EXTREME MEASURES

[Hannibal]

[/b]The topic Extreme Measures has been discussed at length at three previous sites created. The last was at MSN. The basis for that discussion was from an interpretation of how Muslims responded to an enquiry made about them and their position in Australian society on an SBS programme of the same name: Extreme Measures. Ten points were uncovered. The discussion here is continued in the same spirit of inquiry from questions asked by the show's host and others. The ten points highlighted attributes strongly associated with the Muslim community. For example, when Muslims are cornered on a particular point, they respond by creating an antithetical argument based on a false premise taken from the nebulous of communal consciousness and argue from that premise. The technique comes under the umbrella properly termed “al-Taqiyya”, and incorporates dissimilitude, dissimulation and dissembling or just plain lying to gain advantage. If a Muslim argues that Islam is the religion of peace and then one highlights the atrocity of 11 September 2001 and the attack on the World Trade Centre, they quickly respond by talking about atrocities in the Middle-East caused by American soldiers in Iraq, or what have you. Thereby, they avoid the question directed at them. They do their best in response to lay the responsibility for the evil noted at one's feet. That is sheer sophistry. They use moral relativism as a tool. The ten points were set out before and could be used as a point of reference to construct the debate, to highlight where any one of the ten points showed themselves publically in the actions of Muslims. The culture that those ten points described has taken on more definite form. The debate had since moved on. The Bilal Skaf Gang rapes were evoked as evidence of the criminal heart of the Lebanese and Muslim communities and how they held those about them in contempt. The Cronulla Riot and the Revenge Attacks of December 2005 - as they are now called - brought to the fore what the debate had worked to uncover. The Revenge Attacks by gangs of Lebanese Muslims crystallised the threat and the philosophical or religious underpinning for their actions. That night at Brighton-le-Sands where they attacked people and destroyed cars by notably smashing their glass windows, has been labelled "kristallnachte". The association with the rise of fascist, racist, bigoted Nazi Germany was never more pertinent. And here we have it, the debate is still continuing. The management problems of MSN about these sites abound. This is the fourth site that Extreme Measures as a topic for discussion has used. The header for Extreme Measures at the first two sites listing first, the ten points, then at the second site, eight points as copied over, is now reduced to nothing. Unable to retrieve that header, those involved in the debate up until now are - it is hoped - knowledgeable enough about those points so as to continue with constructive debate within those guidelines. Without much further ado, I present EXTREME MEASURES. Link HannibalHannibal

[CrimsonWarrior]

Still waiting for that theological argument based upon comparison between the teachings, writings and bibles relevent...

Will i be waiting long Hannibal?

So Hannibal, you're still peddling that "Muhammed was a peadphile there-fore all Muslims are paedophiles" drivel that constitutes almost the entiretly of your agument?

Let us take a look at paedophillia...

Classical Greece is considered the birthplace for Modern Western Liberal Democratic Civilisation, with Socrates being considered one of the founding fathers of this Civilisation, not only that, he is revered for his thinking regarding ethics among many other things. Yet, history has a habit of leaving out the fact that he was in-fact a pederist, as were many other great philosophers of his time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_pederasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Classical Rome is also known as a cradle of Modern Western Civilisation, in-fact the Modern Judeo-Christian Liberal Democratic Western Civilisation owes much of its heritage to Classical Rome. Yet, once more the true nature of the Romans is ofter over-looked.

"By the time historical records begin, the widespread sexual use of children is well documented. The Greek and Roman child lived his or her earliest years in an atmosphere of sexual abuse. Girls were commonly raped, as reflected in the many comedies that have scenes that were considered funny of little girls being raped. Both Greek and Roman doctors report that female children rarely have hymens--just like the Indian and Chinese girls I described above. In order to find out if your young wife was really a virgin (girls usually married before puberty to older men), one had to use mystical tests for virginity, since intact hymens were so rare"

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

"However, the fact that a family would live under the same roof with slaves who had shared the bed with some of the family members. This could lead to some confusion about the relation between slaves and masters. For the children of the slaves might well be half sisters or brothers of the Roman children of the household.

In such situations there was naturally the possibility of incest. Though indeed it would be not seen as such. For incest was only deemed so when involving members of your own 'official' family.
But if the master of the house was sleeping with the daughter of a slave who had been a former mistress this was not deemed to be so, despite it being very well possible that the girl was in fact his daughter.And if it were not the master himself, who was to say that his son might not share a bed with the girl, who might be of a similar age to him. If biologically they might be half-sister and half-brother, the law saw nothing wrong with it. And for all the confusion and secrecy about sex in the household, they might well not have known about their shared parentage. "

http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-household.html

"The fact that Roman men used both female and male "sex slaves", brings up another topic that Clarke discusses in detail: Our modern concepts of "sexual orientation", i.e. our present distinctions between "heterosexuality", "homosexuality", and "bisexuality" do not fit the reality in ancient Rome . There, it was taken for granted that, in principle, any person could become sexually attractive to any other person just as it pleased the whimsy of the gods. Youthful beauty in any sex was desirable and sought after. It brought pleasure to the lucky ones who were given the opportunity to enjoy it. This is not to say that there were no same-sex relationships among adults. Indeed, Clarke devotes a special section to the British Museum’s "Warren cup" (so named by him).This elaborately sculptured silver goblet shows on one side a man anally penetrating a slave boy and on the other side a man doing the same thing with a young adult male. Given the fact that a precious goblet like this was a "conversation piece" in its own time, and that it was made to be shown around to admiring dinner guests, one is forced to realize that the scenes depicted carried no negative connotations for anyone who saw them. As a matter of fact, Clarke also documents a highly artistic glass perfume bottle recently discovered in formerly Roman Spain (1986, near Seville ). This ancient so-called "Ortiz bottle" combines the same scene with a man and a slave boy on one side with the lovemaking of a male-female couple on the other side. In short: Obviously, the gender of sexual partners was not a moral criterion for either the actors involved or for anyone else who became aware of their activity. (Needless to say, ancient Rome also abounded with images of female couples.) "

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/REVCL.HTM

As you can see Hannibal, Western Civilisation was founded by incestuous peadophiles. culturally and lawfully recognised and protected incestuous peadophiles.

Let us take a look at the bastion of the Modern Liberal Judeo-Christian Democratic Civilisation the Western World has come to be, the United States of America.

From the Colonial Period.

"Both men and women had great social pressure on them to marry. Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14 and if women weren’t married by the age of 25, it was socially humiliating. Marriage was mostly for economic benefits, not romantic situations. Widows were also pressured to get married as soon as possible. Even in some states, laws were proposed that would force widows to marry within 7 years after their husband’s death. Widows, however, were often married within a year if not sooner. Women were considered legally dead once they were married under common. Once married, they legally became one with their husbands. Married women had no control of their earnings, inheritance, property, and also could not appear in court as a witness nor vote. Their husbands, therefore, were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline. Widows were better off. They had control over their property, but could only receive up to one-third of her late husband’s property. A widow could also vote in some areas, but often widows were not aware of this fact or chose not to. Husbands could legally beat their wives. If a woman ran away from her husband, she was considered a thief because she was stealing the clothes she was wearing and herself. If a man murdered his wife, he would be hung. If a woman murdered her husband, she would be burned alive. "

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/HistoryGals/Chloe.html

Let us not forget the United Kingdom,

From one of the most revered writers in Western Civilisation today, William Shakespear, from Romeo and Juliet, the following.

"hath not seen the change of fourteen years"

Meaning that Juliet was no older than 13.

From Juliet's mother, the following.

"By my count, I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a maid"

Meaning that Juliet's mother gave birth to Juliet at no older than 13 meaning that she was married and pregnant at the age of 12 at the latest.

This, from the reputedly the greatest love storey told in Western Civilisation in Modern Times and it is about a 13 year old girl.

So Hannibal, what was it you were saying about Muhammed?

Has anything changed in Western Civilisation today?

No, the most sexually assaulted group known in Australia is girls under the age of 15.

As much as it was in Classical Roman and Greek times, paedophillia is as much a practice now as then.

Of-course, history is full of the tragedies heaped upon the young, it also seams that in this day and age we condone it to some degree as a Society.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,23857535-3102,00.html?from=public_rss

Believe me Hannibal, the above along with many other cases such as this not only trump your idiotic notion that Muslims commit the worst of crimes it also trumps any notion that Religion is a factor.

You arguent was bunk when you first made it, nothing has changed.

Regards,

Crimson

[Hannibal]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/peter-cosgroves-australia-day-address-20100119-mj0x.html

Peter Cosgrove's Australia Day address

January 20, 2010

This is the full text of the Australia Day 2010 address by General Peter Cosgrove (retd) at the New South Wales Conservatorium of Music on 19 January 2010.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I was very honoured to be asked to address you on the occasion of this annual Australia Day oration. I see from a list of the luminaries who have preceded me that the oration has become a very important part of New South Wales' observance of our national day and that has made me very aware of my obligation to speak as well as I might on a theme of significance to all of us, as Australians, as some of our overseas guests and to those not of this country who follow what we say on these seminal occasions. Just in the last several weeks, the largest country in the world, India has been watching what we've been doing in Australia very keenly and analysing most carefully things we say. I might say, that is as it should be, even if we would all wish for the reasons for such scrutiny to be different.

I have entitled what I will say to you this evening as "Sunshine and Shade: the triumphs and tribulations of Australia in our time: things which make us great and which occasionally diminish us in our own eyes and those of the world community." I was asked some time ago to settle on a title and a theme so you will understand that this is not some immediate reaction to recent events but there is a synchronicity which I will not fail to underscore today.

This great continent is a land of sunshine and shade: Sunshine - sometimes harsh but life-giving to the wide brown land and all who live in her; Shade - sometimes blessed in the relief that it provides from the harsh sunlight but also the repository for some of the dark moments of our existence.

Last year I was asked to deliver the Boyer lectures on ABC radio. This was another great honour and certainly one which made me put my thinking cap on! Like all of you here over the many years of my adult life I have had a wealth of opinions on things large and small which are significant to me about our Australian way of life. In accepting to do the Boyer lectures I had to crystallise many of those opinions in the words of the lectures: a sort of "put up or shut up" opportunity! So, like a test cricketer with a good long innings behind him, I come to you in good nick ?? even if I might have offered the odd catch behind during my recent stay at the crease!

Time for some sunshine! One of the most illuminating and warming aspects of our national character is our sense of compassion, generosity, selflessness and equity when we encounter the suffering and need of our neighbours in the region (and often enough, much further afield). After the first Bali bombing, many of the victims rescued and given first aid and later much more sophisticated medical treatment were ministered to by Australians. Our Disaster Victims Identification teams asked not the nationality nor ethnicity of the victims - all were treated with identical dignity and professionalism and energy. In the great grief that swept over this nation, part of that grieving was for all the innocents killed, injured or bereaved by the atrocity, not just those Australians who were victims.

When the greatest natural disaster of our lifetime, the Asian tsunami rolled ashore around the Indian Ocean on the 26th of December 2004, in a couple of short breaths well over 200,000 people were killed, the vast majority of them Indonesians and Thais and Sri Lankans. In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, it was yet a moment to be very proud of our nation. Our men and women in uniform and many other volunteers besides, rushed to the disaster areas with such urgency that in some cases they were the first foreigners on the ground. They encountered human and material devastation on a scale few of us can imagine and yet with a toughness and compassion that we would all envy, they got about the job of bringing hope to the hopeless and help to the helpless. Back here in Australia individuals, corporations and governments all dug deep and raised and sent staggering amounts of money for the relief operations for our hard hit neighbours. There was no stinting, no hesitation, no ambivalence, no dredging up of old sensitivities or quibbling about our own present needs ? just the unqualified act of giving by the fortunate to the unfortunate. When I finally shuffle off this mortal coil, it may be this is the moment in our modern history which makes me proudest when I report in at my next destination, saying "Australian here!"

There was also “Sunshine” for us all in 1999 when Australia played a central role in East Timor's rocky road to independence. A profound feeling of unease felt by many people in Australia erupted into alarm and concern across the board when we saw broadcast images of violence, murder and arson leading up to the referendum and then in the aftermath. I had a front row seat in watching the force known as INTERFET, the men and women of 22 nations, bring urgent relief and safety to the people of the tiny island. Pivotal in that work were the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and many policemen and women from the AFP and State police services. Unsung but there in abundance were (I was going to say "ordinary" but they were actually all extraordinary people) Australians with aid agencies, the UN and some of our other government departments, every last one of doing all in their power to help the East Timorese. Most of you will have seen much of it playing out in the media - much praise for those in the media too for the hazards they embraced in bringing the stories to you. You rightfully admired them, hundreds indeed thousands of them; so did I - the front row seat that I enjoyed was a rare privilege and another of those "Sunshine moments".

