http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/taxpayers-billed-for-qa-activist-yassmin-abdelmagieds-grand-tour-of-islamic-regimes/news-story/7d406323d63bdca4b20da74d567fa028

The federal government paid for activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied to tour some of the world’s most repressive Islami­c regimes last Novem­be­r, promoting her book about being a Sudanese-Egypt­ian-Australian Muslim woman who wears the hijab.

The tour, which included stops in Saudi Arabia, where women are flogged for adultery and are not permitted to drive, was funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which declined yesterday to reveal the cost.

Ms Abdel-Magied, who sat next to Malcolm Turnbull at the Iftar dinner for Muslim leaders held at Kirribilli House last year to celebrate the end of Ramadan, made headlines this week when, as a guest on the ABC’s Q&A program, she describe­d Islam as “the most femin­ist” of all relig­ions.

Her statement was rejected by a fiery senator Jacqui Lambie, who argued that those countries where sharia informs the law are some of the most violently mis­ogynistic places on earth.

• JOHN LYONS: Sugar-coating the reality of Islam

A group of 49 Muslim scholars are now demanding an apology from the ABC for not silencing Senator Lambie, saying the prog­ram host, Tony Jones, failed to provide a “safe environment” for Ms Abdel-Magied to speak.

MORE: The places Yassmin visited
Ms Abdel-Magied, who is also employed by the ABC as a host of a travel program, promoted her tour of the Middle East and Africa on her blog last November, saying: “I’m heading out on tour to the Middle East and North Africa! Very excited to be supported by the Australian Embassies in the region to visit numerous countries over the next three weeks inshallah. First stop: Saudi Arabia!”

Asked to explain the purpose, rationale and cost of the tour, DFAT said: “Yassmin Abdel-Magied­ visited a number of countries­ in the Middle East to promote Australia as an open, innovative, democratic and diverse nation. She met youth representatives, scientists, entrepreneurs, women’s groups and others.”

The statement said DFAT posts or embassies in the Middle East funded the visit “from existing budgets”, but declined to reveal­ the cost. Promoting her tour of the Middle East and North Africa, Ms Abdel-Magied blogged: “I’m ­incredibly honoured to be hosted by the Australian Embassies … I’ll be visit­ing a number of countries, and although not all stops have public events I will do my best to make time to meet people ­inshallah. If you can come to any of the public sessions though, I would LOVE to see you there!”

Her stops included Riyadh, where women who venture outdoors must wear the abaya, or full body covering, and punishments for sexual crimes include flogging and stoning; Abu Dhabi, where women require the permission of a male relative to remarry; Dubai, where most Westerners live in compounds; and Qatar, where ­marita­l rape is not a crime.

She also visited Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Egypt and Sudan, where more than 90 per cent of women undergo forced genital mutilation, forced marriage is common and polygamy is permissible, although only for men. “If you have questions about specific locations, hit me up on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter inshall­ah,” Ms Abdel-Magied wrote. “Can't wait!”

Many women who attended the public events praised her, with one Twitter user saying: “What an awesome speech. Thank you Yassmin for the valuable advice and for being such an inspiration to the Sudanese youth.”

Ms Abdel-Magied posted on Instagram from the Ahfad University for women in Sudan: “@ahfad_university50 was a blast! Mashallah, amazing women doing awesome things. Keep at it!” From Abu Dhabi she posted: “Among meeting some amazing women in government and seeing the grand mosque, had the opportunity to address almost 200 female engineers ... Hopefully it has an impact inshallah!”

She told the ABC audience on Monday night: “Islam, to me, is one of the most ... is the most feminist religion, right? We got equal rights well before­ the Europeans. We don’t take our husband’s last names ... the fact is, what is culture is separate from what is faith.”

She also argued that Muslims in Australia must follow the laws of the land on which they live.

Some Islamic scholars disputed this. Sharia advice website ­IslamToday said: “They must comply with the laws of their country of residence without, at the same time, disobeying Islamic law.”

Ms Abdel-Magied addressed the Q&A stoush on the website Junkee yesterday: “I got into a bit of a tiff with Jacqui Lambie. I said Islam was a feminist religio­n and some people found that really hard to understand … I’m not going to deny, some countries run by Muslims are ­violent and sexist, but that’s not down to sharia. That’s down to the culture and the patriarchy and the politics of those … countries.”

She has not responde­d to questions from The Australian.

Very very interesting.

I also pasted this into the other thread

Some Islamic scholars disputed this. Sharia advice website ­IslamToday said: “They must comply with the laws of their country of residence without, at the same time, disobeying Islamic law.”

Wow . I paid for this

---

Its a strange title FD.

Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda.

A smile can hide a lot. They are going to teach their children that Mohamed was the messenger of God. And that God is the answer to everything. Dark Age superstition being imported into secular Australia under the guise of multiculturalism.

Quote:

Activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied ‘blind’ to Islam’s treatment of women The Australian 6:01AM February 17, 2017 Rick Morton The Muslim activist who said on national television that Islam was “the most feminist religion” has been criticised by former prime minister Tony Abbott for being “blindfolded” during a taxpayer-funded speaking tour of the ­Middle East and Africa. Yassmin Abdel-Magied triggered a debate over Islam and feminism after a fiery exchange with senator Jacqui Lambie on the effects of sharia during ­Monday’s  Q&A  on ABC TV. “If she’s right that ‘Islam is a feminist religion’, how come such terrible things are done to women in its name?” Mr Abbott said. The Australian  revealed ­yesterday that the federal government paid for Ms Abdel-Magied to tour some of the world’s most repressive Islamic regimes last November, promoting her book about being a Sudanese-­Egyptian-Australian Muslim woman who wears the hijab. Mr Abbott said Ms Abdel-­Magied was “entitled to her view” but “she must have been wearing a blindfold on her taxpayer-­funded tour”. Her views of Islam as a feminist religion also appear to be at odds with her co-member of the Australian government-funded Council for Arab Australian Relations, Joumanah El Matrah. In a 2015 submission to Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence, Ms El Matrah, who is also chief executive of the Australian Muslim Women’s Human Rights Centre, said there were “significant problems” in how Islam was interpreted, which caused violence against women. Ms El Matrah has previously declared that Muslim women and children would be “extremely ­disadvantaged” by any form of sharia court. “Among Muslims, the interpretations and application of ­Islamic doctrine in relation to women varies considerably and, given the diversity of Muslims globally, there is a lack of consensus as to the status of women, and this has a direct impact on their treatment in Islam,” she said. “Orthodox interpretative frameworks allocate women an inferior status to men and this directly affects marital and family relationships, rendering women vulnerable to violence and abuse.” She said there were “significant problems of interpretation of Islamic doctrine relating to the status of women, how they are to be treated in the home and the level of control permissible by a husband over his wife”. The Australian’s coverage of Ms Abdel-Magied’s speaking tour was raised in parliament ­yesterday during a debate about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, on the same day parliament also debated a bill proposed by Senator Lambie to restrict the wearing of the burqa. Greens senator Nick McKim launched an attack on this newspaper yesterday for publishing details of Ms Abdel-Magied’s tour of the Middle East and North Africa. “It’s a straight, simple character assassination by The Australian, as they always do … when someone dares raise their head above the parapet and make comments with which they disagree,” Senator McKim said. “It is a disgusting, race-baiting rag.” Liberal backbencher Eric Abetz described Senator McKim’s statements as “outlandish”. “It is a statement of fact that in many of the parts of the Middle East where Ms Abdel-Magied visited, women would be stoned to death for seeking an education and people even suspected of being gay are thrown off buildings,” Senator Abetz said. Mr Abbott commended The Australian for bringing “common sense to this discussion”. Senator Lambie said yesterday Muslim women had been “emboldened” by her call to ban the face-covering burqa. “I’ve been told by this person who came to visit me and I trust and respect very much that these Muslim women have been emboldened and given hope by my public comments and the provisions within this bill,” she said during a speech in favour of her bill to ban the burqa yesterday. The ban is linked to the nat­ional terrorism threat level, kicking in when the threat reaches “probable”. The threat level is currently at “probable”. Commenting on the debate about feminism and Islam, Australian Muslim Women’s Human Rights Centre chairwoman Tasmeen Chopra said anti-women issues in relation to Islam were “not text-based”. “To be honest, in Australian Muslims’ lives right now the argument about feminism is not front and centre,” she said. Sheik Shady Alsuleiman, who attended Malcolm Turnbull’s Iftar dinner last year with Ms Abdel-Magied and has made comments in a lecture saying gay people spread diseases, said last year that Allah gave “authority for men over women” but this meant that they must be “dutiful”.

This is disgusting. I will be emailing Malcolm and Angus Taylor.
I don't want.my money.funding Islamic friendship tours.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

She told the ABC audience on Monday night: “Islam, to me, is one of the most ... is the most feminist religion, right? We got equal rights well before­ the Europeans. We don’t take our husband’s last names ... the fact is, what is culture is separate from what is faith.”

I own my dog, it doesn't have my last name either.


If it is the culture and not the faith / religion that is the problem, then that is fantastic, because section 116 of the Constitution does not apply and we can ban their filthy terrorist culture from our country.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 6:43am:

Its a strange title FD. Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda.

What is Australian about this?

she describe­d Islam as “the most femin­ist” of all relig­ions

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 5:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 17th, 2017 at 6:43am: Its a strange title FD. Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda. What is Australian about this? she describe­d Islam as “the most feminist” of all relig­ions

You'll have to ask her what her definition of that is, Effendi.  Have you?  No point attacking her if there is no agreement on the basic terminology, is there?

