doureihi, Uthman Badar, Ismail Al-Wahwah and the rest of the bearded Hizbies are here and accommodated because they all have DJ store cards?? I din't know that. Not only that, they own some of the biggest property developments in our cities. Do you think we should blame Islam?

I think Islam is to blame for the Muslims

GordyL wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 9:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 9:13pm: Frank wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 9:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Oh, so Wassim Doureihi, Uthman Badar, Ismail Al-Wahwah and the rest of the bearded Hizbies are here and accommodated because they all have DJ store cards?? I din't know that. Not only that, they own some of the biggest property developments in our cities. Do you think we should blame Islam? I think Islam is to blame for the Muslims

And foreign.capital?

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 8:29pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:26pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:25pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 5:20pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:22pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:53pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 8:41pm: Dustwun wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:48pm: At first I thought this was like one of those, well duh, questions but it's actually pretty complex. Just because Saudi practices the most strict and adherent form of Islam and has a pretty vile culture, is that a reflection on all Islamic countries? I wonder if Saudi Arabia had a large scale war or even a devastating civil war and refugees were fleeing just like what's happening in Syria today, should we and western countries be prepared to accept them? I'd be very very worried about that. We accept them already. They have homes, farms and businesses here. Put simply, they’re loaded. And what’s wrong with that? It’s the ones on the boats we need to ban. I blame Islam. Are you comfortable with wahabists coming to Australia? But of course. High end retail needs all the help we can give. You? Apart from that, which parts of Saudi Wahhabi culture would you like to see brought to Australia? Are there any parts you disagree with? The lot. I'm sure there are some nice things, but I'm not aware of any. You? Do you have a daughter? If so would you like a daughter to be raised in SA by religious fanatics? I don't, Gordy, but if I did, I most certainly would not. How about you, dear? Yes, dear. My first born is of the girl variety. You mentioned you're ok with Saudis immigrating to Australia. How many would be ok with you? No, dear, I said they boost high end retail. Are you suggesting they should be prevented from immigrating to Australia? Please explain.

Boost high end retail, ROFL...

I know, dear. Hilarious.

They only own Harrods, after all.

Karnal wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 9:08pm: Oh, so Wassim Doureihi, Uthman Badar, Ismail Al-Wahwah and the rest of the bearded Hizbies are here and accommodated because they all have DJ store cards?? I din't know that. Not only that, they own some of the biggest property developments in our cities. Do you think we should blame Islam?

Really? I didn't know that. Do you have any examples?

Karnal wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 9:54am:

I know, dear. Hilarious. They only own Harrods, after all.

Are we talk about 'Straylia, I thought Harrods was in London-istan  :D