Less well known because of all the uproar at the time in the Middle East but still very close to home, there was a lot of bright sunshine about the way in which Australians brought assistance to the Solomon Islands in 2003. The men and women who went there in their hundreds were by and large just the boys and girls typical of suburbs and towns all over Australia, yet their sensitivity and effectiveness in dealing constructively and sympathetically with the Solomon Islanders, traumatised and riven by inter-communal strife for years before the intervention, was a revelation to all who saw it.

There is a view that the events of 11th of September 2001 were so profound as to divide certain attitudes and levels of antagonism into pre- and post- 9/11. Maybe so and also maybe that's stretching it a bit but let's bring that theory back to those periods of daylight I've just finished describing. Plainly Timor took place in a different time, before 9/11. Yet Bali, the Solomon Islands and the Asian tsunami all post dated 9/11. In all the cases I have described Australians behaved wholeheartedly and equitably, kindly and compassionately - in fact to a degree remarkable to many observers. Observing those Australians dealing with the people they set out to help and indeed their fellow Australians and non-Australian co-workers, would that darkest of labels, ‘racist' have seemed justified? No and again no!

But have past events and some commentators on those events, ‘belled the kat'? Time to pass from broad daylight into some shade. Is there a strand of racism or perhaps pockets of racism here in Australia ? – undoubtedly. No multifaceted society can be absent some level of intolerance but there should be no consequent complacency on our part.

I don't think there's much to be gained by examining smaller, individual incidents which all of us will have heard about or experienced at some stage, where it is likely that there was some racist "tinge". One would have to live in a cocoon to avoid those casual moments which have offended our sense of equity. They occur in every society with any ethnic plurality about it. Let us instead today remember and reflect on some quite high profile, recent moments in our Australian experience. It was only about four years ago when there was significant public disorder in the Cronulla shire, violent, alcohol-fuelled and shocking. We will all remember that seemed to be an outcome of rising tension between locals and their supporters purporting to represent the amorphous majority, and an ethnic minority. Because it was so unusual and unexpected, it reverberated around the world - it was unexpected because Australia's reputation was that of an egalitarian and multi-ethnic society, tolerant, cheerful and relaxed. These perceptions can rarely be totally accurate but we flattered ourselves that they were mostly so about us! December 2005 gave us pause for thought. Yet in the aftermath, people were arrested and charged and brought before the courts for their behaviour over that period. The public thought that some of the harsh penalties handed down were appropriate and responsible authorities got busy with the vital work of bridge-building between the wider community and the group seen to be on the "outer". Not perhaps a perfect, enduring and "root cause" solution but significant and well intended.

Moving further into the shade, we should consider for a moment an issue which has been brewing in this country and between Australia and India for some time but which has erupted over the last several weeks to become a major problem.

I lived for a year in India in 1994. I love the place and the people and have been back to visit. It has its own vibrant collection of ‘isms': caste-ism, nepotism and cronyism and great religious tensions and hatreds to boot. But if you are inclined therefore to think in relation to recent events about ‘stones and glass houses', don't. This issue must be about us, not the messenger.

I sense in relation to the spate of attacks on largely Indian people in Melbourne and elsewhere, Australians are very concerned and disinclined to downplay, much less dismiss the potential "racist" elements in what is becoming a litany of criminality. As usual, the poor old police are stuck in the middle, working hard, looking to be objective and reluctant to jump to conclusions and therefore copping it from all sides. The problem for us is that the criminal incidents are cowardly and sly and it is easy to conclude that they are racially-targeted. We are all dismayed that there might be some kind of warped campaign in progress. The vast majority of Australians, totally rejecting any such despicable behaviour will welcome the apprehension of those who are preying on these visitors and their rigorous prosecution. Only that outcome will satisfy our determination to be and to be known as, a just and equitable society.

In 1947 when I was born the population of Australia was 7.5 million. I grew up in Paddington in Sydney had seemed to me then that every second adult male in the suburb was a returned servicemen. Although bombed and scared and scarred by the war, the Australia in which many of us grew up, in that period seemed a cheerful place where there was optimism and perhaps relief that threats of the nature of World War II appeared to have receded for the time being. One scholar has observed that Australia in that period was in a kind of ‘convalescence'. It is interesting to reflect on that - if he meant some kind of self-focused and therapeutic period of recovery, I think he was right. If he meant that there were still traces of a malaise, then I missed seeing it!

Certainly what it was, was one of the great modern immigration periods. It is that factor that fills my memory of the time. In my suburb of Paddington and in my primary school, St Francis Xavier's, the family names increasingly were a roll-call of southern and central Europe as much as they were of British and Irish counties! Paddo was a bit rough and tumble in those days and not even the kids were unaware of the various soubriquets Aussies had and frequently used to refer to particular parts of the community. Nino Culotta that famous but fictional character reported on it!

How things have changed: if a younger Australian was transported back to those days and could listen to the casual language used by ordinary people about and sometimes to some of our recent migrants, they would faint in shock! By the standards of today, it just wouldn't do - today all that would be termed racism and there would be hell to pay! Looking back, it may have been confronting and even offensive for those new Australians who found themselves typecast with patronising verbal tags. But if racism it was, then it seemed to me at the time that it was pretty superficial. Because in the shadow of the war, it was very obvious that all of these migrants had come from a poor and damaged place to this shining new place, Australia looking to work hard, to pitch in and to make a go of it. They had made the most profound social commitment, they had volunteered to become Australians where as the rest of us had had no say in the matter! Put simply, it was obvious to all of us that they had devoted themselves to assimilating into Australian society, values and culture even while cherishing and displaying their own. The heavy accents and broken English of those mums and dads are only faint echoes in the dry and arid tones of their kids and grandkids who are now indistinguishably part of our social fabric.

I wonder why what seemed so easy and unremarkable back then, the assimilation of hundreds of thousands of people for whom English was either a second language or an unknown one, is now so fraught, so front of mind. For most of my lifetime attitudes towards ethnic minorities have been irreverent but have seemed to be without malice. I can recall on taking over a platoon of infantry soldiers in the jungle in Vietnam, the sergeant giving me a run through of the soldiers' names as we walked around meeting them. He introduced one young man as "Wheels" which is what I called him for weeks until one day back in the base I happened to glance at the roll book and saw his real name, quite a mouthful with an eastern European origin; I challenged the sergeant as to why he called him ‘Wheels' and he said plaintively ‘Because I can't pronounce his real name!' ‘Wheels' apparently was short for wheelbarrow, an infamous old Army substitute for an unpronounceable handle.

A moment or two ago I mentioned the term "assimilation". It's an interesting word and in an immigration context it is meant to imply the absorption of individuals and family groups into mainstream Australian society. There is an implicit understanding that this process of absorption will entail the assumption of a broad range of Australian obligations, loyalties, values and characteristics. There is nothing inherently flawed or evil in that understanding as far as it goes. For example, whether a migrant came here in 1947 or in 2009, whether the migrant stepped off a passenger liner or a sinking fishing boat near Christmas Island, all must be prepared to obey the laws of their new home. All should predispose themselves to a loyalty for and liking of our home. But that is about as far as you can go. Loyalty in its fullest sense must be earned. Our values and characteristics are not proprietal: no section of society, no generation past or present owns or dictates those values and characteristics. Even though pundits and would-be pundits like me occasionally attempt to list our values and our national characteristics, Australian society is really best at defining them in the negative: by that I mean we all are intuitively understand when some action has deeply offended our values or when some person has displayed an "un-Australian" characteristic. Generally and uselessly we tend to think of our values and our characteristics as "all that is good". Occasionally some stirrer will hand us a characteristic he or she reckons we have that is straight-out bad and of course we all reject that out of hand!

In reflecting back to that great wave of immigration in the 50s 60s and 70s, I think assimilation was not as useful a word as "merge". For sure, most of those immigrants were absorbed seamlessly into our society within one or at most two generations. But I think that it was more of a merger than perhaps we give credit for: just as so many of those immigrants now so obviously love this place as their home, respect the flag as their own and regard the old country as being just that, how much have we absorbed from them. Because it crept up on us, I think to a great degree we haven't noticed how extensively we have been enriched by their cultures and previous lifestyles.

The 50s also saw the final dismantling of the White Australia policy and an opening of Australia's doors to neighbours from Asia and Africa. With the vast majority of new immigrants thus enabled coming from Asia, a great new potpourri of cultural influences entered our broader society. Apart from a relatively few casual affronts from a white society still coming to terms with a new social pluralism, this new wave of immigration particularly from the 70s until the present day has gone very well with some exceptions. Leaping into the present day, I'll bet a great number of you are uneasy about a seam of friction between some of our ethnic minorities and elements of what I referred to earlier as the amorphous majority.

Not to beat about the bush, I refer to an ongoing estrangement between broader society and elements of our Muslim community. Our extended history way back to early colonial days shows that from time to time there have been episodes of bad blood between sections of the community based on ethnicity or very occasionally, on religion. Yet they have almost invariably been quite limited in scope and duration.

Over a very long period, Muslim families have been migrating to this country. By and large they have merged into society as seamlessly as any other grouping. Mosques have been respected places of worship around Australia for many years. It is easy to point to an estrangement between parts of the global Islamic community and all non-Muslims but especially Christians over the last 20 years or so, and obviously since the Al Qaeda attacks on 11th September 2001. I think in hindsight it could be claimed that these events and the reactions to them were simply catalysts of our further failure. By that I mean that some of our Islamic community already felt alienated and isolated from the mainstream in Australia. It is a volatile mix when especially younger people are told that they are surrounded by corrupt and impious behaviour at every hand. It is unsurprising that some of them then perform in ways which stigmatises the whole Islamic community.

All of this is exacerbated by the ongoing wider confrontation between jihadists and their range of perceived enemies around the world. In the elevated temperature and polarised views which characterise this problem, it is hard to have a neat and persuasive prescription on how we move past this. However a few observations: first, we must not be panicked into somehow changing or restricting our immigration patterns because of these sorts of issues. Secondly, we should be very careful before assigning major blame for the problem to our broad Australian way of life, as if the estrangement was all somehow our fault and we should change accordingly. The Australian people know that that is not true and wouldn't wear it anyway! Thirdly, we should continue the many and various ways we engage with the broader Islamic community and especially those who have turned away from us, to bring them back. Lastly we should remember that even over our short history we have dealt with and survived and moved on from some pretty big problems and remained as a society intact and remarkably unified.

Let me close this address in the shadow of Australia Day with some remarks about indigenous Australians. Unsurprisingly my sentiments will echo some eminent predecessors such as Peter Garrett, Lowitja O'Donoghue and Tim Flannery. I won't therefore attempt to canvass every issue but rather to summarise what I believe is at the core of my views. We all note in the context of 26th January, that every part of this land was once trodden only by indigenous Australians, without our contemporary rules and presence. We cannot "dis-invent" ourselves, the things we have, the life we live or the overarching rules governing that life ?? that's the reality. It is also a reality that indigenous Australians have been hugely disadvantaged in seeking to retain the integrity and dignity of their ancient culture. They may continue to feel as colonised as many other ancient societies did in centuries past. Yet the obverse of this colonisation is unattainable. We, the non-indigenous have nowhere to go because this is now as it has been for centuries our only home too. I believe what our indigenous people fervently desire from the rest of us is respect and the opportunity for their culture to live on; to have both the practical support and the breathing space to enable their social conditions to dramatically improve, especially in the communities; and to have this wherever possible with the least intervention and paternalism. Having said all that it is hard to see how Australians could have faced themselves in the mirror without reacting vigorously to the reports which prompted the recent interventions.

Every well-intentioned, strong initiative to try to do the right thing faces the problem of the humiliation of intrusiveness versus the effectiveness of the intent. There are no easy solutions and certainly no perfect answers. We should not see the prospect of ‘arriving at a satisfactory conclusion'. Our obligation to this foundation element of the great Australian community is endless.

Well, it is almost Australia Day! How shall we be, how shall we feel about the nation and ourselves as we emerged into the sunshine and attend one of the great public observances of the day or take the kids to the beach or fire up the barbecue. Shall we feel joyous and hopeful or remaining in the shade, shall we instead be uncertain and anxious, borne down by our imperfections and shortcomings.

I think the former - it's in our nature to be optimists, not so much because we are shallow or lazy (living the "she'll be right" dream) but because we are a highly moral, inclusive and stable society with the precious gifts of democracy, affluence and security. Our challenges are not beyond us.

Australia is a nation of good fortune and a good future and that's a cause for celebration!

(Errors noted in the copy have been corrected)


COMMENT

Australia Day is a pertinent time that Peter Cosgrove talks about an issue that is at the forefront of communal consciousness.

General Peter Cosgrove (retired) was the former Chief of the Defence Force. Cosgrove came to national fame in 1999 when, as a Major General, he led the international forces (INTERFET) in a peacekeeping mission to East Timor. The mission's success made Cosgrove one of Australia's most respected and popular military leaders [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cosgrove].

Hence, Peter Cosgrove has a moral authority that is difficult to diminish.