Even Western women, including those here at OzPol cannot agree on what that word means.  What makes you, as a 'man' think you know better, Effendi?

I know it suits some to leave a term generic to a discussion un-defined as that allows for greater flexibility in attack aspect.

Woka woka woka....  honestly Aussie....  give us all a break will ya. :D :D :D

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cartoons/bleak-gallery/image-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

SELFIE

Gold.

---

It is isn't it...

Grendel wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:

Woka woka woka....  honestly Aussie....  give us all a break will ya. :D :D :D

Oh, dearie, dearie me.  Geoff when you give Muslims a break, hell will freeze over...  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied ‘blind’ to Islam’s treatment of women

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/activist-yassmin-abdelmagied-blind-to-islams-treatment-of-women/news-story/b9312e18fb0601744abdc86732c9351b

The Muslim activist who said on national television that Islam was “the most feminist religion” has been criticised by former prime minister Tony Abbott for being “blindfolded” during a taxpayer-funded speaking tour of the ­Middle East and Africa.

Yassmin Abdel-Magied triggered a debate over Islam and feminism after a fiery exchange with senator Jacqui Lambie on the effects of sharia during ­Monday’s Q&A on ABC TV.

“If she’s right that ‘Islam is a feminist religion’, how come such terrible things are done to women in its name?” Mr Abbott said.

The Australian revealed ­yesterday that the federal government paid for Ms Abdel-Magied to tour some of the world’s most repressive Islamic regimes last November, promoting her book about being a Sudanese-­Egyptian-Australian Muslim woman who wears the hijab.

Mr Abbott said Ms Abdel-­Magied was “entitled to her view” but “she must have been wearing a blindfold on her taxpayer-­funded tour”.

• JOHN LYONS: Sugar-coating the reality of Islam

MORE: Editorial: Talking Islam and feminism
MORE: Greens dripping with cowardice
MORE: How to solve problem like sharia?

Her views of Islam as a feminist religion also appear to be at odds with her co-member of the Australian government-funded Council for Arab Australian Relations, Joumanah El Matrah.

In a 2015 submission to Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence, Ms El Matrah, who is also chief executive of the Australian Muslim Women’s Human Rights Centre, said there were “significant problems” in how Islam was interpreted, which caused violence against women.

Ms El Matrah has previously declared that Muslim women and children would be “extremely ­disadvantaged” by any form of sharia court. “Among Muslims, the interpretations and application of ­Islamic doctrine in relation to women varies considerably and, given the diversity of Muslims globally, there is a lack of consensus as to the status of women, and this has a direct impact on their treatment in Islam,” she said. “Orthodox interpretative frameworks allocate women an inferior status to men and this directly affects marital and family relationships, rendering women vulnerable to violence and abuse.”

She said there were “significant problems of interpretation of Islamic doctrine relating to the status of women, how they are to be treated in the home and the level of control permissible by a husband over his wife”.

The Australian’s coverage of Ms Abdel-Magied’s speaking tour was raised in parliament ­yesterday during a debate about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, on the same day parliament also debated a bill proposed by Senator Lambie to restrict the wearing of the burqa.

Greens senator Nick McKim launched an attack on this newspaper yesterday for publishing details of Ms Abdel-Magied’s tour of the Middle East and North Africa. “It’s a straight, simple character assassination by The Australian, as they always do … when someone dares raise their head above the parapet and make comments with which they disagree,” Senator McKim said. “It is a disgusting, race-baiting rag.”

Liberal backbencher Eric Abetz described Senator McKim’s statements as “outlandish”. “It is a statement of fact that in many of the parts of the Middle East where Ms Abdel-Magied visited, women would be stoned to death for seeking an education and people even suspected of being gay are thrown off buildings,” Senator Abetz said.

Mr Abbott commended The Australian for bringing “common sense to this discussion”.

Senator Lambie said yesterday Muslim women had been “emboldened” by her call to ban the face-covering burqa. “I’ve been told by this person who came to visit me and I trust and respect very much that these Muslim women have been emboldened and given hope by my public comments and the provisions within this bill,” she said during a speech in favour of her bill to ban the burqa yesterday.

The ban is linked to the nat­ional terrorism threat level, kicking in when the threat reaches “probable”. The threat level is currently at “probable”.

Commenting on the debate about feminism and Islam, Australian Muslim Women’s Human Rights Centre chairwoman Tasmeen Chopra said anti-women issues in relation to Islam were “not text-based”.

“To be honest, in Australian Muslims’ lives right now the argument about feminism is not front and centre,” she said.

Sheik Shady Alsuleiman, who attended Malcolm Turnbull’s Iftar dinner last year with Ms Abdel-Magied and has made comments in a lecture saying gay people spread diseases, said last year that Allah gave “authority for men over women” but this meant that they must be “dutiful”.

Sociologist and feminist Eva Cox said there were good and bad parts of Islam and any other religion but that a “farrago of popular nonsense” was responsible for hijacking the debate about the protection of women as a means to impugn all Muslims.

Yeah but McKim is a dope Islam isn't a race.

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 5:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 17th, 2017 at 6:43am: Its a strange title FD. Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda. What is Australian about this? she describe­d Islam as “the most femin­ist” of all relig­ions

Try reading your own articles for a change FD.


Quote:

Asked to explain the purpose, rationale and cost of the tour, DFAT said: “Yassmin Abdel-Magied­ visited a number of countries­ in the Middle East to promote Australia as an open, innovative, democratic and diverse nation. She met youth representatives, scientists, entrepreneurs, women’s groups and others.” The statement said DFAT posts or embassies in the Middle East funded the visit “from existing budgets”, but declined to reveal­ the cost. Promoting her tour of the Middle East and North Africa, Ms Abdel-Magied blogged: “I’m ­incredibly honoured to be hosted by the Australian Embassies … I’ll be visit­ing a number of countries, and although not all stops have public events I will do my best to make time to meet people ­inshallah. If you can come to any of the public sessions though, I would LOVE to see you there!”

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 5:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 17th, 2017 at 6:43am: Its a strange title FD. Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda. What is Australian about this? she describe­d Islam as “the most femin­ist” of all relig­ions

Presumably there is some point to that quote that is relevant to the accusation in the thread title? I suppose Yasminn was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A and promote 'Islamic propaganda'?

Can you actually explain how you interpret this DFAT funded trip as 'funding Islamic propaganda'? Does it make sense to you that a muslim being paid to visit muslim countries to promote Australia equates to 'Islamic propaganda'? Not sure how that works.

You seem to be conflating the tours she took with the completely unrelated matter of her Q&A appearance.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:22am:

freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2017 at 5:15pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 17th, 2017 at 6:43am: Its a strange title FD. Seems DFAT was paying her to spread Australian propaganda. What is Australian about this? she describe­d Islam as “the most femin­ist” of all relig­ions Presumably there is some point to that quote that is relevant to the accusation in the thread title? I suppose Yasminn was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A and promote 'Islamic propaganda'? Can you actually explain how you interpret this DFAT funded trip as 'funding Islamic propaganda'? Does it make sense to you that a muslim being paid to visit muslim countries to promote Australia equates to 'Islamic propaganda'? Not sure how that works. You seem to be conflating the tours she took with the completely unrelated matter of her Q&A appearance.

Well that has to stop for a start, we want less muslims in Aus, not more. If she was to promote Aus to the world, or more likely, islam to gullible lefties, then she can do it with her own money.

She is nothing more than a scam artist ripping off the Australian taxpayer instead of paying her own way. Who would have thought that a muslim would do such a thing.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

If she was to promote Aus to the world, or more likely, islam to gullible lefties

Ah yes, all those 'gullible lefties' in the Middle East.

Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 11:35am: If she was to promote Aus to the world, or more likely, islam to gullible lefties Ah yes, all those 'gullible lefties' in the Middle East. Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

Were you not aware that she made it all the way back here to go on Q&A and tell everyone the islam is the most feminist religion in the world. Now what type of cretin would believe that? That's right a lefty.


Since when has this apologist become our ME trade negotiator, because that is news to me, and probably her too.


She is scamming the Australian taxpayer for free money, nothing more.


Didn't we have to stop exporting to a few islamic countries due to the vile level of cruelty they like to inflict on animals as they kill them?

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Were you not aware that she made it all the way back here to go on Q&A and tell everyone the islam is the most feminist religion in the world. Now what type of cretin would believe that?

It is. But I must admit its not up against much competition. The bible for example pins the blame of the "original sin" to women, making them forever irredeemably mistrustful. And for that, women forever after are to be punished by having to go through the agony of child birth. The bible constantly depicts women simultaneously as inferior and inately devious - and men shouldn't hesitate to execute them at the first hint of disobedience or promiscuity.

The Quran on the other hand did away with the whole 'women are to blame for the fall of man' nonsense, emphasised a whole swathe of protections for women, and was the first text of its kind to stipulate inheritance and property rights for women.

That the middle east is dominated by misogynists who choose to ignore Quranic sanctioned rights for women - does not change the fact that the Islamic law itself is inherently feminist.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 12:01pm: Were you not aware that she made it all the way back here to go on Q&A and tell everyone the islam is the most feminist religion in the world. Now what type of cretin would believe that? It is. But I must admit its not up against much competition. The bible for example pins the blame of the "original sin" to women, making them forever irredeemably mistrustful. And for that, women forever after are to be punished by having to go through the agony of child birth. The bible constantly depicts women simultaneously as inferior and inately devious - and men shouldn't hesitate to execute them at the first hint of disobedience or promiscuity. The Quran on the other hand did away with the whole 'women are to blame for the fall of man' nonsense, emphasised a whole swathe of protections for women, and was the first text of its kind to stipulate inheritance and property rights for women. That the middle east is dominated by misogynists who choose to ignore Quranic sanctioned rights for women - does not change the fact that the Islamic law itself is inherently feminist.

