Aussie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:26pm:


I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently.

Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values.

as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:10pm:



My take is that he 'condoned' slavery only in so far as he didn't seek wholesale abolition of a deeply ingrained practice - but arguably sought to phase it out gradually. Muhammad was not a revolutionary. He was the first leader to regulate the practice, stipulating human rights of slaves that must be respected (not quite a contradiction in terms as you are no doubt thinking), and most importantly, greatly broadened the conditions on which slaves could be freed - in addition to encouraging owners to free their slaves.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:


More nonsense from FD.

The Banu Qurayza conspired with the people who were laying siege to Medina. This you don't dispute. That the Quraysh were threatening "genocide" with their 10 thousand strong army who were attempting to overrun Medina is my assessment - and I don't think its an unreasonable one. Certainly more reasonable than calling the execution of a few hundred warriors for treason as "genocide".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:

Before Fraser was PM....  time to learn how to Google Auggie, how you don't know yet feel free to comment is strange in deed.

Oh and Aussie you troll...  I've posted here and in many sites on the NET the definitions of those policies...  Man up yourself Gunga.

Grendel wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 2:21pm:


You're the one who brought up the claim, and the onus is on you to provide evidence. I'm not going to do your homework for you; I don't ask you to do mine.

If you bring up a claim, you need to be ready to provide evidence; that's what I do. Saying 'oh, look up Google' is just you're being lazy - a claim not backed by any evidence.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:


Maybe, but what about the claim that Muhammad had illicit sexual relations with a 9 year old girl?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:


Ah ok, fair enough. I know there is a growing movement know as Quranism, which exclusively focuses on the Quran and not on any other sources. I personally find the idea of 'testimonies' about Muhammad behaviour to be fundamentally against the tradition of Islam, given that the Quran is meant to the Word of God.

Also, what do you think of the Shia tradition? Is the presence of an Imanate more likely to result in progressive and moderate Islam as opposed to the Sunni tradition? For e.g. a branch of the Shia tradition - the Ismailis are very moderate compared to other branches of Islam without an authority due to the authority of the Aga Khan.

According to Twelver tradition, the Iman possess wisdom to interpret the 'esoteric' meanings of the Quran.