I think the opinion of someone of Cosgrove’s standing deserves to be listened to.

While his view tries to be all-encompassing, his speech does seem to wander. For all intents and purposes, Cosgrove has taken the view held by people in mainstream society. However, there is some misinterpretation of the situation in Australia, particularly in connection with Lebanese and Muslims.

It is good to read that Cosgrove does not try too much to gild the lily. He does not try to gloss over problems with the Lebanese and Muslim communities. However, he does not specify the Lebanese community so much as by allusion.

Important points to note are:

• Is there a strand of racism or perhaps pockets of racism here in Australia ? – undoubtedly. No multifaceted society can be absent some level of intolerance but there should be no consequent complacency on our part.
• One would have to live in a cocoon to avoid those casual moments which have offended our sense of equity
• (S)ignificant public disorder in the Cronulla shire, violent, alcohol-fuelled and shocking. We will all remember that seemed to be an outcome of rising tension between locals and their supporters purporting to represent the amorphous majority, and an ethnic minority.
• (I)t was so unusual and unexpected, it reverberated around the world - it was unexpected because Australia's reputation was that of an egalitarian and multi-ethnic society, tolerant, cheerful and relaxed.
• December 2005 gave us pause for thought. Yet in the aftermath, people were arrested and charged and brought before the courts for their behaviour over that period. The public thought that some of the harsh penalties handed down were appropriate and responsible authorities got busy with the vital work of bridge-building between the wider community and the group seen to be on the "outer".
• (T)he spate of attacks on largely Indian people ( ). Australians are very concerned and disinclined to downplay, much less dismiss the potential "racist" elements in what is becoming a litany of criminality.
• The problem for us is that the criminal incidents are cowardly and sly and it is easy to conclude that they are racially-targeted.
• (The) majority of Australians, totally rejecting any such despicable behaviour will welcome the apprehension of those who are preying on these visitors
• (T)he assimilation of hundreds of thousands of people for whom English was either a second language or an unknown one, is now so fraught, so front of mind. For most of my lifetime attitudes towards ethnic minorities have been irreverent but have seemed to be without malice.
• I mentioned the term "assimilation". It's an interesting word and in an immigration context it is meant to imply the absorption of individuals and family groups into mainstream Australian society. There is an implicit understanding that this process of absorption will entail the assumption of a broad range of Australian obligations, loyalties, values and characteristics. There is nothing inherently flawed or evil in that understanding as far as it goes.
• (A)ll must be prepared to obey the laws of their new home. All should predispose themselves to a loyalty for and liking of our home. But that is about as far as you can go.
• Our values and characteristics are not proprietal: no section of society, no generation past or present owns or dictates those values and characteristics.
• (T)his new wave of immigration particularly from the 70s until the present day has gone very well with some exceptions. ( ) l bet a great number of you are uneasy about a seam of friction between some of our ethnic minorities and elements of what I referred to earlier as the amorphous majority.
• I refer to an ongoing estrangement between broader society and elements of our Muslim community.
• Muslim families have been migrating to this country. By and large they have merged into society as seamlessly as any other grouping.
• It is easy to point to an estrangement between parts of the global Islamic community and all non-Muslims but especially Christians over the last 20 years or so.
• (T)he reactions to them were simply catalysts of our further failure. By that I mean that some of our Islamic community already felt alienated and isolated from the mainstream in Australia. It is a volatile mix when especially younger people are told that they are surrounded by corrupt and impious behaviour at every hand. It is unsurprising that some of them then perform in ways which stigmatises the whole Islamic community.
• All of this is exacerbated by the ongoing wider confrontation between jihadists and their range of perceived enemies around the world. In the elevated temperature and polarised views which characterise this problem, it is hard to have a neat and persuasive prescription on how we move past this.
• (W)e should be very careful before assigning major blame for the problem to our broad Australian way of life, as if the estrangement was all somehow our fault and we should change accordingly. The Australian people know that that is not true and wouldn't wear it anyway!
• (W)e are a highly moral, inclusive and stable society with the precious gifts of democracy, affluence and security. Our challenges are not beyond us.

Even while Cosgrove pretends to be direct, he does not label the Lebanese sub-group as the source of communal angst. He alludes to them talking about “Cronulla”, “December 2005”, “the group seen to be on the ‘outer’”, “The potential ‘racist’ elements in what is a litany of criminality”. The descriptors then become more amorphous, but imply the same sub-group: “the criminal incidents (conducted) are cowardly and sly and it is easy to conclude that they are racially-targeted”, “despicable behaviour ...preying on …visitors”. Those behavioural characteristics are typically Muslim, particularly Lebanese.

But the descriptors are extended further: “(the) [failure in the] absorption (by Muslims, particularly Lebanese) …of a broad range of Australian obligations, loyalties, values and characteristics”, “(they) must be prepared to obey the laws”, “(and) predispose themselves to a loyalty for and a liking of (Australia)”.

Cosgrove is right to assert in connection with the Lebanese and Muslim communities that: “no section of society… dictates those values and characteristics”.

Cosgrove then qualifies himself: “a great number of you (Australians) are uneasy about a seam of friction between some of our ethnic minorities and elements of what I referred to earlier as the amorphous majority”, “the ongoing estrangement between broader society and elements (particularly, Lebanese) of our Muslim community”. “It is a volatile mix when especially younger people are told that they are surrounded by corrupt and impious behaviour at every hand”. “(I)t is unsurprising that some of them (particularly, Lebanese) perform in ways which stigmatise the whole Islamic community”.

Cosgrove continues: “All of this is exacerbated by the ongoing wider confrontation between jihadists (who are notably Lebanese and have recently been convicted in court) and their range of perceived enemies around the world (The West). (That is), in the elevated temperature and polarised views which characterise this problem”.

Cosgrove is right to conclude that: “we should be very careful before assigning major blame for the problem to our broad Australian way of life, as if the estrangement was all somehow our fault and we should change accordingly. The Australian people know that that is not true and wouldn't wear it anyway!” “(W)e are a highly moral, inclusive and stable society with the precious gifts of democracy, affluence and security.”

Essentially, the argument thereby encapsulated (and annotated) converges with the position taken by myself at EXTREME MEASURES. That position has been challenged in the past many times, but every challenge has been met and the position has merely re-established itself. It rings true with clarity, honesty and integrity.

The antithetical argument that Cosgrove alludes to – it is interpreted - is vaunted by proponents and practitioners of Islam. They would erect their own morality to supplant what they perceive as the lack about them in Australia. That is consistent with the Muslim delusion.

At EXTREME MEASURES that point of view has been shown up as flawed, false or as nothing more than sheer sophistry. Australia and Australians do not have to change to accommodate proponents and practitioners of Islam – who to date have done little to recommend themselves. They are given space to adapt at their own pace, but adapt they must.

However, there is a dilemma with Cosgrove’s reading of the Lebanese problem, particularly in connection with proponents and practitioners of Islam.

What is that dilemma?

Cosgrove infers that the Lebanese and proponents and practitioners of Islam have been hard done by. They have been marginalised. Consequently, the loyalty to Australia of vulgar Lebs and feral Muslims has to be earned: “Loyalty in its fullest sense must be earned.” The implication is that people of the broader Australian community, or the “mainstream”, should extend their hands of friendship further to those same Lebs and Muslims so as to earn their loyalty so that those proponents and practitioners of Islam do not preach that “they are surrounded by (people who commit) corrupt and impious behaviour at every hand”. That hope is naïve.

The open appeal that “we should continue the many and various ways we engage with the broader Islamic community and especially those who have turned away from us, to bring them back” is one that fails to understand what being a Muslim is all about. Proponents and practitioners of Islam indulge the Muslim delusion and see themselves as superior and do not have any inclination to “merge” with broader society or to “assimilate”. “Multi-culturalism” is the tool they brandish to keep themselves separate from, removed from mainstream society so that they can pretend to be pure and uncorrupted. It is not a perception. It is a documented fact and viewed practice in Australia.

Cosgrove’s understanding of the problem has not evolved to the level required before people in government become more responsible and introduce policies to ‘de-Leb’ or ‘de-Islamise’ proponents and practitioners of Islam in our presence.

In support of that interpretation view the posts below:

[Post No. 92 PLENTY OF ROOM TO MOVE]

“(If) you don’t like the changes occurring within this area, move!”

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims do not want to integrate, but transform what is about them into their own image.

[Post No. 97 WHAT ISLAM ENTAILS]

“( ) about 50 Indian students (gathered) in Sydney's downmarket west for a protest rally against alleged race attacks (by Lebanese) which ended in a tense stand-off with Lebanese youths”.

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims discriminate against others unlike themselves, separating, distinguishing themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 151 THE YOUNG JIHADISTS]

"Why are you eating ham, it's Ramadan?"

"Don't eat that. How can you eat pig, it's disgusting."

“(T)he boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student.”

“One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. "He has been bullied from day one . . . about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch," she said.”

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims like to distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”. They, in fact, try to dominate representatives of the “mainstream” with their perverse beliefs.

[Post No. 124 YOU PRACTICE ALL THE DEVIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MUSLIMS]

“I do not need an understanding of theology to know the invective used by the rioters at Auburn evokes Islam. The language used had two notable, prominent characteristics. First, it was insular and separates practitioners of Islam from everybody else. Secondly, the language is an attribute of Islam and is for use by Muslims. The invective used by the proponents of Islam at Auburn invoked discriminatory, religious sentiment. It was quite simply wrong.”

“I know you are upset that I do not rate Islam as highly as you. I look at Islam in a political context. I cannot rationalise Islam in its current form as a constructive component within modern society. It contains too many problems. Some of those problems have been examined at Extreme Measures and exposed. But, it is good to see you agree that the poor reputation of Lebanese and Muslims precedes their arrival.”

That assessment is clearly self-explanatory.

[Post No. 101 TRAD IS A RACIST]

"In 2005 he (Trad) said, 'The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and...the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.'"

"'There is little doubt that many of the plaintiff's remarks are offensive to Jewish persons and homosexuals,' Justice McClellan said in his judgment.

"'Many of his remarks are distasteful and appear to condone violence.

"'I'm satisfied that the plaintiff does hold views which can properly be described as racist.

"'I'm also satisfied that he encourages others to hold those views. In particular he holds views derogatory of Jewish people.

"'The views which he holds would not be acceptable to most right-thinking Australians.'

"Mr Trad, who founded the Islamic Friendship Association, faces up to $400,000 in court costs and there are question marks over his credibility after Justice McClellan's scathing judgment."

It is clear that the chief spokesman for the Islamic community in Australia, who is Lebanese, does his utmost to separate and distinguish the Lebanese and Muslim communities from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 112 ARE MUSLIMS RACIST?]

“(There) is an attitude prevailing in Muslims of keeping themselves 'pure' and not associate with people of other religions”.

That is a clear sign that Muslims like to distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

"'Your democracy is full of hypocrisy. Sharia law is going to prevail throughout this land. ... ( ). Islam is going to rule this land.'

"'The group was ( ) motivated by "a perception that the participation of Australia in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan ... were acts of aggression against the wider Muslim community".'"

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims like to distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 132 THE PEDLARS OF LIES AND DECEIT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE]

"Belal Khazaal of Lakemba, in New South Wales, has been sentenced to at least nine years in jail for putting the terrorism handbook on the internet.

"Khazaal was born in Lebanon and moved permanently to Australia with his family in 1986.

"The court heard that since arriving in Australia, he has been studying Islam intensively.

"He worked with Qantas for 10 years as a cleaner and driver.

"Since 1994 he has been working as a volunteer journalist for the magazine Call to Islam.

"When the sentence was handed down, Khazaal supporters hurled abuse at the judge and the bar table, while outside the court they said he had been unfairly treated because he is Muslim.

"'We're not happy with this. It's not fair,' one supporter said.

"'The bloke's not guilty. He's not done nothing.'"

That is a clear sign that Muslims like to distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 122 AUBURN RIOT]

“In terms of Islam, these Lebanese Muslims were prostitutes, kaffirs, hiding behind their religion using Ramadan as an excuse to conceal criminal behaviour. They lied invoking their ‘saintliness’ to give themselves legitimacy.”

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims like to separate and distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 115 DR AMEER ALI CELEBRATES]

"'The events in Cronulla in 2005 certainly show we have a long way to go before there is true respect between people of one culture or religion (mainstream) and another (Islam)'."

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims like to separate and distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.

[Post No. 157 REPLY TO CRIMSON - HYPOCRISY OF IMMACULATE MUSLIMS]

“So, tell me Hannibal, why should we force people to accept a Society and Culture that has the highest rate of Sexual Assualt in the Western World an the 4th Highest Rate over-all?

“I am sure Australia's 340,000 Muslims would like to hear your answer.

“Can you tell me Hannibal, why should Muslims adopt the Culture that allows 20% of its children to be the victims of abuse in their own homes by the time they turn 18?”