So pretty much every single muslim man has either not read the koran or chooses to not give a sh1t of what it has to say about the treatment of women.

Because muslims tend to treat their women like sh1t and the 'more muslim' they are the more sh1tty the treatment.


Pretty much not worth the paper it is written on. You don't hear the catholics crapping on about being the most child friendly religion on the planet, do you? Because it isn't, regardless of what their bible says.

Is it?
How many female Imams are there in Islam?


Quote:

Sugar-coating the reality of Islam 3:36PM February 14, 2017 John Lyons Associate Editor (Digital Content) How appalling. Two Australian women, sitting alongside each other on a panel, shouting abuse at each other about the status of women in Islam. That was yet another low-point in the debate in Australia about Islam. The clash on the ABC’s Q&A last night certainly provided a few minutes of lively television. But it was unedifying, ill-informed and played to prejudices on both sides of the debate. Jacqui Lambie is what television producers call “great talent” — a direct communicator who can deliver a punch and can be compelling to watch. Her adversary last night was Yassmin Abdel-Magied, whose family came to Australia from Sudan when she was two and who now lives happily in Australia as a mechanical engineer. It’s as if the moment the “Muslim button” was pressed that these two lost it, shouting at each other a level of abuse that does nothing to further an important discussion. Amid the shouting, the content of each was questionable. Abdel Magied argued that women are treated well in Islam. This may be the case in Brisbane, where she lives, but the idea of trying to argue this about Islam in general is nonsense. The two main drivers of Islamic practice in the world today are Iran and Saudi Arabia — Iran is the leader of the Shia world while Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Sunni world. Many Muslims in Australia follow the rulings and teachings of the spiritual leaders in these countries. In Iran, discrimination against women is entrenched in the law — the treatment of women as second-class citizens is open and formalised. The notion that they are equal is absurd. For example, if a negligent driver in Iran hits and injures a female pedestrian the courts will make the driver pay half the compensation that they would if they injured a male pedestrian. I covered the 2009 “Green Revolution” in Iran for The Australian, an uprising violently crushed by the Ayatollahs. While I was there I got onto a bus with an Iranian-English woman who was showing me around Tehran. I got on the front of the bus, for the men, and she got on the back, for the women. A wooden pole separated the two. When we began talking, an Iranian woman sitting on the bus confronted us — were we married and if not then we should not be talking to each other in public. In Iran, a man and a woman should not talk in public unless they are related. That same Iranian-English woman told me how “Islamic police” would walk alongside her in the street and tell her to wipe lipstick from her face, or that her scarf was not covering all her hair. I was invited into some homes, where I spoke to many young Iranian women about their status. Clearly frustrated, the married ones told me that an Iranian woman could only leave home, even to go to the shops, if their husband or father gave them “permission.” The women, who are connected to the world through the internet, movies and the strong university educations available in Iran, were both upset and embarrassed by this reality. Things in Saudi Arabia are just as bad — women are not allowed to drive cars. Supporting that ban, Saudi cleric Sheikh Salah al-Luhaydan claimed it had been scientifically proven that driving “affects the ovaries” and leads to clinical disorders in children. Bear in mind that Sheikh al-Luhaydan is a spiritual leader, guiding future generations of Saudis in their attitudes. This sort of medieval mentality is found in many parts of the Arab world. In 2010, the United Nations put on a summer camp for children in Gaza. But a Salafist group, Free of the Homeland, said the UN was “teaching schoolgirls fitness, dancing and immorality.” Two days later the camp was attacked and destroyed. Then in 2013, the UN decided to fund a Gaza marathon. About 1500 people registered, including many woman and children. But Hamas, which controls Gaza, banned girls and women from participating. The UN cancelled the event. It is important that we discuss Islam, its problems and how it functions in countries such as Australia. To help that debate, we need to hear from sensible, moderate Muslims on how to deal with concerns that a large number of Australians have when they look around the world and see incident after incident of terrorism committed by Islamic extremists. Ultimately, in my view, the solution to Islamic extremism must come from inside Islam.

Excerpt...

Quote:

It is. But I must admit its not up against much competition. The bible for example pins the blame of the "original sin" to women, making them forever irredeemably mistrustful. And for that, women forever after are to be punished by having to go through the agony of child birth. The bible constantly depicts women simultaneously as inferior and inately devious - and men shouldn't hesitate to execute them at the first hint of disobedience or promiscuity.

What a load of rubbish...  Do Christian men need to have their women dressed in tents to stop themselves from raping them?  To stop other men from losing control of their sexual desires?

Honestly the whole belief you posted there is a load of rubbish.  Perhaps it is what Muslim men think of women. :D

Ah.. "pretty much every single muslim man" is a misogynist.

The world according to Big Ol. Thats up there with moses - every single muslim male has inbred-related low intelligence and are psychopathic killers.

But we know Big Ol has such concern for women's rights. This is the guy who was cheering on the rape of a young German woman because she initially tried to protect her abuser and denied being raped - because you know, thats such an unheard of thing for a rape victim to do.

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 12:47pm:

Honestly the whole belief you posted there is a load of rubbish.

Rather than blustering hot air all the time Grendel, perhaps you would do better to try refute the actual points that I make.

Lets start with inheritance rights: do you deny that unlike the Bible, the Quran stipulates women's rights to inheritance in the case where there are also eligible males?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Ah.. "pretty much every single muslim man" is a misogynist. The world according to Big Ol. Thats up there with moses - every single muslim male has inbred-related low intelligence and are psychopathic killers. But we know Big Ol has such concern for women's rights. This is the guy who was cheering on the rape of a young German woman because she initially tried to protect her abuser and denied being raped - because you know, thats such an unheard of thing for a rape victim to do.

I do remember that, a vile woman wanted to release a low life scumbag muslim rapists onto her fellow german women. I may have cheered,  but I definitely do and continue to have absolutely no sympathy for that despicable piece of sh1t. because she knew exactly what she was doing and it had nothing to do with any trauma.



You seem to forget, and same which this apologist woman; you are the ones claiming islam is perfect and it is the muslim country's culture that is the problem. And I agree with you totally, we just disagree as to the extent of that culture that makes the proponents of islam and muslim culture such vile human beings.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

we just disagree as to the extent of that culture that makes the proponents of islam and muslim culture such vile human beings.

This is what progressive muslims are up against: demanded to 'reform' their religion, and when they try to do so - by arguing that muslims should adopt a more progressive interpretation of the Quran, they are "vile human beings" for daring to suggest a progressive interpretation of the Quran exists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 1:25pm: we just disagree as to the extent of that culture that makes the proponents of islam and muslim culture such vile human beings. This is what progressive muslims are up against: demanded to 'reform' their religion, and when they try to do so - by arguing that muslims should adopt a more progressive interpretation of the Quran, they are "vile human beings" for daring to suggest a progressive interpretation of the Quran exists.

The only way you lot are getting out of the 14th century way of behaviour is to get rid of the whole religion. Why do you think you're still throwing rocks at each other in the ME?

There are very few backward christian types in this country as well and we are all the better for it. Simply, believing in bullsh1t fairy tales makes you stupid, the more you believe them, the more stupid you are.


Jeez you can start by not having your women dress like a character from Life of Brian.

---

'you' this, 'you' that...

like I personally stone people and I personally force a tent on my wife. You're incredible Big Ol - you oscilate between lumping me in with the stone throwing misogynists on the one hand, and condemning me as a "vile human being" for daring to insist that those things aren't part of Islam on the other.

Not only do you have no idea about my personal beliefs in relation to Islam and what a gigantic strawman you are constructing, you aren't even interested in understanding. All you want to do is shout me down whenever I try to explain. Just like Lambie.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:14pm:

'you' this, 'you' that... like I personally stone people and I personally force a tent on my wife. You're incredible Big Ol - you oscilate between lumping me in with the stone throwing misogynists on the one hand, and condemning me as a "vile human being" for daring to insist that those things aren't part of Islam on the other. Not only do you have no idea about my personal beliefs in relation to Islam and what a gigantic strawman you are constructing, you aren't even interested in understanding. All you want to do is shout me down whenever I try to explain. Just like Lambie.

My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort.

I can, under duress, use 'you lot' all the time, if you insist.


As for your religion, I doubt whether 'you lot' could even come close to making the necessary changes to come even close to being an acceptable members of this society. Not unless of course we start deporting some of your fellow believers and 'you lot' have the media exposure appropriate to your population.


Unlike these chaps here

---

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort. I can, under duress, use 'you lot' all the time, if you insist.

Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective.

That is obviously highly offensive to me. You are de-facto labelling me a terrorist supporter, misogynist (hilarious coming from you) etc, despite the complete lack of evidence of me having anything close to those inclinations.

But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process, of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind. And as long as people like you insist on seeing the world in this way, there is no hope of you understanding or accepting muslims in your community. And certainly no hope of you allowing yourselves to appreciate the existence of muslims who genuinely promote a progressive and humanist version of Islam that is perfectly compatible with western culture. As you say, our only hope of redemption "is to get rid of the whole religion". In your narrow-minded world view, muslims are deprived of their individuality, deprived of agency and deprived of their human rights.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort. I can, under duress, use 'you lot' all the time, if you insist. Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective. That is obviously highly offensive to me. You are de-facto labelling me a terrorist supporter, misogynist (hilarious coming from you) etc, despite the complete lack of evidence of me having anything close to those inclinations. But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process, of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind. And as long as people like you insist on seeing the world in this way, there is no hope of you understanding or accepting muslims in your community. And certainly no hope of you allowing yourselves to appreciate the existence of muslims who genuinely promote a progressive and humanist version of Islam that is perfectly compatible with western culture. As you say, our only hope of redemption "is to get rid of the whole religion". In your narrow-minded world view, muslims are deprived of their individuality, deprived of agency and deprived of their human rights.

