Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:17pm:


In Australia a cult is just a religion that pays tax just as a point of curiosity

wally1 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 5:12am:


No, because we are not discussing the sun OR moon. You didn't answer the ONE question I asked you Wally. I asked

YOU

, through what

EVIDENCE do YOU believe

that:

"the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim (Abraham)"
and "Many tribes and nations did reconstruct the kabaa"

Please present the evidence on which you make each of these casual offhand claims.

Quote:


So you are trying to defend these people's barbaric beliefs by insisting they they are acting "all high principled"?

So when they see "executing apostates" on the survey, they don't realise that the consequence might be executing apostates?

Quote:


I would be surprised if there was a significant difference. Chemical castration is being seriously promoted as an option for these crimes (actual crimes, not thought crimes). However, as I keep pointing out, one of the states in Malaysia has come very close to enacting a law executing apostates. This would not have escaped people's attention, and the survey would not be the first time they have contemplated whether they support or oppose such a law.

Quote:


Everything is always a special case. Like Tasmania. That does not mean we would not notice if Tasmania tried to execute people for thought crimes. The relevant difference here is that the state does not have the high percentage of non-Muslims that the rest of Malaysia does. This means that the majority of Muslims is closer to being the same thing as the majority of the population. Hence, 60% or more of the Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy, so they were able to get the laws through the state parliament. The Thais are not to blame for this. They passed laws to execute apostates because they live in a democracy and the majority of Muslims support the laws - not just in their fantasies, but in reality.

Quote:


It was inevitable that the government policy would come to reflect the will of the majority. As I have pointed out many times, this is not the same argument as your feeble-minded insistence that a person who votes for a party must therefor support every policy that party has, and you can therefor determine the breakdown of views on an issue based on a breakdown of voting patterns and party policy.

Quote:


Rather than fill up this thread with quotes - follow this link. Every post you made on the first page of this thread is you using the same BS excuse for why Muslims do not think what they say they think.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 1:48pm:


A murderer is a murderer. Period. Whether it is a parent murdering their child for "apostasy" or state sponsored murder of an apostate - simply because of their desire to live in freedom and outside of the slavery of Islam.

A person only has to hate another person to be a murderer.

1John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

The Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini working hand in hand with Hitler, with several Islamic SS divisions and an Islamic panzer division in Hitler's army, certainly made them little Hitlers.



Video Hitler and the Mufti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sk3fKY9PhY

http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#hitler_and_the_m...

Quote:


Whatever. Still a majority.

Quote:


That is one of the things you said. Would "little Muhammed" make you more comfortable. You also claimed - in every post - that they do not really think what they say they think.

Quote:


It already is a distinct possibility. Were it not for federal intervention, one of the states would already have this law (and it is not, as you claim, the Thai's fault). Attempts to actually pass this into law mirror very closely the Pew survey results showing what Muslims think and where such Muslims are likely to hold a majority.

Quote:


Of course you would not speak plainly. You tried to spin it into the most palatable lie you could. Contrary to your misrepresentation, this is a real issue in Malaysia, Muslims genuinely support it, and they try to achieve it as soon as they are able to. And you make excuses for them at every step, insisting it could not actually happen.

You claim to oppose the barbaric aspects of Islam, yet even when you come face to face with it, Islam compels you to delude yourself and to delude others in order to facilitate them.

Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.” (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

If a "law abiding" Australian Muslim supports Shariah law, including hudud punishments, would you refuse to judge or criticise that Muslim for their barbaric views on the grounds that the majority of Australian Muslims don't go round chopping people's heads off?

Would you explain to that Muslim, with the same effort you have applied to Malaysian Muslims, that they do not really think what they say they think and only claim to support hudud punishments because they are yet to realise that chopping someone's head off for a thought crime is a pretty messed up thing to do?

Where, in the process of establishing Shariah law, do you think such a Muslim would come to their senses? If I were to explain to this Muslim that chopping someone's head off is not nice, and that people should be free to choose and reject their own religion, do you think they would suddenly realise how silly they are for supporting the death penalty for apostasy?

Do you think capital punishment is real or abstract for Americans who support it?

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.