"It is clear that your case is one bound up in hypocrisy. You are trying to argue that Muslims are better than non-Muslims. There is only one argument that stands the rigour of criticism supported by evidence. That argument demonstrates that Muslims in the Australian context, notably Lebanese, indeed need to raise their standard to become acceptable in Australia."

That is a clear sign that Lebanese and Muslims like to separate and distinguish themselves from the “mainstream”.


The hand of friendship is always extended by Australians to people who view themselves on the “outer”. That is part of a catholic tradition. However, to accept that hand of friendship, to “merge” with the “mainstream”, means that Muslims, particularly Lebanese, in the Australian context must thereby submit to an inferior status as determined by their religion.

Muslims are superior. To accept that hand of friendship means stepping down from that position of superiority and accepting equality or some subordinate status as the newcomer. For proponents and practitioners of Islam, that is not acceptable. They must reject integration and establish their own hierarchy.

"The basic tenet of the Muslim delusion is the Islamic imperative: 'Islam is to dominate'. That is the most fundamental worldview. It is a belief used to permit and rationalise anything done in the name of Islam.

"'(T)he Muslim delusion [is] where the Islamic imperative – "( ) Islam is to dominate" - is [the most] fundamental ( ) worldview'.

"[Post No. 115 DR AMEER ALI CELEBRATES]

"The imperative sounds ambitious. In the Australian context it is a delusion and should be denounced as such."

[Post No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

As deduced in Post No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM:

“Proponents and practitioners of Islam view themselves as omnipotent and omniscient. That narcissism will not permit self-doubt. The narcissist cannot cope with any difference that would question their sense of self-belief”.

It seems their attitude is summarised by stream 9, below:

9. Proponents and practitioners of Islam ( ) defend, protect and pursue the Muslim delusion.

Cosgrove’s hope is vain, but it is well-intentioned.

The appeal: “we should continue the many and various ways we engage with the broader Islamic community and especially those who have turned away from us, to bring them back”, is not one that will be received by many Lebanese and Muslims.

How will that sentiment be rationalised at the time of physical conflict between proponents and practitioners of Islam and everybody else in Australia?

How does Cosgrove account for Bilal Skaf and the Bilal Skaf Gang rapists?

Bilal Skaf was a typical Muslim: Trad tried to make him so!

“(Trad) jok(ed) about rapes committed by the Bilal Skaf gang”.

[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/judge-slams-hilali-spokesman-keysar-trad/story-0-1225756945809]

On Australia Day, commitment should be expressed to Australia: not to people of The Paedophile!

As we have seen, in the Jihad Belt the environment has become depressing. It is one oppressed by the Islamic burden typified by colourless, hooded Muslims. People move about conscious of the Islamic intrusion wary of what is about them.

The creep of Islam is upon them. Muslims resident in Bankstown, Greenacre, Lakemba, Auburn etc have staked a claim on society, on Australia.

A line has been drawn.

As Cosgrove states: “(W)e should be very careful before assigning major blame for the problem to our broad Australian way of life, as if the estrangement was all somehow our fault and we should change accordingly. The Australian people know that that is not true and wouldn't wear it anyway!” The “Australian way of life” does not need to change: the Islamic way must.

As the Cronulla Riot demonstrated about communal angst with “Lebs” for their “Lebness”, it will reach a tipping point and then erupt. That point will be reached again, perhaps somewhere different.

A reaction – justified – will be put in place. The “Leb” or Muslim hierarchy will be resisted as proponents and practitioners of Islam begin establishing it in Australia. When it is tried, there is increasingly a strident reaction.

Anyone want an Islamic school in their area? Camden? Georges Hall? Gold Coast?

I did not think so.

Why?

Advance Australia Fair.

There is nothing fair about Islam.

Cosgrove misses that point.

[CrimsonWarrior]

Sorry to break it to you Hannibal but you're not going to get much traction aguing against the views of one of Australia's most honoured and respected soldiers. Given the the then Corporal Cosgrove served in Vietnam alongside many new Australians and then as his career reached its zenith in East Timor he had the honour of commanding many new Australians abroad.

He knows more about race relations than you do Hannibal.

Secondly, there are more Chinese in Australia than Muslims and the Chinese population in Australia is growing faster than the Muslims population.

Perhaps you and your Klan mates Hannibal are barking up the wrong tree?

Not only do you know nothing about what you're arguing about Hannibal you also make it quite easy to destroy whatever drivel you offer as argument.

Regards,

Crimson

[Hannibal]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/muslim-feminists-deserve-to-be-heard-20100127-mywf.html?posted=error

Muslim feminists deserve to be heard

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH AND SUSAN CARLAND

January 28, 2010

Women don't have to give up Islam for rights, argue Randa Abdel-Fattah and Susan Carland.

Orientalists writing on Islam and Muslims have tended to represent Muslim women as infantilised and oppressed, victims in need of rescue by the enlightened West. This is a classic example of the tyranny of self-projection, where the ''rescuer'' assumes a position of superiority so the belief systems, values and norms of Muslim women are judged against the Western experience.

The work of Muslim human rights and social justice advocates is discredited and ignored. It is as if liberation and freedom are the monopoly of secular feminists. Muslim women are apparently too downtrodden to care to make a difference.

If they do insist on fighting for equality and justice within an Islamic perspective, their efforts are dismissed, assuming freedom and Islam are mutually exclusive, or, worse, that Muslim women are brainwashed, suffering from a form of religious Stockholm syndrome.

This patronising discourse arrogantly assumes the way to overcome patriarchy is to abandon Islam and adopt ''Western values''. How can a constructive effort to improve the situation of women begin when the conversation is so unsophisticated, demeaning and primitive?

Muslim women have engaged in the quest for dignity, democracy and human rights, for full participation in political and social affairs, since the time of Prophet Mohammed. As Amina Wadud, the American-Islamic feminist scholar, said: ''By going back to primary sources and interpreting them afresh, women scholars are endeavouring to remove the fetters imposed by centuries of patriarchal interpretation and practice.''

And although you may not hear much about them, Muslim women and men are doing much to improve the plight of women, from grassroots projects to legal activism and religious leadership training. They see Islam not as a stumbling block to progress, but as a platform for change.

In Jordan, there is a strong push, spearheaded by journalist Rana Husseini, to fight honour killings. Husseini's team has publicised each crime despite death threats. She has led the charge for law reform and mobilised protest rallies, which even princes from the Jordanian royal family have attended. Far from fighting Islam to achieve this, Husseini tells the murderers during interviews that their acts contradict the teachings of Islam and are punishable by God. Most of them concede this.

In Malaysia, groups such as Sisters in Islam offer free legal clinics to teach women their rights under Sharia and civil law, run campaigns to stop domestic violence and hold education programs for women with a goal of "justice and equality within the family".

In the United Arab Emirates, Ahmed al Haddad, the head of the Islamic Affairs and Charitable Activities Department, has started a program to train women to become muftis. Previously, women religious advisers were only allowed to speak on "women's issues".

The training will enable them to work as equals to men in issuing religious rulings in all areas. There is nothing new in this. Islamic history is "rich in examples of highly learned women acting as muftis and issuing decrees on all matters", al Haddad said.

The Shura Council of the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity, an advisory council comprising of Muslim women scholars, activists and specialists from around the world, aims to "critically engage with dominant Islamic interpretations of social issues and practices and promote religiously grounded arguments that enable women to make dignified choices based on their own religious tradition".

There is a long way to go for women in many Muslim societies, just as there is for women everywhere. But if we are interested in change, it is time to let go of outdated Orientalist arguments and ill-informed generalisations that see Islam as ''The Problem''.

It is time to respect the fact that Muslim women are fighting for their rights and doing so without giving up their allegiance and commitment to Islam. Their quest does not stem from imported Western values but is integral to the Islamic tradition. Demonising their convictions is unhelpful - and a repudiation of the feminist ideal of the right for women to autonomy and freedom of choice.

Randa Abdel-Fattah is a lawyer and author, and Susan Carland is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.


COMMENT

The article was an interesting read. It reads like the ladies who put the article together about Muslim feminists are trying desperately to make Islam and Islamic culture sound quite sophisticated on par with that of the West.

It reads like something written by Muslim bigots. It grossly mis-states the real situation and presents something inconsistent with current experience.

Burkha anyone?

In the replies by many with a pro-Islamic bend at the site there seems to be a lot of confusion about Islam and the place of the Koran and what is written. Those proponents of Islam parade how women in Islam are liberated or are trying to liberate themselves in a peculiarly Islamic way and parade the Koran as the source of truth. That is rot.

In Islam, Mohammed the Prophet is to be emulated. But, those proponents of Islam who talk about how great the feminist movement is in Islam and how doing everything by the Koran is the best for everybody have conveniently overlooked the fact Mohammed - who recited the Koran - at age 54 had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent minor, Aisha, when she was 9 years old. He had groomed her for three years prior. Aisha turned 18 on Mohammed’s death.

As I see it, that is child abuse: abuse of a little girl. I do know that proponents of Islam make lots of excuses for this 'little dent' in their religious theory, but the question lingers.

How can proponents and practitioners of Islam speak about the rights of women when the icon of Islam abused girls? Already, we have had Taj Hilaly - the highest religious authority in Australia for Islam - talk about women as 'catsmeat'. The Bilal Skaf Gang rapists are overlooked when proponents of Islam talk about how great Islam is and then try to demean everything non-Muslim.

They also forget about the tried and convicted terrorists who wanted to install Sharia Law in Australia: "Islam is going to rule this land". I wonder where the rights of Muslim women would be then without protection by Australian law?

[Post No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

I hear silence.

Do Muslims commit pederasty, too?

[Hannibal]

http://express.whereilive.com.au/news/story/not-all-muslims-approve-of-halal-products-read-this-in-arabic/


Not all Muslims approve of halal products: Read this in Arabicالمسلمون ليسوا جميعاً مرتاحين إلى المن

17 Feb 10 @ 04:33pm

فقد قالت عزيزة رفاعي، وهي من منطقة وايلي بارك، بأنها فوجئت بأن كريم اليدين ماركة Rosken الذي اشترته من Woolworths منذ أسبوعين يحمل ملصقة الحلال.
وقالت: “الحلال ليس كلمة تستخدمها لكريم اليدين أو أي علاج طبي آخر، بل هو للطعام الذي نأكله والشراب الذي نشربه”.
“أعتقد أن هذه الشركات تستخدم كلمة حلال كأداة تسويقية لجذب مزيد من الناس إلى منتجاتها”.
“ليس من الحق أبداً الترويج لأشياء بوضع كلمة حلال عليها، خاصة كريم اليدين. إننا لا نريد أن نكون أداة للترويج.”
إلاّ أن ناطقة باسم Roskenقالت إن مجموعة مستحضرات الترطيب حصلت على شهادة حلال لأن الكثير منها يُباع في ماليزيا حيث غالبية السكان من المسلمين.
ويقول الاتحاد الأسترالي للمجالس الإسلامية إن الحلال كلمة عربية تعني “شرعياً” أو “مسموحاً به”.
ويُحظّر على المسلمين استهلاك دم الحيوانات.
إلاّ أن السيدة رفاعي قالت إنها ليست المرة الأولى التي تلجأ فيها شركة كبرى إلى استغلال معتقدات الدين الإسلامي باستخدام كلمة حلال لبيع منتجاتها.
وقالت: “منذ عدة سنوات كان في منطقتنا قصّاب قليل الدخل، فما كان منه إلاّ أن وضع إشارة حلال أمام دكانه ليجذب الزبائن. وهو لم يكن يعرف معنى كلمة حلال”.
وقال نائب رئيس المجلس الإسلامي علي رودة إن على الشركات تقديم تقرير كامل إلى منظمة إسلامية إذا طلبت الحصول على شهادة حلال لمنتجاتها.
هناك منتجات ممنوعة كالجلاتين الذي يحتوي على كولاجين حيواني.
وقال السيد رودة إن الكثير من المنتجات تُعطى شهادات حلال كي يمكن بيعها في بلدان إسلامية في الخارج، مثل إندونيسيا.
وعند تقييمها يجب إحالتها على مستشار ديني قبل إصدار الشهادة.
وقال السيد رودة: عندما يتصل بنا أحدهم فإننا نتأكّد من فحص المنتج فحصاً دقيقاً”.
“ونحن لا ننظر إلى الأمور من زاوية تجارية، إذ أن اهتمامنا أن يكون المنتج حلالاً. لدينا هدف أخلاقي وديني لأن نقول للشركة - نعم يمكنكم متابعة الإنتاج، ليس هناك ما يقلقكم-”.


COMMENT

In Post 167 COSGROVE'S AUSTRALIA DAY APPEAL, we have:

"As we have seen, in the Jihad Belt the environment has become depressing. It is one oppressed by the Islamic burden typified by colourless, hooded Muslims. People move about conscious of the Islamic intrusion wary of what is about them.