Would you like to see they jews thrown out of Israel?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 12:47pm: Honestly the whole belief you posted there is a load of rubbish.  Rather than blustering hot air all the time Grendel, perhaps you would do better to try refute the actual points that I make. I did no blustering involved. Lets start with inheritance rights: do you deny that unlike the Bible, the Quran stipulates women's rights to inheritance in the case where there are also eligible males? lets stick to the crap you wrote, no moving goalpost needed gandalf no bwian ross tactic to be used.  Oh and if you want to discuss Christian beliefs lets discuss the actual NEW TESTAMENT not the Old which is Jewish history cultural laws and beliefs eh.

One more time...

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 12:47pm:

Quote: It is. But I must admit its not up against much competition. The bible for example pins the blame of the "original sin" to women, making them forever irredeemably mistrustful. And for that, women forever after are to be punished by having to go through the agony of child birth. The bible constantly depicts women simultaneously as inferior and inately devious - and men shouldn't hesitate to execute them at the first hint of disobedience or promiscuity. What a load of rubbish...  Do Christian men need to have their women dressed in tents to stop themselves from raping them?  To stop other men from losing control of their sexual desires? Honestly the whole belief you posted there is a load of rubbish.  Perhaps it is what Muslim men think of women. :D

This should be easy to settle Grendel - just point me to the Quranic passage, chapter and verse that orders men to "have their women dressed in tents".


Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:47pm:

Oh and if you want to discuss Christian beliefs lets discuss the actual NEW TESTAMENT not the Old which is Jewish history cultural laws and beliefs eh.

Happy to. Just remind me of the new testament verse that accords women inheritance rights even when there are eligible males.

Meanwhile lets regale ourselves in other New Testament affirmation of Women's rights:

1 Corinthians 11:2-10:

Quote:

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…. any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head …For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Quote:

…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Quote:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

"O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)4

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in ord1er to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31

You can't be serious homo.

At least put a bit of effort into it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:19pm:

You can't be serious homo. At least put a bit of effort into it.

Do you support Hamas and would you like to see the jews thrown out of the middle east? I expect the usual no answer.

Quran 24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to God, O you believers, that you may succeed.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

This should be easy to settle Grendel - just point me to the Quranic passage, chapter and verse that orders men to "have their women dressed in tents". Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:47pm: Oh and if you want to discuss Christian beliefs lets discuss the actual NEW TESTAMENT not the Old which is Jewish history cultural laws and beliefs eh. Happy to. Just remind me of the new testament verse that accords women inheritance rights even when there are eligible males. Meanwhile lets regale ourselves in other New Testament affirmation of Women's rights: 1 Corinthians 11:2-10: Quote: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…. any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head …For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 [quote]…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Quote:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

[/quote]
Oh dear....  what did I tell you....  no moving the goalposts...  so do you concede that I was right and you just wrote a bunch of crap?
Ok I'll move on when you admit it.

Oh and I think you will find the Koran and the Haddiths are not the same as the new Testament Bible...  which isn't a book on how every aspect of your life must be lived.

In our secular world we have laws etc to cover things like divorce and settlements of divorce etc.

Quote:

Presumably there is some point to that quote that is relevant to the accusation in the thread title? I suppose Yasminn was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A and promote 'Islamic propaganda'?

Yes.


Quote:

Can you actually explain how you interpret this DFAT funded trip as 'funding Islamic propaganda'? Does it make sense to you that a muslim being paid to visit muslim countries to promote Australia equates to 'Islamic propaganda'?

It depends what she is actually promoting. DFAT wouldn't say.


Quote:

Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

She doesn't seem like the trade negotiator type. She seems more like the Islamic propagandist type. Hence DFAT covering up the details.


Quote:

It is. But I must admit its not up against much competition. The bible for example pins the blame of the "original sin" to women, making them forever irredeemably mistrustful. And for that, women forever after are to be punished by having to go through the agony of child birth.

What is the testimony of a woman worth compared to a man in a shariah court?

Are you blaming Christianity for the pain associated with childbirth?


Quote:

The Quran on the other hand did away with the whole 'women are to blame for the fall of man' nonsense, emphasised a whole swathe of protections for women, and was the first text of its kind to stipulate inheritance and property rights for women.

Islam built an empire on the back of the trade in sex slaves. It is still doing it. The reason this sort of behaviour is so hard to get rid of is that Islam compels Muslims to believe that a man who did all these horrible things is the perfect example for all mankind. That makes it pretty hard for Muslims to say that having sex with children, raping and pillaging etc are inherently wrong.


Quote:

That the middle east is dominated by misogynists who choose to ignore Quranic sanctioned rights for women - does not change the fact that the Islamic law itself is inherently feminist.

How can you possibly support sex slavery without being a mysoginist?


Quote:

Lets start with inheritance rights

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with the right not be be bought and sold like a goat? Islam was and still is the greatest barrier to the eradication of slavery.


Quote:

This is what progressive muslims are up against: demanded to 'reform' their religion, and when they try to do so - by arguing that muslims should adopt a more progressive interpretation of the Quran, they are "vile human beings" for daring to suggest a progressive interpretation of the Quran exists.

This is your invention Gandalf. Most critics of Islam are entirely inconsist - Islam is irredeemable and you should abandon it instead. No point polishing a turd.


Quote:

like I personally stone people and I personally force a tent on my wife

You do personally use racist propaganda in support of genocide. Islam compels you to. If you were not a Muslim you would feel shame in what you posted here.


Quote:

As for your religion, I doubt whether 'you lot' could even come close to making the necessary changes to come even close to being an acceptable members of this society. Not unless of course we start deporting some of your fellow believers and 'you lot' have the media exposure appropriate to your population.

To do so is to destroy Islam. Once you insist on saying that Muhammed did things that are inherently wrong, there is nothing left but a 7th century warmonger.


Quote:

Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective. That is obviously highly offensive to me.

Because he is suggesting you are part of some mindless collective?


Quote:

But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process, of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind.

We can't have that now can we? Next thing you know he will be using it to support genocide.


Quote:

And certainly no hope of you allowing yourselves to appreciate the existence of muslims who genuinely promote a progressive and humanist version of Islam that is perfectly compatible with western culture.

Have you ever met such a Muslim?


Quote:

In your narrow-minded world view, muslims are deprived of their individuality, deprived of agency and deprived of their human rights.

Hypocrite.

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Ahzaab 33:59]

Funny isn't it. That verse goes to so much trouble specifying what should and shouldn't be covered - when all it really needed to say was "cover everything". Right?

I've always found it funny how so many muslims cite the Quran to insist the covering of women's hair is compulsory - yet there is not a single mention of the word "hair".

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:

Funny isn't it. That verse goes to so much trouble specifying what should and shouldn't be covered - when all it really needed to say was "cover everything". Right? I've always found it funny how so many muslims cite the Quran to insist the covering of women's hair is compulsory - yet there is not a single mention of the word "hair".

They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary.....


I suppose that means the hands so they can do the shopping.

Oh dear you are clueless aren't you.
Do you know what is contained in the New Testament?
Do you have a clue as to what I was talking about?
Obviously not.
The teachings of Christ, the beginnings of Christianity.  Oh and you realise we have had a reformation don't you?

Anyhow... I think you should move all this crap to another topic where it belongs and I'll address it there.


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:06pm:

This should be easy to settle Grendel - just point me to the Quranic passage, chapter and verse that orders men to "have their women dressed in tents". I have never said any such thing exists...  so strawman/lie number 1.  Perhaps you could explain why it occurs then. [quote author=grendel link=1487240389/35#35 date=1487393226]Oh and if you want to discuss Christian beliefs lets discuss the actual NEW TESTAMENT not the Old which is Jewish history cultural laws and beliefs eh.

Happy to. Just remind me of the new testament verse that accords women inheritance rights even when there are eligible males.

Why isn't that strawman number 2?  yes it is... 

Now if you want to discuss texts move this crap off this topic to another one...  I don't want you muddying the waters here.
We can discuss letters from Paul etc, etc, etc their purpose meanings etc...elsewhere.
Oh and if you are going to quote me post the whole quote so I can be sure its actually me you are quoting.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

Quote: Presumably there is some point to that quote that is relevant to the accusation in the thread title? I suppose Yasminn was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A and promote 'Islamic propaganda'? Yes.

Yes she was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A to promote Islamic propaganda? Could you expand on that so we're crystal clear on what new levels of absurdity you have now reached?

I wouldn't want you to accuse me of misquoting you while I spend the next 12 months ridiculing you for this.

Or you could have simply read the second response in my previous post Gandalf.

I heard she was on a book promotion tour...  selling her book funded by Australian taxpayers.

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:39pm:

I have never said any such thing exists...  so strawman/lie number 1.  Perhaps you could explain why it occurs then.

Islam = Islamic texts. You can't discuss what "Islam" does and doesn't allow without referring to the source texts.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Or you could have simply read the second response in my previous post Gandalf.

You mean this?


Quote:

It depends what she is actually promoting. DFAT wouldn't say.

Sorry, still not clear. Yes or no - are you saying DFAT paid Yasminn to go on Q&A to promote Islamic propaganda? Its a simple question, no need to be cryptic about it.

Yes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort. Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective. That is obviously highly offensive to me. You are de-facto labelling me a terrorist supporter, misogynist (hilarious coming from you) etc, despite the complete lack of evidence of me having anything close to those inclinations. But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process,       of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind.

Yeah, that 'othering' process eh gandalf !!!!

It is just so, so despicable and unfair when people, willy nilly,  associate moslems with ISLAM, isn't it gandalf !!!

/sarc off




.




Yeah, that 'othering' process eh gandalf !!!

It is just so, so outrageous, whenever you see those filthy infidels, who are in their own lands!!!! and trying to socially segregate moslems and condemn moslems, and 'persecute' moslems [just because moslems want to pray to Allah] !!!

/sarc off

But when ISLAM teaches moslems to segregate themselves FROM disbelievers, and to condemn them, and to MURDER them, THEN, it is wholly 'virtuous'.

Right gandalf ?


Google;
divisions of the world, according to islam


Google;
ISLAM divides the world, into the House of Islam and the House of War



ISLAMIC 'religious' doctrine, divides the world into two distinct camps.


DIVISIONS OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO ISLAM,

Dar al-Islam = = the house of Islam, the house of Peace, the house of Submission [those places where Sharia has authority].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam

Dar al-Harb = = "house of war", those countries where Sharia has to subservient, to the laws of men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Harb



Dar al-Harb = =
the place where the authority of ISLAMIC law is rejected,
the place where moslems have to concede, to disbelievers, their 'rightful' authority to rule,
the place where moslems are subject to the 'unjust' laws of the disbelievers,
the place of moslem  HUMILIATION before disbelievers,
the "house of war"




The moslem who is living in Australia, regards EVERY disbeliever [i.e. every Australian] as a 'Harbi'.

And what is a 'Harbi' ?


Harbi = = "one under a declaration of war", a non-moslem, WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY MOSLEM/ISLAMIC LAW.

A Harbi, is an enemy of Allah.

".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbi


Google,
"A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."




.





Yeah, that 'othering' process eh gandalf !!!

It is just so, so outrageous, whenever you see those filthy infidels, who are in their own lands!!!! and trying to socially segregate moslems and condemn moslems, and 'persecute' moslems [just because moslems want to pray to Allah] !!!

/sarc off

But when ISLAM teaches moslems to segregate themselves FROM disbelievers, and to condemn them, and to MURDER them, THEN, it is wholly 'virtuous'.

Right gandalf ?


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


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




.




Yeah, that 'othering' process eh gandalf !!!

It is just so, so outrageous, whenever you see those filthy infidels, who are in their own lands!!!! and trying to socially segregate moslems and condemn moslems, and 'persecute' moslems [just because moslems want to pray to Allah] !!!

/sarc off

But when ISLAM teaches moslems to segregate themselves FROM disbelievers, and to condemn them, and to MURDER them, THEN, it is wholly 'virtuous'.

Right gandalf ?


And who gives those infidels the right to believe that they do not have to worship Allah !!!!!!

Its simply an outrageous, vile crime!



Because the precepts, tenets, doctrines, and law of ISLAM, all declare that unbelief in man is a capital crime.



Google;
islam, unbelief is worse than killing



Allah says, kill unbelievers.

The Koran and the Hadith say, kill unbelievers.

Mohammed said, kill unbelievers.

ISLAMIC law says, it is lawful to kill unbelievers.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort. I can, under duress, use 'you lot' all the time, if you insist. Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective. That is obviously highly offensive to me. You are de-facto labelling me a terrorist supporter, misogynist (hilarious coming from you) etc, despite the complete lack of evidence of me having anything close to those inclinations.

gandalf,

You are a moslem, correct ?

BUT, you do not give Mohammed, the messenger of Allah, any lawful authority, correct ?

AND, you do not give the verses of the Koran any lawful authority [e.g. the ones that preach hatred of disbelievers], correct ?

AND, you do not give ISLAMIC law, and you do not give the tenets and doctrines of ISLAM any lawful authority, correct ?



PLEASE, DO EXPLAIN TO US ALL,             ....HOW DOES THAT WORK ?

"Hi.    I'm gandalf, and i'm a moslem.    But the tenets and doctrines and laws of     mainstream      ISLAM do not have any lawful authority over me and mine."

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Yes.

Great.  An answer!!!  Remarkable.

How about you now back it up with some hard and direct evidence.

Yadda wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:43pm: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: My education forbids me from using the word 'youse', because you is the plural of you and can be use to refer to a group or cohort. I can, under duress, use 'you lot' all the time, if you insist. Either way you are still referring to me personally - even if you are referring to a collective. That is obviously highly offensive to me. You are de-facto labelling me a terrorist supporter, misogynist (hilarious coming from you) etc, despite the complete lack of evidence of me having anything close to those inclinations. gandalf, You are a moslem, correct ? BUT, you do not give Mohammed, the messenger of Allah, any lawful authority, correct ? AND, you do not give the verses of the Koran any lawful authority [e.g. the ones that preach hatred of disbelievers], correct ? AND, you do not give ISLAMIC law, and you do not give the tenets and doctrines of ISLAM any lawful authority, correct ? PLEASE, DO EXPLAIN TO US ALL,             ....HOW DOES THAT WORK ? "Hi.    I'm gandalf, and i'm a moslem.    But the tenets and doctrines and laws of     mainstream      ISLAM do not have any lawful authority over me and mine."

Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO.

More than 90% of the Quran is dedicated to emphasising the personal/spiritual aspects and obligations for muslims in their worship. And to my understanding, none of the passages detailing the 'law of the land' things are obligatory. If I remember correctly there is a quote that prefaces all these commands that states something like 'if you have a better way, use that'.

correcting your quote...


Quote:

"Hi.    I'm gandalf, and i'm a moslem.    But the tenets and doctrines and laws of     mainstream      ISLAM do not have any lawful authority over me and mine."

...is actually spot on - as long as you interpret 'lawful authority' as my personal commitment to my personal obligations to God as specified in Islamic law (praying, fasting, forgiveness etc) - and not literally the 'law of the land' that must be imposed over all of society.

Quote:

Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO.

Muhammed obviously didn't think so.

Aussie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:55pm: Yes. Great.  An answer!!!  Remarkable. How about you now back it up with some hard and direct evidence.

No, FD has a far better plan - he'll spend the next 20 pages refusing to qualify that bizarre answer, instead cryptically pointing me to other things he's said or that all that needs to be said has been said already - and all the while insisting till he's blue in the face that he's been crystal clear in his explanation.

Thats the exact routine he went through when I asked him to justify stating as fact that government school funds went to terrorists.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:12pm:

Quote: Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO. Muhammed obviously didn't think so.

Muhammad was a head of state. Creating laws of the land kinda comes with the job description. Doesn't mean those laws can't be separated from actual Islamic law though. And yes, I appreciate that many muslims have difficulty accepting this too.

So when a head of state gets told by an angel to kill 800 innocent people, that is not blurring the lines between religion and state?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:20pm:

So when a head of state gets told by an angel to kill 800 innocent people, that is not blurring the lines between religion and state?

Get's told by a what?  Why do you expect anyone to agree that anyone was told by a holy pixie what they must do.  Do you really believe that crap, Effendi?

'God made me do it,' you reckon actually works these days?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO. More than 90% of the Quran is dedicated to emphasising the personal/spiritual aspects and obligations for muslims in their worship. And to my understanding, none of the passages detailing the 'law of the land' things are obligatory. If I remember correctly there is a quote that prefaces all these commands that states something like 'if you have a better way, use that'.

No gandalf, that text was on the subject of how moslems could take to themselves honest religious authority, and piety,            in breaking a solemn covenant that the had made with another, before Allah.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295407319/0#0

Quote:

From the Koran, Hadith; Allah told Mohammed, it is OK to not fulfil the oaths you make. i.e. If you find something better, you are free to go, and make a better deal, and abandon your first oath. "Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise." Koran 66:2 "The Prophet said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."." hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #007.067.427 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.078.618 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.709 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.710 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.712 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.715 "expiate my oath", means an obligation to Allah of penance [Kaffara], e.g. fasting for three days, or to clothe or feed poor people.

.





polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

correcting your quote... Quote: "Hi.    I'm gandalf, and i'm a moslem.    But the tenets and doctrines and laws of     mainstream      ISLAM do not have any lawful authority over me and mine." ...is actually spot on - as long as you interpret 'lawful authority' as my personal commitment to my personal obligations to God as specified in Islamic law (praying, fasting, forgiveness etc) - and not literally the 'law of the land' that must be imposed over all of society.

I do not believe, that YOU believe that gandalf.

To the moslem, there is only one law that has authority over man, ISLAMIC law.

As a moslem,        you know that.


Google;
Erdogan, "Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah"


Google;
Erdogan, "One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular"




gandalf,

As a moslem,        you must know that the ISLAMIC religious advice to the moslem, living within a secular jurisdiction is that;

"The moslem should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident,
so long as the local secular laws are not in conflict with Allah's law."


Google it, you will find that that, is the authoritative ISLAMIC religious advice given to all moslems, who live within any secular nation.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:20pm:

So when a head of state gets told by an angel to kill 800 innocent people, that is not blurring the lines between religion and state?

The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before?

Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

You do personally use racist propaganda in support of genocide. Islam compels you to. If you were not a Muslim you would feel shame in what you posted here.

That's true, G. You should stop promoting the genocide of decent white people everywhere.

You stop being so racist. We're actually quite nice once you get to know us.