"The creep of Islam is upon them. Muslims resident in Bankstown, Greenacre, Lakemba, Auburn etc have staked a claim on society, on Australia."

The article above is an example of the creep of Islam.

This is a provocative article.

Why was it on the front page of the Canterbury-Bankstown Express?

The mindless meanderings of Muslims are not worthy of such prominence.

There seems some outrage that the terminology applicable to Islam "Halal" is being used for commercial purposes and not in accord with the teachings of Islam.

So what?

The teachings of Islam have no currency in Australia. The fact that some products have the "Halal" symbol stamped on the side as if to certify that they are acceptable for people of the Islamic community to eat also comes with the other associations.

Where "Halal" means acceptable, suitable or correct it also invokes the Koran and Sharia Law. They get legitimacy from the utterances of Mohammed made during his life. He is the so-called Prophet idolised by Muslims. But, Mohammed was a paedophile who had sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent minor Aisha at age 9 when he was 54 years old.

That comes with the "Halal" symbol, too. Companies who certify products as "Halal" are tacitly supporting paedophilia.

The "Halal" culture is racially discriminating, too, as it excludes non-Muslims who in Australia are usually non-Arabic, non-Lebanese.

“Halal” is not Good!

[Also see Post No. 134 HALAL IS SHAMEFUL]

[Hannibal]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/muslim-leader-wants-elements-of-sharia-in-australia-20100307-pqlo.html


Muslim Leader Wants Elements of Sharia in Australia

PAUL BIBBY

March 8, 2010

ELEMENTS of Islamic law - the sharia - should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says.

Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,'' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session.

''I don't think we are so unsophisticated that we cannot consider a multilayered legal system as long as it doesn't conflict with the existing civil system.''

The comments shocked some attending the open day. They felt Dr Matthews was advocating the introduction of the penal system under which women have been stoned to death for adultery, and corporal punishment is meted out for some offences.

''It came as quite a shock to some non-Muslims in the crowd when sharia law and the idea of a parallel legal system was mentioned,'' one audience member, Jasmine Donnelly, said.

''One group of people just left straight after that.''

But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system.

''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said.

Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said.

''There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision.

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''



http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/call-for-sharia-law-in-australia/20100308-pr2o.html?page=3


Call for Sharia Law in Australia

Posted by: 2UE | 8 March, 2010 - 9:15 AM

The Australian Islamic Mission says it's call for having Sharia Law made legal in Australia is not a high priority. The body says Sharia could be a secondary legal system similar to traditional Indigenous laws in the Northern Territory.

President of the Islamic Mission Zacariah Matthews says the issue is not likely to make it onto the National Agenda for some time.



COMMENT

From POST NO. 167 COSGROVE'S AUSTRALIA DAY APPEAL, we have:

"The antithetical argument that Cosgrove alludes to – it is interpreted - is vaunted by proponents and practitioners of Islam. They would erect their own morality to supplant what they perceive as the lack about them in Australia. That is consistent with the Muslim delusion."

Has it not occurred to people that the war has already begun?

It began long ago in Australia. It began with those Lebanese gang bashings. The Bilal Skaf Gang rapes were another front. They were an assault on Australian culture.

A propaganda war has been under way for a long, long time. Remember Keysar Trad and his descriptions of Islam as the 'Religion of Peace' and how anyone who disagreed with him was a 'bigot'! The same tirade is used day in and day out by proponents and practitioners of Islam until we relent.

The ‘Call for Sharia Law’ broadside is to plant into our communal consciousness the idea until we agree to accept it in some form. That is the flexible, democratic, compassionate, conciliatory Christian thing to do to help our neighbour.

We are being deceived.

Doesn't Islam deserve respect?

[Hannibal]

A question was asked at the end of Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM.

That question was framed:

“With the conviction of proponents and practitioners of Islam, Muslims in Australia have suffered yet another public relations disaster. It has all been done at their own hands.

“But, how has the Islamic community responded?”

The response is evaluated below.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/alqaeda-at-city-mosque-20100414-se8g.html

Al-Qaeda at city mosque

ERIK JENSEN

April 15, 2010

EXCLUSIVE

AN AL-QAEDA recruiter, described as the No. 1 terrorist threat to America, was engaged by a Sydney youth group to address hundreds of young people - a decision that has caused deep divisions at one of Australia's largest mosques.

At the same time as Anwar al-Awlaki was advising the extremist later charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, he was in talks with a group, Sydney Muslim Youth, about delivering a sermon to young Australians. He was already well known to security agencies as the spiritual guide to three of the hijackers on September 11, 2001.

''Anwar al-Awlaki is like a virus produced by the body wanting to fight a microbe,'' said Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, condemning the sermon, which was delivered at his mosque by phone link from Yemen.

According to US authorities, about the time of the sermon Mr Awlaki was transforming himself from radical cleric to trainer and recruiter for al-Qaeda.

Last week, Mr Awlaki became the first US citizen added to the CIA kill list. He is considered a military enemy of the US and faces assassination by special forces.

"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words," a US official told The New York Times. "He's gotten involved in plots."
The chairwoman of the US house subcommittee on homeland security, Jane Harman, called Mr Awlaki "terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us".

The bomber who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day last year reportedly described Mr Awlaki as his trainer and recruiter.

The Herald attended the sermon at the Lakemba mosque in February last year but was ejected by organisers. Yesterday, no one involved with the mosque would take responsibility for securing Mr Awlaki as a speaker.

According to a director of the mosque, Ziad Ghamraoui, Shady Alsuleiman was in charge of organising evening youth events at the time of the sermon. Sheikh Shady refused to comment. He would not say whether Mr Awlaki was paid and would not comment on the subject of his speech.

Since Mr Awlaki's lecture, all speakers must now be approved by the mosque. Mr Ghamraoui said: ''We need to make sure that it's only moderate scholars that are coming.''

The senior imam at the mosque, Sheikh Hilaly, condemned provocative clerics who radicalised young people. ''They are like fast food who give no substance and no spiritual nutrition,'' he said.

''Our young people these days like loud voices. They seem to like Rambo and Schwarzenegger and the imam who raises his voice and appears tough.''

IslamicMedia.com.au, an initiative of the Shady-affiliated United Muslims of Australia, streamed but did not record the speech and has 15 other audio sermons from the imam.

On other websites, not hosted in Australia, Mr Awlaki supports jihad with phrases such as: ''The messenger of Allah said … whoever kills a non-believer can meet him''.

The NSW counter-terrorism squad, which has previously described Mr Awlaki as ''of great concern to us'', was unavailable for comment.


COMMENT

What did you expect?

With the conviction of proponents and practitioners of Islam in court, how has the Islamic community responded?

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

At the citadel of all things Lebanese and Muslim, Lakemba Mosque, an insidious cleric preached hate to impressionable Muslim youth.

The Lebanese Muslim Association runs Lakemba Mosque.

I think people are aware that Lebanese Muslim youths in Australia are resentful. They have a reputation for lashing out.

[Post No. 1 EXTREME MEASURSES]

Consequently, the Lebanese Muslim community has a terrible name.

What is even more amusing is that Taj Hilaly – the senior imam at the mosque – condemned the “provocative cleric who radicalised young people”.

Taj Hilaly?

Since when did Taj Hilaly get the moral authority to condemn anything in Australia?

Taj Hilaly rationalised and justified rape on non-Muslim women by Muslim men with his infamous ‘Catsmeat’ sermon.

Thus:

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

And,

“’In the state of zina (in Islam, extramarital sex and premarital sex). the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement [ ].’”

And,

“ Hilaly ( ) claimed ( ) that ‘if a woman ( ) shows herself off, (then) she is to blame (for the rape)...but a man should be able to control himself.’”

And,

“He also (gave) reference( ) to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, (and) said that women (who) would ‘sway suggestively’ before men (would cause rape) ‘and then [the men] get a judge without mercy [ ] (who) gives [them] 65 years’”.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic)]

Taj Hilaly is cause for incredulity.

Now what is he doing?

Taj Hilaly is condemning an Islamic cleric?

Why?

Because that Islamic cleric promulgates perverse teachings?

The cleric propounded a means by which to reach the same end that Taj Hilaly and all other committed Muslims, particularly at Lakemba Mosque, work for, strive for, hope to achieve?

Taj Hilaly is merely feigning moral indignation of al-Awlaki.

Why?

Taj Hilaly has been put on the spot.

Why?

Reporters at the Sydney Morning Herald knew about the al-Awlaki sermon well before al-Awlaki spoke.

Why did Taj Hilaly not?

As senior imam at the mosque, why did Taj Hilaly not put a stop to al-Awlaki promulgating perverse Islamic teachings?

“Al-Awlaki has been accused of Islamic fundamentalism and encouraging terrorism. According to some analysts, al-Awlaki is an adherent of the Wahhabi fundamentalist sect of Islam. Harry Helms, author of a book on 9/11, called his sermons extremely anti-Israel and pro-jihad”.

“He has been noted for targeting young men with his lectures, especially U.S.-based and Britain-based Muslims. Terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann calls al-Awlaki ‘one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination.’

“[Evan Kohlmann] calls al-Awlaki's [sermon] ‘Constants on the Path of Jihad’, ( ) based on a similar document written by al-Qaeda's founder (Osama bin Laden), the ‘virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists’."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki]

Why did Taj Hilaly not stop the sermon?

Because al-Awlaki was a Muslim cleric?

If not Taj Hilaly, why did someone else senior at the Mosque not put a stop to such a sermon?

Why did Sheikh Shady engage him?

What did the cleric speak about?

Why did al-Awlaki speak from Yemen where he is in exile?

Had he not already been caught up in trouble?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki]

Something should have registered amid the Islamic community about al-Awlaki’s sordid past if the Islamic community is able to properly manage its own affairs. If people of the Islamic community want change in Australia to suit themselves as they continually assert then the Islamic community should get its own house in order first and be able to show it can properly manage its own affairs so as to have some credibility when propounding such prescriptions.

[Post No. 171 CALL FOR SHARIA LAW IN AUSTRALIA]

Why were they so ignorant of al-Awlaki’s malfeasance?

Unless, they are feigning ignorance.

How could they do that?

“The (Lebanese Muslim) association maintains that it did not know about Awlaki's extremism when he spoke in 2009. They now say the phone link malfunctioned after 10 minutes. The board said he only radicalised after he was imprisoned without charge in Yemen. Earlier, he had been linked to three of the September 11 hijackers. This, the association says, was not clear.”

[http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mosque-plagued-by-ageold-problem-20100423-tj3y.html]

Of course, we all know that Yemen is a bastion for liberal, modern, progressive Islamic thinkers (NOT).

[http://www.islamawareness.net/MiddleEast/Yemen/islam.html]

Anyone speaking from exile in Yemen deserves a good hearing!

That is, especially, by Muslim youth in Australia.

Unable to answer questions about or take responsibility for their actions, those proponents and practitioners of Islam at Lakemba Mosque are true to form and true to their convictions. They are deceitful.

This raises more questions about the commitment of members of the Islamic community, particularly Lebanese, to Australia.

Australia repudiates whatever the Islamic, particularly Lebanese, community hopes to stand for.

What is to be taught at Islamic schools?
______________________________________________________________________________

You might question that interpretation by saying Al-Awlaki is a radical, an extremist.

Al-Awlaki promulgates hate and teachings at odds with moderate Islam. Al-Awlaki is not a moderate like the majority of proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia.

So, why was he invited to speak at Lakemba Mosque?

Extremists versus moderates?

Moderates?

What do the ‘moderates’ stand for?

“The Lebanese and Muslim communities have a common, mutual, binding hate of anything Jewish. That view is at odds with the Australian community. That racism does not sit well inside Australian society.

“An anti-Israeli view sits well with those who indulge the Muslim delusion.

“That is common thinking.

“For the Lebanese and Islamic communities, the top, the bottom, the patricians and the plebeians, they all speak with the same voice. The extremists and the moderates are one. People in the Lebanese and Muslim communities think like their leaders.”

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

What do you think al-Awlaki spoke about at the sermon to Muslim youth in Australia?

About peace? About how Israel can be reconciled with Hezbollah in Lebanon on equal terms? How Israel can be reconciled with the rest of the Middle East like Ahmadinejad’s Iran? How love for the Jewish people, particularly in Australia, is the best course?

Not likely.

So what do we have?

Al-Awlaki preaching hate to resentful Lebanese Muslim youth.

Do Lebanese Muslim youth have a good reputation in Australia?

What is to be taught at Islamic schools?
____________________________________________________________________________________

The reputation of Lebanese Muslim youth hovers at about the same level as that of Bilal Skaf.

Skaf?

The icon for disaffected proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia.

The icon?

Proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia never talk about the Bilal Skaf Gang rapes.

Why?

Proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia ignore Skaf to trumpet their own virtue.

[Post No. 169 LISTENING TO MUSLIM FEMINISTS]

Yet Skaf is the perfect Muslim in Australia. Skaf indulged the Muslim delusion.

Mohammed, the icon of Islam, is to be emulated.

This was highlighted at Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM:

“The Bilal Skaf Gang rapists were under the influence of an exuberant imagination, slaves of sensual passion, cruel and revengeful, and utterly unscrupulous as to the means of success. In such character, they demonstrated the selfish ambition and the love of power and glory of Mohammed.

“The Bilal Skaf Gang rapists saw themselves as perfect. They were arrogant. They exploited their victims. They conducted themselves with a sense of entitlement.

“Proponents and practitioners of Islam view themselves as omnipotent and omniscient. That narcissism will not permit self-doubt. The narcissist cannot cope with any difference that would question their sense of self-belief.”
_____________________________________________________________________________

So what do the ‘moderates’ stand for?

The extremists and the moderates are one.

The extremists and moderates think the same and aspire to exactly the same things.

Evidence?

One of the ‘extremists’, a proponent and practitioner of Islam convicted of terrorism, trucked off from court howled:

“Your democracy is full of hypocrisy. Sharia law is going to prevail throughout this land. ... ( ). Islam is going to rule this land."

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Sharia law?

Sharia law is the tenet of Islam. Sharia law prescribes “the ‘way’ Muslims should live or the ‘path’ they must follow”.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia]

The proponent and practitioner of Islam convicted of terrorism wanted Sharia law to prevail throughout Australia.

That terrorist was an extremist?

The moderates want the same thing:

“Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of Sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. '’Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session.”

[Post No. 171 CALL FOR SHARIA LAW IN AUSTRALIA]

So what do the ‘moderates’ stand for?

The extremists and the moderates are one.

The extremists and moderates think the same and aspire to exactly the same things.

“Islam has a perverse didactic philosophy that erects itself with its own tenets about adherents as an all-encompassing, life-guiding ‘religion’ irrefutable. Some people like that, want that. Some people cannot see beyond that. Proponents and practitioners of Islam accept those tenets. Those tenets extrapolate out and create an irrevocable, necessary ideal: the Muslim delusion.”

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Hence, the proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot and do not care to or dare to distinguish between moderates and extremists. Why? They are one. They aspire to exactly the same things.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lakemba Mosque gets another mention!

Seriously, Lakemba Mosque is a pit fit for Australia’s paedophiles: proponents and practitioners of Islam who lurk about with demented thinking.

But, how will this thinking and practice affect mainstream Australia? How has Australia responded to this new multi-cultural influence?

Well, those questions have already flowed back through to the courts.

Thus:


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/when-laws-clash-with-culture-20100415-shfy.html

When laws clash with culture

JAMES SPIGELMAN

April 16, 2010

Sexism in the European cultural tradition has been attacked on a broad front, including violence against women. However, there are important racial, ethnic and religious minorities in Australia who come from nations with sexist traditions which, in some respects, are even more pervasive than those of the West.

Violence against women is significantly greater in some social groups, whether or not it is based on cultural tradition. This may well involve conflicts between values that are difficult to resolve.

Clearly, on the criminalisation of physical violence the majority culture is not able to compromise. However, questions arise about enforcement and sentencing. It is difficult to know where to draw the line in cases where policies underlying these laws conflict with other policies recognising the respect that should be given to minority cultures.

This has become most acute in the Australian context in terms of the indigenous community, most clearly in the Northern Territory intervention triggered by revelations of physical abuse of women and children, mainly girls.

I take heart from the observations of Mick Dodson when he said: ''We have no cultural traditions based on humiliation, degradation and violation . . . Most of the violence, if not all, that our brittle communities are experiencing today [is] not part of Aboriginal tradition or culture.''

Throughout Europe significant issues have arisen, particularly for Islamic and south Asian communities, extending to honour crimes and forced marriages. As we have significant communities from the Middle East and south Asia in Australia, we are unlikely to avoid similar issues.

There is now an extensive literature on crimes of honour, not only focusing on Islamic communities. Research has been conducted in Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, Egypt and Iraq, but similar crimes of honour occur in Italy and in various jurisdictions of Latin America.

The entire idea of ''honour'' in this context is generally based on a historical legacy of women as, in substance, the property of their male relatives.

I first came across this issue in Australia in the Court of Criminal Appeal. A man attempted to engage a person to murder his niece. She had entered into an unhappy and forced marriage in Jordan. She formed a relationship with a man of whom the family did not approve, left her family home and moved to a refuge, taking out an apprehended violence order against her father, mother and husband.

The accused and his family were Jordanian Orthodox Christians. The issues were cultural rather than religious. Indeed, the man with whom the niece had a relationship was Muslim. The uncle asked a private investigation firm how much it would cost to have his niece killed.

The sentencing task posed acute issues as to the extent to which the family's cultural sense of disgrace should be taken into account in the sentencing discretion. The proposed victim gave evidence in support of her uncle's case.

Motive is significant in sentencing, as are personal and general deterrence, and these are difficult issues calling for judgment based on experience. However, this must also be informed by the broader social context, including the emphasis now given to preventing violence against women, even if motivated by cultural considerations.

In another Australian case, a young Sicilian girl had been abducted and kept by force in Italy. The dishonour to her family was such that custom would have obliged her father to kill her if she did not marry her kidnapper. The judge annulled the Italian marriage on the ground of duress.

There is no way of avoiding the dilemma arising from this conflict of values. The recognition that certain rights are fundamental will play an important role in establishing the basis for resolving the issues. This will occur in migration, family law and criminal justice, including whether provocation based on cultural or religious factors downgrades a charge of murder to manslaughter.

In a case where a Turkish Muslim was accused of killing his daughter over her alleged sexual relationship with her boyfriend, an Australian judge left provocation to the jury.

The NSW law of provocation distinguishes two matters: first, the gravity and effect of the provocation and, secondly, the response of the accused by a loss of self-control. It has been held cultural background is relevant to the first limb, but not the second. While in most honour killings evidence of deliberation and planning is inconsistent with the loss of self-control, some argue that approach is contrary to the principle of equality before the law.

Such considerations have not been accepted as satisfying the loss of self-control limb of the test of provocation. Nevertheless, there is tension between gender bias considerations and cultural respect considerations in determining what the overriding value of equality before the law requires in a particular case. It is a very real challenge to balance the objective of cultural equality and diversity against the protection of women from gender-based violence.

The difficulties involved have been highlighted in the continuing debate about violence in Aboriginal communities, but similar issues could arise for a number of ethnic and religious groups in our society.

Human rights norms are, to a substantial degree, based on assumptions about individual autonomy, the full implications of which are not universally accepted, including by women members of these social groups.

The demands of filial piety and the need for social inclusion are not simply imposed. They are often internalised and accepted. Many women will find it hard to resolve the conflict between their desire for personal freedom and fulfilment of their social and family obligations. Whatever their origins, the latter are deeply felt.

There can be no compromise with acts of violence. However, the enforcement of laws designed to minimise violence does give rise to a complex range of issues about which debate will continue.

James Spigelman is the Chief Justice of NSW. This is an edited extract from his speech last night to the Law, Governance and Social Justice Forum at the University of NSW.

And.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sexist-migrants-create-legal-problem-20100415-shs6.html

Sexist migrants create legal problem

JOEL GIBSON LEGAL AFFAIRS

April 16, 2010

Jim Spigelman ... conflict of values.

AUSTRALIAN courts will increasingly have to grapple with the sexist cultural traditions of minorities from the Middle East and south Asia, the state's most senior judge says, and will find it difficult without more support from politicians.

After 200 years of debate about how to deal with Aboriginal customary law, the Chief Justice, Jim Spigelman, said the country's growing diversity was creating new conflicts about how to deal with the customs of immigrant populations.

''There are important racial, ethnic and religious minorities in Australia who come from nations with sexist traditions which, in some respects, are even more pervasive than those of the West,'' he said last night.

The legal dilemmas include honour crimes, forced marriages and other examples of violence against women, he said, but such cases exposed a rift between support for universal rights and our purported belief in tolerance.

And unlike in Britain, where forced marriages have been outlawed, Australia lacks the laws to deal with them.

Australian courts have begun hearing cases - common in Europe - where Western and international law clash with traditional values.

In the case of Hami Qutami in 2001, a Jordanian Christian tried to hire someone to kill his niece, who was in a relationship with a Muslim. Qutami argued that the family's shame and the niece's forgiveness should mitigate his sentence.

In a case in 1973, a Sicilian girl was abducted in Italy. Her father would have been culturally obliged to kill her if she did not marry her kidnapper, but the Australian court annulled the marriage on the ground of duress.

In a speech at the University of NSW on violence against women, Justice Spigelman said judges had to decide such cases with one eye on stopping violence against women, ''even if motivated by cultural considerations''.

But experience in dealing with Aboriginal customary law shows imposing Western ideals is not always the answer.

''Human rights norms are, to a substantial degree, based on assumptions about individual autonomy, the full implications of which are not universally accepted …

''There is a fundamental conflict between a human rights approach to these matters, on the one hand, and the tolerance of cultural traditions, based on an assumption of an equality between cultures, on the other hand … There is no way of avoiding the dilemma arising from this conflict of values.''

In Australia the trafficking of under-age people for a forced marriage was illegal, but there were no criminal sanctions for obtaining consent to marry through duress, he said.

In Britain the government passed laws in 2007 allowing the family court to prevent forced marriages and stop intimidation.


COMMENT

As Chief Justice of NSW, the essential element of James Spigelman’s speech at the Law, Governance and Social Justice Forum at the University of NSW on Thursday, 15 April 2010, was that:

“There is no way of avoiding the dilemma arising from this conflict of values. The recognition that certain rights are fundamental will play an important role in establishing the basis for resolving the issues. This will occur in migration, family law and criminal justice, including whether provocation based on cultural or religious factors downgrades a charge of murder to manslaughter”.

Spigelman has permitted a suspect criminal’s cultural background and immediate environment to influence the legal process and its outcome.

That is damning.

Why?

There is now a chip in the veneer of Australian law where Sharia law could be used as the rationale for criminal behaviour in the Australian context and the courts would have to award some consideration to this mitigating fact: “provocation based on cultural or religious factors downgrades a charge of murder to manslaughter”.

''There is a fundamental conflict between a human rights approach to these matters, on the one hand, and the tolerance of cultural traditions, based on an assumption of an equality between cultures, on the other hand … There is no way of avoiding the dilemma arising from this conflict of values.''

The Bilal Skaf Gang rapists would find relief by such consideration.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam can commit no wrong. Keyar Trad - a member of the Lebanese Muslim Association (again) - would confirm that. That is, especially against non-Muslims, notably women and Jews.

[http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mosque-plagued-by-ageold-problem-20100423-tj3y.html]

[Post No. 101 TRAD IS A RACIST]

In conclusion, what do we have?

At Lakemba Mosque, Anwar al-Awlaki – an extremist Muslim cleric – propagated perversions to young proponents and practitioners of Islam. “Al-Awlaki has been accused of Islamic fundamentalism and encouraging terrorism.” But, no one is prepared to take responsibility for arranging his sermon, one that would not be positively inclined toward Israel or Jewish people at least.

That attitude is reflected in, synchronises with, the disposition of Sydney Muslim Youth.

For example,

“BOYCOTT ISRAEL CAMPAIGN !!!!!!!!

“Fed up with what Israel is doing to our brothers and sisters in Palestine? Well stop giving them the financial support, boycott ALL Israelli and American products, stop supporting those who kill our brothers and sisters! Join the campaign NOW”

[http://www.sydneymuslimyouth.com/]

[http://www.inminds.com/boycott-israel.php]

From reading about his extremist background, al-Awlaki would motivate Muslim youth to emulate the convicted terrorists like the one who declared “Sharia law is going to prevail throughout this land. ... ( ).”

That extremist thinking is also the thinking of moderate Muslims!

Thus:

''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory.''

Consequently, the Muslim delusion is to affect the Australian legal system.

In assessing the motivation of suspect criminals who are proponents and practitioners of Islam, the Courts would give consideration to Sharia law as a justifying motivating factor. That is demonstrated by the primacy of obligatory ‘honour killings’ as motivation in the Islamic community.

“(A) Turkish Muslim was accused of killing his daughter over her alleged sexual relationship with her boyfriend, an Australian”.

Thereby, the Muslim delusion will be given legitimacy.
______________________________________________________________________

Already, we have seen Islamic women in Australia assert that everything Islam is every part as sophisticated as everything in the West. That is, the tenet of Islam Sharia Law has as much legitimacy as does any Australian law. Despite their garb, Muslim women are not oppressed. Taj Hilaly was right with his ‘catsmeat’ sermon!

The honour killings are just!

“Muslim women and men are doing much to improve the plight of women, from grassroots projects to legal activism and religious leadership training. They see Islam not as a stumbling block to progress, but as a platform for change.”

In fact, “there is a strong push [ ] to fight honour killings.”