Aussie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:55pm: Yes. Great.  An answer!!!  Remarkable. How about you now back it up with some hard and direct evidence.

But Aussue, FD already provided this.


freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:28pm:

She doesn't seem like the trade negotiator type. She seems more like the Islamic propagandist type. Hence DFAT covering up the details.

Karnal wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:42pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:28pm: She doesn't seem like the trade negotiator type. She seems more like the Islamic propagandist type. Hence DFAT covering up the details.

I must admit I didn't necessarily think of DFAT as secret agents for the Islamic jihadists - but now FD mentions it, I honestly don't know how I could have missed it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:18pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:12pm: Quote: Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO. Muhammed obviously didn't think so. Muhammad was a head of state. Creating laws of the land kinda comes with the job description. [It] Doesn't mean those laws can't be separated from actual Islamic law though. And yes, I appreciate that many muslims have difficulty accepting this too.

LOL

Google;
Erdogan, "Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah"


Google;
Erdogan, "One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular"





Quote:

"The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal."

Google

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:42pm: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:28pm: She doesn't seem like the trade negotiator type. She seems more like the Islamic propagandist type. Hence DFAT covering up the details. I must admit I didn't necessarily think of DFAT as secret agents for the Islamic jihadists - but now FD mentions it, I honestly don't know how I could have missed it.

Exactly. They're quite cunning, you know. It's only when FD points these things out that you realize they were covering it up all along.

Most sinister and diabolical of course, but that's Islam and its apologists for you.

Can you imagine? Here's the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade promoting Islam in the Middle East. Have you ever heard of anything more spinelessly apologetic than that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:39pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:20pm: So when a head of state gets told by an angel to kill 800 innocent people, that is not blurring the lines between religion and state? The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before? Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion.

Yes Gandalf, that is why we have these genocides so often.

Karnal wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

Here's the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade promoting Islam in the Middle East.

;D ;D exactly.

Don't worry, once FD gets the details he'll sure to explain how that makes sense.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

How many trade deals do you think she negotiated Gandalf?

FD, you've run away from this idiotic claim faster than you normally do.

Perhaps it slipped your mind...


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:45pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:28pm: Quote: Presumably there is some point to that quote that is relevant to the accusation in the thread title? I suppose Yasminn was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A and promote 'Islamic propaganda'? Yes. Yes she was paid by DFAT to go on Q&A to promote Islamic propaganda? Could you expand on that so we're crystal clear on what new levels of absurdity you have now reached? I wouldn't want you to accuse me of misquoting you while I spend the next 12 months ridiculing you for this.

She was paid to tour the middle east Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

How many trade deals do you think she negotiated Gandalf?

Ah yes, because 'promoting Australia' always involves negotiating trade deals.

But you're right - it makes far more sense that DFAT is actually covert agents of the jihadists who pay Islamists to promote Islamic propaganda on Q&A.

Have you worked out the DFAT connection to an appearance on Q&A yet? Or are you sticking to the 'DFAT paid someone to go on Q&A to promote Islamic propaganda' line?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:06pm:

She was paid to tour the middle east Gandalf.

We know FD - to promote Islam... to muslims apparently.

Does that still make sense to you?

It does not make sense for DFAT to do this. That is why they are not releasing any details of the arrangement.


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

Do you think there might be sounds reasons to send this particular woman on her tour Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:13pm:

Do you think there might be sounds reasons to send this particular woman on her tour Gandalf?

Well lets see...

DFAT sending a high profile Australian muslim with middle eastern heritage - to promote Australia to muslims in the middle east...

can't for the life of me understand that  :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:39pm:

The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before?

Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please.

quote author=gandalf link=1487240389/64#64 date=1487399997]Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion.[/quote]

I agree, but did the heinous Jews not surrender and your only Prophet accept that, and if so why did a merchant of GOD have to KILL them?

Quote:

DFAT sending a high profile Australian muslim with middle eastern heritage - to promote Australia to muslims in the middle east...

If that is the extent of their strategy they should be fired.


Quote:

Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please.

Most Muslims and most historians believe the massacre did happen. Gandalf likes to blame it all on the Jews, but it is hard to imagine them making up the story of God ordering Muhammed to slaughter Jews.

Scheming Jews, Matty. Get it right, please.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:26pm:

If that is the extent of their strategy they should be fired.

On the other hand, would you say using government money to pay a muslim to promote Islamic propaganda is even more of a firing offense?

If you had to pick between the two, which to you seems the more likely strategy?

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. The reason she is "high profile" is because of her Islamic propaganda. I highly doubt she promoted any trade deals while she was over there, which is why DFAT won't release any details. She simply did what she is "high profile" for doing.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. The reason she is "high profile" is because of her Islamic propaganda. I highly doubt she promoted any trade deals while she was over there, which is why DFAT won't release any details. She simply did what she is "high profile" for doing.

And...what's that?

And why would that be selling coals to Newcastle?

She is high profile for promoting Islamic propaganda Aussie. It's what she does, and presumably what she did on her middle eastern tour, which is why DFAT cannot produce any evidence of her doing the sort of thing you would expect DFAT to pay people for, like negotiating trade deals.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

She simply did what she is "high profile" for doing.

Promoting religious harmony?

Ban her.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

I think you are creating a false dichotomy.

Not at all - you made the extraordinary claim that paying a muslim to promote Australia in the ME should be a fire-able offense - extraordinary because you are apparently still persisting with the absurdly nonsensical conspiracy theory that the government paid a muslim to promote Islamic propaganda.

Of the two, which do you think is the more fire-able offense? Which is the more plausible? Can you at least offer a rationale that at least comes close to making sense as to why DFAT would want to pay a muslim to promote Islamic propaganda? You don't even have to agree with it - just some plausible rationale.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:00pm:

She is high profile for promoting Islamic propaganda Aussie. It's what she does, and presumably what she did on her middle eastern tour, which is why DFAT cannot produce any evidence of her doing the sort of thing you would expect DFAT to pay people for, like negotiating trade deals.

And they just decided to pay her.... for the hell of it? Or because they just love Islamic propaganda?

It doesn't make sense Gandalf, that's the point.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:11pm:

It doesn't make sense Gandalf, that's the point.

You don't make sense FD. You argue against an official explanation on the basis it doesn't make sense... by promoting an explanation that makes even less sense.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 3:39pm: I have never said any such thing exists...  so strawman/lie number 1.  Perhaps you could explain why it occurs then. Islam = Islamic texts. You can't discuss what "Islam" does and doesn't allow without referring to the source texts.

You said I said that quote exists in the Koran...  I denied I did...  can't help the truth being the truth gandalf.

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:22pm:

You said I said that quote exists in the Koran

Rubbish. Quote me.

I was saying that if you make a claim about Islamic Law, you better be able to find an associated quote in the Quran.

Do you understand the difference?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:22pm: You said I said that quote exists in the Koran Rubbish. Quote me. I told you that if you make a claim about Islamic Law, you better be able to find an associated quote in the Quran. Do you understand the difference?

Well if that wasn't your inference why were you expecting me to produce such a quote?
Why did you just state...
if you make a claim about Islamic Law, you better be able to find an associated quote in the Quran.
when I haven't made any quotes from the Koran. :D :D :D
Come on time to be truthful for a change eh.

kemal wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:39pm: The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before? Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please. quote author=gandalf link=1487240389/64#64 date=1487399997]Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion.

I agree, but did the heinous Jews not surrender and your only Prophet accept that, and if so why did a merchant of GOD have to KILL them?
[/quote]

Any chance of an answer so I may be illuminated into islams inner sanctums?

Gordon wrote on Feb 17^th, 2017 at 6:18pm:

Gold.

Still like this....  so was it self promotion  or not.  What was the name of her book she was pushing?  Oh and do you really think she is a high profile Muslim in the Australian Community?  Really?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/12875c4168fdaac7df67d78ef0d7840a.jpg

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:27pm:

Well if that wasn't your inference why were you expecting me to produce such a quote?

lol I didn't. I knew there was no such quote and was making a point.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:27pm: Well if that wasn't your inference why were you expecting me to produce such a quote? lol I didn't. I knew there was no such quote and was making a point.

Still cant bring yourself to face the truth I see.
I suggest in future you make a point without inferring I did something I didn't or like you just did accuse me of doing something I didn't do.

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:24pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:22pm: You said I said that quote exists in the Koran Rubbish. Quote me. I told you that if you make a claim about Islamic Law, you better be able to find an associated quote in the Quran. Do you understand the difference? Well if that wasn't your inference why were you expecting me to produce such a quote? Why did you just state... if you make a claim about Islamic Law, you better be able to find an associated quote in the Quran. when I haven't made any quotes from the Koran. :D :D :D Come on time to be truthful for a change eh.

Oh my grendel... I don't think I've come across anyone here who misses a point quite as much as you  ;D

God bless you.

kemal wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

kemal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 5:25pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:39pm: The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before? Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please. quote author=gandalf link=1487240389/64#64 date=1487399997]Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion. I agree, but did the heinous Jews not surrender and your only Prophet accept that, and if so why did a merchant of GOD have to KILL them?

Any chance of an answer so I may be illuminated into islams inner sanctums?
[/quote]

The best and most comprehensive analysis remains Arafat's influential paper. You can obtain a free copy from jstor:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Ah yes typical bwian ross tactics holier than thou attitude and all...  well done gandalf.

I accept you are too embarrassed to apologise.  Bwian never does. :D :D :D :D :D

Perhaps unlike bwian when you are through playing silly buggers you can answer some questions and address some real points I've made eh? ::)

Are you drunk? Serious question. You seem a little more unhinged than usual.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: It doesn't make sense Gandalf, that's the point. You don't make sense FD. You argue against an official explanation on the basis it doesn't make sense... by promoting an explanation that makes even less sense.

DFAT is officially not explaining a thing Gandalf. The dichotomy you suggest is not real. Whether they intended, or nominally paid her to spew Islamic propaganda or "promote Australia" is irrelevant. What they got was DFAT money funding an islamic propaganda tour of the middle east. Whether this was deliberate or a result of incompetence makes no difference. That sort of incompetence is not something we should tolerate from people handing out our money.

How many oil company executives do you see here Gandalf? How many trade ministers?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/d811318c5c155ea968db3fb75834fa22.jpeg

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:18pm: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:11pm: It doesn't make sense Gandalf, that's the point. You don't make sense FD. You argue against an official explanation on the basis it doesn't make sense... by promoting an explanation that makes even less sense. DFAT is officially not explaining a thing Gandalf. The dichotomy you suggest is not real. Whether they intended, or nominally paid her to spew Islamic propaganda or "promote Australia" is irrelevant. What they got was DFAT money funding an islamic propaganda tour of the middle east. Whether this was deliberate or a result of incompetence makes no difference. That sort of incompetence is not something we should tolerate from people handing out our money.

Effendi, there is a problem here.  May I remind you that you commenced this Thread and you coined the Title which is ~ DFAT funding Islamic propaganda

Thanks Aussie.

Do you think it was deliberate, or the result of incompetence, like Gandalf insists?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:11pm:

Thanks Aussie. Do you think it was deliberate, or the result of incompetence, like Gandalf insists?

Your Thread, so yes, Effendi, the Title was a deliberate act of yours.  Yet, it seems now you are saying you may have just plucked it out of Grendel's arse with the latest assertion that DFAT is not saying.

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:01pm:

How many oil company executives do you see here Gandalf? How many trade ministers? http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/d811318c5c155ea968db3fb75834fa22.jpeg

None. Oil company executives have nametags, wear suits, are men, and, as a rule, are white.

The people you're showing here are likely to be female students, probably learning all about Yassmin's journey as a tinted Western Muslim lady from her book, My Story.

Imagine DFAT trying to promote Australia as a country with tolerant, liberated Muslim women. Cunning, no?

How sinister and diabolical they are. And just think:

They would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that amateur sleuth, FD.

Drats. Foiled again.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

kemal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:32pm: kemal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 5:25pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:39pm: The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before? Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please. quote author=gandalf link=1487240389/64#64 date=1487399997]Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion. I agree, but did the heinous Jews not surrender and your only Prophet accept that, and if so why did a merchant of GOD have to KILL them? Any chance of an answer so I may be illuminated into islams inner sanctums?

The best and most comprehensive analysis remains Arafat's influential paper. You can obtain a free copy from jstor:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[/quote]

I will attempt to purchase it!

If I find it to be based on lies will you refund the price?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

kemal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 6:32pm: kemal wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 5:25pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 4:39pm: The alleged banu Qurayza massacre almost certainly didn't happen - have I mentioned that before? Are you able to give a "Non Islamic" link to that please Gandalf? If too hard give me an Islamic link please. quote author=gandalf link=1487240389/64#64 date=1487399997]Besides, heads of state tend to judge harshly people who declare war against them - regardless of their religion. I agree, but did the heinous Jews not surrender and your only Prophet accept that, and if so why did a merchant of GOD have to KILL them? Any chance of an answer so I may be illuminated into islams inner sanctums?

The best and most comprehensive analysis remains Arafat's influential paper. You can obtain a free copy from jstor:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[/quote]

Just checked, some people don't like his rebuttal of the massacre, any more sources that may have a tinge of reality to them?

Thanks in advance.


"The article is widely used in Muslim message boards to deflect the Banu Qurayza incident which it seems everyone accepts occurred and it seems that only the scale of the murders/execution, depending on your point of view is in questions. The argument is simple and Arafat sees it as a minor incident and not the wholesale slaughter spoken of by Ibn Ishaq. He argued that the only significant sources are Muslim and although he agrees that Ibn Ishaq's has the most detail he regards him as unreliable and others quoted say he was a liar. In addition to Ibn Ishaq's accounts Arafat cites some others although they all contain supernatural insertions and cannot therefore be accepted as factually accurate."

Sharia Law vs The Apologists
Lots of goodies in this article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia/news-story/9e6efee3160373ccf9cf4dda8c6daf33


Quote:

Abdel-Magied and the Islamist collective that is demanding an apology from ABC are not interested in this kind of inconvenient truth. They want to deflect attention away from the problems inherent in sharia law. In my view, the Australian government should stop funding people such as Abdel-Magied, and the other partners they have, and instead find progressive, reform-minded Muslims who will help with the vital task of assimilating Muslims into Australian society. The only way to resolve the fundamental challenge to women’s rights posed by sharia law is to criticise its problematic aspects openly. The successful assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Australia is an achievable goal, but not on the basis of the hypocrisy and phony indignation in which the likes of Abdel-Magied specialise.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:09pm:

Islam should be a purely personal journey, it has no place in the laws of the land IMO. More than 90% of the Quran is dedicated to emphasising the personal/spiritual aspects and obligations for muslims in their worship. And to my understanding, none of the passages detailing the 'law of the land' things are obligatory. If I remember correctly there is a quote that prefaces all these commands that states something like 'if you have a better way, use that'.

I have to assume, that many moslems are actually allergic to ISLAM.

It seems to be bowing down before the ISLAMIC deity al-communal, which the moslem seems to be addicted to.               :P




Quote:

mortimer says       February 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm Most Muslims prefer to live in the free West, rather than in a Sharia dictatorship.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/raymond-ibrahim-trump-to-american-muslims-become-christian-pay-jizya-or-die#comment-1618686


gandalf certainly does.

Grendel wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Sharia Law vs The Apologists Lots of goodies in this article. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia/news-story/9e6efee3160373ccf9cf4dda8c6daf33 Quote: Abdel-Magied and the Islamist collective that is demanding an apology from ABC are not interested in this kind of inconvenient truth. They want to deflect attention away from the problems inherent in sharia law. In my view, the Australian government should stop funding people such as Abdel-Magied, and the other partners they have, and instead find progressive, reform-minded Muslims who will help with the vital task of assimilating Muslims into Australian society. The only way to resolve the fundamental challenge to women’s rights posed by sharia law is to criticise its problematic aspects openly. The successful assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Australia is an achievable goal, but not on the basis of the hypocrisy and phony indignation in which the likes of Abdel-Magied specialise.

In my experience, it is impossible to reason with the moslem.

We [who are not moslems] have only one of two options three options;

1/ Tolerate and 'accommodate' the moslem, and expect eventual death at his hand.

2/ Remove him from our presence.


added.....
3/ Convert to ISLAM.              :o

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 11:45am: Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of?

Not really thinking this through are you FD?

Do you see any business logic in Australia sending over high profile ambassadors to promote Australia as a stable, tolerant, multicultural country? Do you think this might help promote Australia as a good place to do business in?

Or do you think oil company execs would do a better job of that?

I would expect DFAT to be a little more focussed on direct support rather than image management among people highly unlikely to make investment decisions. You could justify just about any form of waste otherwise. This is exactly the sort of idiocy bureaucrats should get fired for.

DFAT realise this, which is why they are giving the taxpayers the silent treatment on where their money went.

Aussie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 7:11pm: Thanks Aussie. Do you think it was deliberate, or the result of incompetence, like Gandalf insists? Your Thread, so yes, Effendi, the Title was a deliberate act of yours.  Yet, it seems now you are saying you may have just plucked it out of Grendel's arse with the latest assertion that DFAT is not saying.

Ah yes the other lying hypocrite....  should I start mentioning you in every post in a similar vein Aussie...  hmmmm..... TROLL away, hypocrite. :D :D :D :D :D

Still like this....  so was it self promotion  or not.  What was the name of her book she was pushing?  Oh and do you really think she is a high profile Muslim in the Australian Community?  Really?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/12875c4168fdaac7df67d78ef0d7840a.jpg
I note photos of her show her in rooms full of women, seems contacts with male oil tycoons and executives were not on the agenda.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

I would expect DFAT to be a little more focussed on direct support rather than image management among people highly unlikely to make investment decisions. You could justify just about any form of waste otherwise. This is exactly the sort of idiocy bureaucrats should get fired for.

But FD you are not merely lamenting the waste of money by DFAT bureaucrats. You bring in baseless claims of them colluding in the spread of Islamic propaganda (whatever that means) - and worst of all, dishonestly linking this to a completely unrelated comments she made on Q&A - which you may or may not think she was paid by DFAT to say (you are deliberately being cryptic about this).

What this comes down to is outrage for the sake of outrage because it happens to be all about a confident, liberated, successful muslim woman who wears a hijab. There is literally no other logical explanation for why you would link the two completely unrelated events and misleadingly imply they are related.

Love the way they address issues they can spin and avoid the more meaningful factual issues.

Is That Taqqiya Gandalf, oh and anytime you feel up to answering the many questions I've posted and you've ignored I'm ready to hear your opinions.

Please don't disappoint like bwian does so very often by running away. ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 8:41am:

freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 11:45am: Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of? Not really thinking this through are you FD? Do you see any business logic in Australia sending over high profile ambassadors to promote Australia as a stable, tolerant, multicultural country? Do you think this might help promote Australia as a good place to do business in? Or do you think oil company execs would do a better job of that?

Do you think we want to do business with countries like saudi arabia, jordan, sudan, syria, afghanistan?