[Post No. 169 LISTENING TO MUSLIM FEMINISTS]

Islam is a “platform for change”? Meanwhile, honour killings are the norm?
What does that translate to mean?

Islam is confounded.
______________________________________________________________________________________

As a result, the Australian legal system and Australian culture will become contaminated by, polluted by, the irrational teachings of Mohammed the Paedophile.

That is morally abase. It is disgusting.

“Islam is a monstrosity.”

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

So what has been the reaction by proponents and practitioners of Islam to the conviction of those terrorists? They have merely continued to push the same agenda down different channels. They can now see results: “a chip in the veneer of Australian law”.

What does Sharia entail?

“(T)he subjugation and brutalization of women, the persecution of homosexuals, honour killings, the beheading of apostates and the stoning of adulterers.”

[http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2009/FREEDOM.html]

What is to be taught at Islamic schools?

Remember , too, that while that terrorist who announced the Muslim agenda was being tried in court after a length of time in custody, Sydney Muslim Youth entertained a “provocative cleric who radicalise(s) young people”.

So what is the critical observation?

Proponents and practitioners of Islam are continuing to pursue the Muslim delusion. They are pursuing it down different channels aside the use of terrorism to advance their cause. To do this, they feign ignorance and innocence while pushing the implementation of their agenda.

Their agenda has not changed. In Australia, Lakemba Mosque is pivotal to the implementation of that agenda.

As demonstrated by “the ‘Call for Sharia Law’ broadside ( ) [proponents and practitioners of Islam work] to plant [their delusion] into our communal consciousness ( ) until we agree to accept it in some form [and permit its implementation]. [After all,] that is the flexible, democratic, compassionate, conciliatory Christian thing to do to help our neighbour.”

[Post No. 171 CALL FOR SHARIA LAW IN AUSTRALIA]

That has been the reaction by proponents and practitioners of Islam and of Australia in response to the conviction of proponents and practitioners of Islam for terrorism.

“’The basic tenet of the Muslim delusion is the Islamic imperative: “Islam is to dominate”. That is the most fundamental worldview. It is a belief used to permit and rationalise anything done in the name of Islam.

“’(T)he Muslim delusion [is] where the Islamic imperative – “( ) Islam is to dominate” - is [the most] fundamental ( ) worldview’.

[Post No. 115 DR AMEER ALI CELEBRATES]

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Hence, streams 1 and 7 of those steams previously uncovered have been invoked:

1. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are prepared, willingly, to conspire to pursue the Muslim delusion, the imperative that Islam is to dominate society and polity; and

7. Proponents and practitioners of Islam must defend and protect the Muslim delusion at all costs: deceit and manipulation are permissible.

[Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Why should Australia and Australians belittle themselves in the face of people of such demented culture giving them any credibility particularly in the courts?

What is to be taught at Islamic schools?

[Spot of Borg]

Hannibal - what is your point exactly? In a nutshell?

Spot

[CrimsonWarrior]

[Brendiggg]

Try masturbation for a much more time efficient release of tension, Hannibal.

[Hannibal]

Post No. 173

Spot –

“Hannibal - what is your point exactly? In a nutshell?”

Post No.174

Crimson Warrior -

“Hannibal doesn't have a point, he merely repeats himself endlessly in order to believe his own misguided, ill-informed lie that he prefers to perpetuate over living a normal life.

“His argument was bunk when he started and it is still bunk.

“The arrest of the Hutaree Christian Militia in the US of A put the final nail in the coffin.”

(Spelling and grammatical errors noted have been corrected)

Post No. 175

Brendiggg –

“Try masturbation for a much more time efficient release of tension, Hannibal.”


COMMENT

First, I would like to thank you for your comments. It seems some people are looking for attention.

It has been a long time, Spot, since you have shown any interest in the debate at EXTREME MEASURES. Even when you have you have not inspired one with your ability to comprehend much about what is at play. If you were to ask some pertinent questions, I might be able to deduce what it is you are talking about.

I would prefer to read an effort like with Crimson where when I read it there is some indication, a slight pulse, that thought has gone into the reply.

You are always the entertainer, Crimson. I gather you became bored with EXTREME MEASURES and tried your luck with ‘like-minded thinkers’ at Muslim Village. Let me guess: they rejected you there, too!

When I read your script, I read a young, confused person flailing about trying to reconcile their own interpretation with the differences found in what is going on about them. The battle lost they look for someone about them stronger who they feel oppresses them. They then lash out, blame and condemn the stronger other.

I, in fact, could read you into the words you wrote if I were like you.

For example, what is the relevance of the Hutaree Christian Militia in the USA to the debate? What were their motivations?

Show you are not misguided, clutching for straws.

Your friend, Chardok, should be able to help you sort out that mess.

Also, you have not been able to reconcile below taken from Post No. 120 MOHAMMED CONUNDRUM:

“I highlight from the current script [from Crimson Warrior as quoted in Post No. 120] to demonstrate your delusion, thus:

• ‘9, your attempts to portray the religion of Islam in a negative light is nothing more than a poor reflection of yourself and how little you know about all religions. Your idiotic claim that Islam was the cause for 100,000,000+ deaths throughout history is only evidence that you not only know nothing about the religion but nothing about human history as well. For every immoral or bad act committed by a Muslim or in the name of Islam is tempered by 2,000 years of Christians doing the same or worse. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today as oposed to 1.3 billion Catholics, they're here to stay Hannibal and wether you like it or not, they are now the largest represented religion on Earth an their ideals and faith are growing and will surpass the morass of decay we call Western Liberal Christianity soon enough. So either get used to it and stop pissing and moaning about it or take up arms and fight for what you believe in. Either way, your immature, inept and blatantly racist rantings in this debate will come to an end’.

“I have some simple questions that you should be able to answer without much hesitation providing reference to the appropriate sites to confirm.

• Where did I make such a claim that “Islam was the cause for 100,000,000+ deaths”?

• Where is your table for comparison that shows: ‘For every immoral or bad act committed by a Muslim or in the name of Islam [it] is tempered by 2,000 years of Christians doing the same or worse’?

• Where is your evidence that: ‘There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today as opposed to 1.3 billion Catholics’ and ‘they are now the largest represented religion on Earth and their ideals and faith are growing and will surpass the morass of decay we call Western Liberal Christianity soon enough’?

“If you can properly qualify your assertions with verifiable evidence and can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, I would be happy.”

Who is telling porkies now?

But I move on now to a nobleman, Brendiggg: a moderator, too.

I read with some humour your advice gathered – I surmise – from personal experience.

Do you get tense regularly?

I would suggest putting together something a bit more formidable than some titbits about what you do in your idle moments. That is, in connection with the debate. That might help give us a heads up about where your thinking resides in connection with the thread discussed at EXTREME MEASURES.

If you are like Chardok - as you announce - you are a master debater.

You should be able then to pull an argument fom what has been logged.

I will leave it there today.

Come back, please, if you have something intelligent to say.

[CrimsonWarrior]

I am impressed Hannibal, you actually managed a post that wasn't entirely copy and paste. Maybe there is some hope that you will in time aspire to having an original thought.

As for the number of Muslims in this world, it was in-fact mentioned by a representative of the Vatican and quickly verified by a quick gander through the world's populations.

The Hutaree are more than relevent, it show's exactly that Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists are quite active, in-fact on the FBI's own numbers Judeo-Christian Terrorist groups are responsible and have been responsible for more terrorist activity on US Soil since the September 11 attacks than Islamic Terrorist Groups. The same goes foe Eueope, where Europol have released a report that shows clearly that Islamic Terrorist groups have been responsible for only 0.4% of terrorist activity in Europe since the same period.

This adds to the fact that even on the statistics you provided which showed White Eastern European Christians leeding the arrest rate statistics in Australia.

Meaning, on two fundamental fronts your arguement has been proven to be nothing short of bunk, repeatedly proven to be bunk i should add.

Just so you know, "Notorious" the Middle Eastern Crime Gang that is the largest in NSW started out as the Assyrian Kings which were and still are Iraqi Christians, with "Notorious" its birthchild being also largely made up of Middle Eastern Christians.

You've got a nothing argument and all you're doing is clutching at whatever xenophibic straws you have left. Maybe you should join thr clergy and tell them all how only Muslims have sex with children...

You're done here Hannibal

Regards,

Crimson

[Hannibal]

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58508&st=60&start=60

FROM: “South Park Do It Again...., CARTOON DEPICTING PROPHET”

Yesterday, 09:55 PM Post #64

As I just said, Sam, I think the issues are more complex that a simple desire for notoriety, but I certainly agree with Sheikh Nuh's conclusion. But there many people on this site who think otherwise. People like FatBoyMuslim, who just said in this post that the cartoonists and their supporters should be killed (and that there's a consensus on the point):

QUOTE

Kristin:

QUOTE

There is a strand of thought in Islam that says those who dis Muhammad should be killed.it's not a strand. there is no difference of opinion on this matter.

QUOTE

QUOTE

I'm not saying it's the only strain of thought on this matter.it is the only strain of thought on this matter. in an islamic state a person who insults the prophet will be executed.

And more graphically:

QUOTE

i very sincerely wish that such a person who speaks rubbish about the prophet gets run over by a speeding truck and his corpse is smeared over 50 meters on the road like roadkill my freedom of expression lets me state that i think of them, actually believe them to be, useless wastes of sub-animal life, and in what ways i would love to see such useless waste disposed of

And:

QUOTE

this is why the sahaba were always ready to kill someone who spoke rubbish about the prophet. the example we should see here is that of the sahaba,

Sam, do you not think that this is the kind of pro-violence rhetoric which a Muslim considering a violent act of terror might be encouraged by? Or which a casual non-Muslim visitor to the forum would be horrified by?

If Kristin was a reporter (as some people suspected, and they might be right), then she has got the quotes she was looking for.

Gnu.


Sam

you know GNU, and this might come as a shock, not everything you read on the internet is true. The Sahabi were not "always ready to kill anyone who spoke against the Prophet", and even a casual glance through the seerah will show you that. See my other article on the Adab of Islam to get clued in.

As for reporters, if they want anonymous quotes they just need to register pretending to be a Muslim and post up a few quotes themselves for their headlines. The taking notice of anonymous quotes on a forum is only in inverse proportion to a persons general intelligence.

--------------------

Israel's strategy: "The beatings will continue until morale improves"


Gnu Ordure

With respect, Sam, you're completely missing my point. I'm not concerned with the veracity or otherwise of FBM's sources.

I'm concerned with the conclusions he draws from his sources and the language in which he then expresses them.

Look at how he responded to Omnichrono's post. Omni said (this was his entire post):

QUOTE

I have read the book by Martin Lings on the life of the Prophet and there are many accounts of him being insulted, harassed, belittled, etc. and I think I have even read hadith about a man insulting the Rasul and the Sahaba ready to kill the man and the Prophet telling them not to kill him. I could be mistaken, Allahu alam. FBM replied:

QUOTE

you are mistaken if you think the followers of the prophet can/should forgive the one who talks rubbish about him because the prophet himself forgave many people. such a person who insults the prophet is personally at a war with allah himself and allah's la'nah rains down his diseased face every nanosecond, and a person who advocates for him or makes excuses for him or thinks it should be acceptable of him is an absolute kafir just like the insulter himself.

So apparently FBM considers Omni to be an 'absolute kafir', and would also like to see his sub-animal corpse smeared fifty metres down the road, just like the cartoonists.

Sam, this is your Forum, you can make your own rules. But seriously, you ought to think about this a bit more.

Peace.

Gnu.


FatBoyMuslim

gnu ordure, i have long had patience with your mind games, but i can't help saying you're a pathetic, disgusting liar of the lowest order who twists people's words to suit his fancies and play his despicable, trolling, mind games. you think you are very intelligent but you're not - and instead you are a despicable and a disgusting person and a coward who thinks his playing with words hides what's in his evil, satanic heart.

QUOTE

People like FatBoyMuslim, who just said in this post that the cartoonists and their supporters should be killed (and that there's a consensus on the point):


yes and i said very clearly that should be the law in a shari'ah governed state. in case you didn't know, capital punishment well exists in islamic and other systems too, and i support it everywhere it exists in islam and not ashamed to say so.

you very conveniently forgot to quote this bit from the same post where i said:

QUOTE

kafir states obviously are not run by islamic law, but what is stated on the masud website is islamic law across all schools of thought.