Unlike this woman we should never validate their treatment of their women for a few fkken shekels. We are better than them and we should never sell our reputation si cheaply.


Have them be a lot less muslim and then we might engage at a business level.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 9:49am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2017 at 8:41am: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 11:45am: Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of? Not really thinking this through are you FD? Do you see any business logic in Australia sending over high profile ambassadors to promote Australia as a stable, tolerant, multicultural country? Do you think this might help promote Australia as a good place to do business in? Or do you think oil company execs would do a better job of that? Do you think we want to do business with countries like saudi arabia, jordan, sudan, syria, afghanistan? Unlike this woman we should never validate their treatment of their women for a few fkken shekels. We are better than them and we should never sell our reputation si cheaply. Have them be a lot less muslim and then we might engage at a business level.

She didn't go to most of those countries Big Ol- lets stick to the facts eh?

And yes, I think we do want to do business with rich countries like Saudi Arabia, EAU, Kuwait.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 9:52am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19th, 2017 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2017 at 8:41am: freediver wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 7:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18th, 2017 at 11:45am: Do you reckon there might be sound economic reasons to promote Australia to the Middle East that DFAT (you know the guys who are actually responsible for overseas trade and stuff like that) are aware of? Not really thinking this through are you FD? Do you see any business logic in Australia sending over high profile ambassadors to promote Australia as a stable, tolerant, multicultural country? Do you think this might help promote Australia as a good place to do business in? Or do you think oil company execs would do a better job of that? Do you think we want to do business with countries like saudi arabia, jordan, sudan, syria, afghanistan? Unlike this woman we should never validate their treatment of their women for a few fkken shekels. We are better than them and we should never sell our reputation si cheaply. Have them be a lot less muslim and then we might engage at a business level. She didn't go to most of those countries Big Ol- lets stick to the facts eh? And yes, I think we do want to do business with rich countries like Saudi Arabia, EAU, Kuwait.

I don't see why she shouldn't, they mistreat their women horribly and they are muslims, they meet the criteria.

You may be okay with selling our souls to the devil in doing business with countries like saudi arabia, but some of us are not. Accepting that their horrendous behaviour towards women is not bad enough to do something about, is not what I want Australia to be.


We stop trade with countries when they mistreat our cattle and sheep, why should we trade with countries that mistreat their humans?

---

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 9:14am:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2017 at 8:50am: I would expect DFAT to be a little more focussed on direct support rather than image management among people highly unlikely to make investment decisions. You could justify just about any form of waste otherwise. This is exactly the sort of idiocy bureaucrats should get fired for. But FD you are not merely lamenting the waste of money by DFAT bureaucrats. You bring in baseless claims of them colluding in the spread of Islamic propaganda (whatever that means) - and worst of all, dishonestly linking this to a completely unrelated comments she made on Q&A - which you may or may not think she was paid by DFAT to say (you are deliberately being cryptic about this). What this comes down to is outrage for the sake of outrage because it happens to be all about a confident, liberated, successful muslim woman who wears a hijab. There is literally no other logical explanation for why you would link the two completely unrelated events and misleadingly imply they are related.

Whether you like it or not, they funded Islamic propaganda. There is no need to use words like collude or conspiracy. They made no attempt to hide the arrangement until people pointed out what a stupid idea it is.


Quote:

And yes, I think we do want to do business with rich countries like Saudi Arabia, EAU, Kuwait.

How much business do you think we do with the women in these countries?

And how good do you think it will be for our image among Saudi businessmen to be seen as promoting liberal views among Muslim women?

I wonder if they've funded any other young non-muslim authors to world tours of non-islamic nations?

If not...  why not?

Good grief....  now she's really lost the plot.


Quote:

Feminist activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought advice from Hizb ut-Tahrir The Australian 12:00AM February 20, 2017 Rick Morton The activist who proclaimed Islam was “the most feminist religion” reached out to the spokesman for anti-gay and anti-women group Hizb ut-Tahrir in the wake of her fight on ABC TV’s program Q&A for advice on how she could have framed her argu­ment better. Hizb ut-Tahrir spokes­man Wassim Doureihi posted on his personal Facebook page that Muslims were more angry with independent senator Jacqui Lambie, who wants to ban the burka, instead of two other government MPs who “belong to parties that have bombed Muslims abroad, criminalised Muslims at home, and jailed Muslims seeking refuge from both”. Mr Doureihi and others criti­cised Yassmin Abdel-Magied for argu­ing through a “secular lens” and not having the required deep knowledge of Islam to prosecute her case. “Salams! Well, I am always happy to take feedback,” Ms Abdel-Magied wrote in response. “What specifically was problematic and how can I do better in the future inshallah? I am young, and willing to learn, inshallah. Trying to do the best with the platform I can, Allah willing.” Mr Doureihi famously refused to condemn Islamic State for indiscrimin­ate acts of violence, includ­ing against Muslims, and declined to use his platform to implor­e young Muslim men in particular from joining the terrorist group. He said the West only wanted to use Islamic State as a “bogeyman” to condemn an entire religion. After Mr Doureihi told Ms Abdel-Magied she “ended up framing Islam through a secular lens, aimed at a secular people and conscious of the presence of a secular government”, the author and activist said: “Ah indeed. Sigh. This is always a tricky one. Will DM (private message) you.” Another spokesman for the group, Uthman Badar, had a talk at Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas cancelled in 2014 after a backlash against the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”. Mr Badar did not choose the topic, although he did consent to it, and later argued he was not going to defend the practice. In February 2014, he defend­ed the forced marriage of a girl, age 12, to a Muslim man aged 26. “Something being illegal ­according to Western law does not make it immoral,” he said in a press release. Hizb ut-Tahrir was taken to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal after a 2014 lecture in which women were told to sit at the back while men had seats reserved in the front. The tribunal found Alison Bevage, a reporter, had been discriminated against based on her sex. After Malcolm Turnbull hosted an Iftar dinner with anti-gay cleric Sheik Shady Alsuleiman last year, the Prime Minister condemned the preacher’s views on homosexuality, which in turn prompted a response from Mr Badar. He said on Facebook that Mr Turnbull was condemning the “normative Islam­­­ic position on homosex­uality”. Ms Abdel-Magied said yesterday that she had “not seen anything­ by HT (Hizb ut-Tahrir)” but did not respond when asked about her communications with Mr Doureihi. Mr Doureihi saw questions put to him by The Australian but did not respond.

She knows nothing of Hizb ut-Tahrir?  Really.  I'm not Muslim yet I do.  Just how ignorant are these people about what is going on around them? :D

Grendel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2017 at 9:58am:

Good grief....  now she's really lost the plot. Quote: Feminist activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought advice from Hizb ut-Tahrir The Australian 12:00AM February 20, 2017 Rick Morton The activist who proclaimed Islam was “the most feminist religion” reached out to the spokesman for anti-gay and anti-women group Hizb ut-Tahrir in the wake of her fight on ABC TV’s program Q&A for advice on how she could have framed her argu­ment better. Hizb ut-Tahrir spokes­man Wassim Doureihi posted on his personal Facebook page that Muslims were more angry with independent senator Jacqui Lambie, who wants to ban the burka, instead of two other government MPs who “belong to parties that have bombed Muslims abroad, criminalised Muslims at home, and jailed Muslims seeking refuge from both”. Mr Doureihi and others criti­cised Yassmin Abdel-Magied for argu­ing through a “secular lens” and not having the required deep knowledge of Islam to prosecute her case. “Salams! Well, I am always happy to take feedback,” Ms Abdel-Magied wrote in response. “What specifically was problematic and how can I do better in the future inshallah? I am young, and willing to learn, inshallah. Trying to do the best with the platform I can, Allah willing.” Mr Doureihi famously refused to condemn Islamic State for indiscrimin­ate acts of violence, includ­ing against Muslims, and declined to use his platform to implor­e young Muslim men in particular from joining the terrorist group. He said the West only wanted to use Islamic State as a “bogeyman” to condemn an entire religion. After Mr Doureihi told Ms Abdel-Magied she “ended up framing Islam through a secular lens, aimed at a secular people and conscious of the presence of a secular government”, the author and activist said: “Ah indeed. Sigh. This is always a tricky one. Will DM (private message) you.” Another spokesman for the group, Uthman Badar, had a talk at Sydney’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas cancelled in 2014 after a backlash against the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”. Mr Badar did not choose the topic, although he did consent to it, and later argued he was not going to defend the practice. In February 2014, he defend­ed the forced marriage of a girl, age 12, to a Muslim man aged 26. “Something being illegal ­according to Western law does not make it immoral,” he said in a press release. Hizb ut-Tahrir was taken to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal after a 2014 lecture in which women were told to sit at the back while men had seats reserved in the front. The tribunal found Alison Bevage, a reporter, had been discriminated against based on her sex. After Malcolm Turnbull hosted an Iftar dinner with anti-gay cleric Sheik Shady Alsuleiman last year, the Prime Minister condemned the preacher’s views on homosexuality, which in turn prompted a response from Mr Badar. He said on Facebook that Mr Turnbull was condemning the “normative Islam­­­ic position on homosex­uality”. Ms Abdel-Magied said yesterday that she had “not seen anything­ by HT (Hizb ut-Tahrir)” but did not respond when asked about her communications with Mr Doureihi. Mr Doureihi saw questions put to him by The Australian but did not respond. She knows nothing of Hizb ut-Tahrir?  Really.  I'm not Muslim yet I do.  Just how ignorant are these people about what is going on around them? :D

She is a taxpayer funded apologists for the very worst behaviours of muslims; she is just not very good at it, that's all.