---

QUOTE

And more graphically:

QUOTE

Sam, do you not think that this is the kind of pro-violence rhetoric...


what's wrong? freedom of expression bothers you?

that is my personal wish to see what happens to a person who insults the prophet, anywhere in the world where i know islamic law is not applied - in kafir lands. it is my wish to see them get involved in such accidents and i am proud of wishing such accidents on these cartoonists and anyone who supports them. if they were in an islamic state, they would be executed and cremated dishonourably. they could be crucified upside down and burned, as the masud website article points out and numerous other islamic texts.

i repeat there is no mercy what so ever, to be shown to such people. this is a unanimous ruling in islamic law for any islamic state. if someone thinks otherwise, he needs to bring texts from classical scholars that suggest an insulter of the prophet is to be acquitted and/or deserves anything less than death. all adab and akhlaq are suspended to such a person. you can't show adab to a person your own holy book insults. i gave reference to a verse from the quran. anyone is free to investigate the tafseer of the verse and the meaning of the insulting word used. such people are indeed "zaneem". may the curse of allaah befall their lives and their deaths and may allaah fill their homes and graves with fire. aameen.

---

QUOTE

So apparently FBM considers Omni to be an 'absolute kafir', and would also like to see his sub-animal corpse smeared fifty metres down the road, just like the cartoonists.


nice try. you think your evil is intelligent, but in fact it is really the silliest and dumbest version of evil.

i made no such implications at omnichrono. omnichrono doesn't advocate for the cartoonists or makes excuses for them justifying their actions or thinks they are acceptable. no muslim does. muslims love their prophet and show the greatest respect to him and do not play cheerleader to those who talk rubbish about him.

i really find it laughable that you think the cartoonists can offend a billion+ muslims with their freedom of speech but i can't as much as express my wishes graphically to see how i'd like to see those select few cartoonists and their cheerleaders die!

eat your heart out hypocrisy! gnu ordure is here!

utterly despicable and disgusting! you're a pathetic person with no dignity or self respect! i mean it.

--------------------

any thing in this world, right or wrong, can be justified. so, go ahead- justify! no, please, i insist- justify!

no seriously, i mean it, c'mon, pleeeaase- justify!

jjuuusssttiiffyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!


FatBoyMuslim

idiot alert:

graphic descriptions of torture are not below adab. the quran and hadith themselves give graphic descriptions of the tortures the kuffaar will endure in hellfire and some of them are very severe. i have every right as a muslim and as an australian to graphically describe the kind of suffering and deaths i wish upon these cartoonists and their cheerleaders. think of all the graphic pictures you see on a cigarette pack. they are legal and not below adab, be it in islamic law or australian. i wish all that and more on those who talk nonsense about our prophet and all their cheerleaders.


COMMENT

I have taken an extract from Muslim Village on the topic of “South Park Do It Again…. CARTOON DEPICTING PROPHET” to expose the base thinking that permeates the Muslim community in Australia. This is what proponents and practitioners of Islam think of the non-Muslims about them - “kuffar” or “Kafir” – particularly those who insult Mohammed the Paedophile and their supporters:

• very sincerely wish that such people should get run over by a speeding truck and their corpse smeared over 50 meters on the road like road kill
• actually believe those people to be, useless wastes of sub-animal life
• would love to see such useless waste disposed of
• such people who insult the prophet are personally at a war with allah (i.e. the ‘god’ nominated by proponents and practitioners of Islam as supreme) himself who rains down on their diseased faces every nanosecond
• anyone who advocates for those who insult Mohammed the Paedophile or makes excuses for them or thinks it should be acceptable of them to insult Mohammed the Paedophile is an absolute kafir (or non-Muslim described in a demeaning fashion) just like the insulter himself
• and their supporters should be killed (and there is consensus on the point in the Muslim community)
• capital punishment well exists in Islamic and other systems too, and proponents and practitioners of Islam support its application against those who insult Mohammed the Paedophile everywhere and are not ashamed to say so.
• kafir states obviously are not run by Islamic law, but they should be so capital punishment can be rained down on the kafir who insults Mohammed the Paedophile
• anywhere in the world where Islamic law is not applied - in kafir lands - it is the wish of proponents and practitioners of Islam to see anyone who insults Mohammed the Paedophile get involved in such accidents (as described above) and they are proud of wishing such accidents on those people and anyone who supports them
• would be executed and cremated dishonourably if those who insulted Mohammed the Paedophile were in an Islamic state
• could be crucified upside down and burned if those who insulted Mohammed the Paedophile were in an Islamic state as pointed out in numerous Islamic texts.
• it is repeated there is no mercy whatsoever to be shown to people who insult Mohammed the Paedophile: that is a unanimous ruling in Islamic law for any Islamic state
• cannot show “adab” (in the context of behavior, refers to prescribed Islamic etiquette) to anybody (the kafir) your own holy book (Koran) insults: may the curse of Allah befall their lives and their deaths and may Allah fill their homes and graves with fire if they do
• that proponents and practitioners of Islam love their prophet and show the greatest respect to him and do not play cheerleader to those who talk rubbish about him.
• can give graphic descriptions of torture are not below adab because the Quran (Koran) and Hadith (narrations from the words and actions of Mohammed the Paedophile) themselves give graphic descriptions of the tortures the kuffar will endure in hellfire and some of them are very severe.
• proponents and practitioners of Islam have every right as a proponents and practitioners of Islam and as Australians to graphically describe the kind of suffering and deaths wished upon those who insult Mohammed the Paedophile and their cheerleaders (supporters)
• Proponents and practitioners of Islam think all the graphic pictures people see on cigarette packs (highlighting the diseases like cancer with their ugly effects on the body) are legal and not below adab be it in Islamic law or Australian and wish all that and more on those who talk nonsense about their prophet (Mohammed the Paedophile) and all their cheerleaders.


I think from that the deep-rooted, considered and vehement expulsion presented by both “Sam” and “FatBoyMuslim” from the extract quoted – thought defended as justified based on principal religious teachings by Mohammed the Paedophile – that proponents and practitioners of Islam in the Australian context are sick and fiendish individuals who should be ridiculed for their demented thinking.

What is the mentality behind this type of unequivocal statement?

“I very sincerely wish that such a person who speaks rubbish about the prophet gets run over by a speeding truck and his corpse is smeared over 50 meters on the road like road kill”.

There is no moral justification for any such thought. The so-called “prophet” vaunted as untouchable is open to examination and ridicule as well as praise without any restriction. That is particularly in Australia a nation with a people who do not or do not need to recognise any so-called Islamic “prophet”. Hence, the statement is emotive and false.

The statement also works to intimidate so one will not ask questions about the so-called “prophet”.

Why?

When questions are asked then the flaws of the so-called “prophet” become apparent. Mohammed was a paedophile. If the so-called “prophet” was a paedophile that revelation undermines the credibility of the beliefs of Muslims and the legitimacy of Islam and any argument posted by proponents and practitioners of Islam.

So how can proponents and practitioners of Islam resist condemnation of Mohammed the Paedophile?

By threatening, demeaning, bothering, attacking anyone who seeks the truth. Proponents and practitioners of Islam furnish their truth to plug the gap – their version of the truth.

“I have long had patience with your mind games, but I can't help saying you're a pathetic, disgusting liar of the lowest order who twists people's words to suit his fancies and play his despicable, trolling, mind games. You think you are very intelligent but you're not - and instead you are a despicable and a disgusting person and a coward who thinks his playing with words hides what's in his evil, satanic heart.“

However, it is clear from the tirade that the victim, “Gnu Ordure”, is a sensible, rational person, a sound soul amidst pro-Islamic ratbags. “Gnu” has successfully exposed the dark soul of proponents and practitioners of Islam for all to see.

In fact, that rant by proponents and practitioners of Islam has already been tracked and classified. It has a familiar tune.

[See Post No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Australians are fortunate Australia is not Islamic and will never become an Islamic state.

If it were to become Islamic that would reduce Australia to the socially dysfunctional level commonly associated with Islamic states characterised by bloody, juvenile, and tribal bickering. Islam subsumes such people and thrives. The thoughts verbalised that waft from Muslims in Australia as from leaders in Islamic states bespeak the ratbaggery that abounds in Islam. But, those people who would accept Islam are treated by their leaders, by proponents of Islam, much like how a paedophile treats his victims. Islam like the paedophile thrives on innocent children who are unable to comprehend their fate beyond the use of instinct.


PROFILE/ BEHAVIOUR INFORMATION- SUMMARY

Child molesters or paedophiles:

“use competition, peer pressure, child and group psychology, motivation techniques, threats, and blackmail”

(http://www.mako.org.au/pedbehave.html)

Proponents of Islam voice that:

“such a person who insults the prophet is personally at a war with Allah himself and Allah’s la'nah rains down (on) his diseased face every nanosecond, and a person who advocates for him or makes excuses for him or thinks it should be acceptable of him is an absolute kafir just like the insulter himself.”

That is peer pressure, child and group psychology, motivation techniques, threats and blackmail. Do what I say or be damned. That is your fate.

The use of capital punishment against anyone expressing an opinion contrary to anything Islamic is lauded by demented proponents and practitioners of Islam as just. The perverted, perverse Islamic perception of the world cannot be challenged.

“Capital punishment well exists in Islamic and other systems too, and I support it everywhere it exists in Islam and (am) not ashamed to say so.”

By Sharia Law that means:

“(T)he subjugation and brutalization of women, the persecution of homosexuals, honour killings, the beheading of apostates and the stoning of adulterers.”

[http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/Newsletters/2009/FREEDOM.html]

[Post No. 172 THE REACTION]

That is more evidence of a culture of intimidation, the hallmark of Islam.

Islam is a religion of hate as those pronouncements above made by proponents and practitioners of Islam subsumed by the Muslim delusion work to evince. Proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot possibly accept that Mohammed the Paedophile was a paedophile: truth and Islam have little connection. Proponents and practitioners of Islam assert their belief is fact and that that is truth.

That is the root of their demented thinking. That is how Islam thrives. That is how Muslims are always “right”! That is why Islam is confounded. That is why practitioners of Islam, commonly called Muslims, do not properly understand Islam.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam by demeaning non-Muslims, mock non-Muslims. Proponents and practitioners of Islam mock those unlike themselves who are not entangled by Islam. Those people, commonly called non-Muslims, are clean and free of the teachings of The Paedophile, free of the Muslim delusion. Proponents and practitioners of Islam adhere to the path of The Paedophile with the associated demented worldview.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam want respect for their religion. If respect is not given to them then they reek down evil upon those who do not give them respect. If they are given respect they will then assert that their teachings are incontestable, are fact and truth, and should be law.

“( ) all practitioners of Islam have the same revolutionary thoughts, promulgate the same doctrine, and have the same ambition to dominate Australia. All practitioners of Islam, pure, devout Muslims, are wilfully conspiring to make Australia - a bastion of democracy and exemplar nation of the West – submit to Mohammed’s teachings, to Sharia Law.”

[Post No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

In terms of Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM what streams have been invoked?

3. Proponents and practitioners of Islam behave forcefully and irrationally when the Muslim delusion is challenged, exposed and found false.
4. Amidst proponents and practitioners of Islam there is emotional and cognitive chaos that cannot be reconciled with good morals.
6. Proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot find reconciliation with non-Muslims in a non-Islamic environment. Consequently, they project out behaviour consistent with the Muslim delusion.
7. Proponents and practitioners of Islam must defend and protect the Muslim delusion at all costs: deceit and manipulation are permissible,
10. Islam as an ethos is intellectually and morally inferior to the ethos adopted by participants in the West, in Australia.

It seems what was deduced at Posts No.s 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM is being reinforced and proven every time a proponent or practitioner of Islam opens his or her mouth.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam are a mix of fools and jokers.

Where was the moderator at Muslim Villageto exclude the proponent and practitioner of Islam who spouted such hate demeaning everyone arguing against him? What? The moderator participated in the tirade? It seems like it is a one-way, pro-Islamic street at MV! Proponents and practitioners of Islam can do no wrong.

By the way, “FatBoyMuslim” commented:

“I really find it laughable that you think (anyone) can offend a billion+ Muslims with their freedom of speech”.

Like Crimson Warrior, it seems FatBoyMuslim finds the Vatican’s population estimate for the religion of Islam accurate enough to quote. It seems then anything the Vatican says about Islam is accurate for proponents and practitioner of Islam.

“On 6 May 2001, Pope John Paul II became the first Catholic pope to enter and pray in an Islamic mosque. Respectfully removing his shoes, he entered the Umayyad Mosque, a former Byzantine era Christian church dedicated to John the Baptist (who is believed to be interred there) in Damascus, Syria, and gave a speech including the statement: ‘For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness.’”

Hence, the Catholic Church has extended the hand of friendship toward the apostates who call themselves Muslim and found a channel by which those same apostates and idolaters of Mohammed the Paedophile can be accepted into the Church. Forgiveness has been offered. But, how have the proponents and practitioners of Islam responded:

“( ) you can't show adab (Islamic etiquette) to a person your own holy book (Book of The Paedophile or Koran) insults [Kuffars or non-Muslims]. ( .) May the curse of Allah befall their lives and their deaths and may Allah fill their homes and graves with fire.”

What temerity!

Those proponents and practitioners of Islam, just like FatBoyMuslim, really have lost the plot. A higher authority has given them a chance at salvation and yet they condemn that hand of friendship clinging to the word of The Paedophile like true idolaters.

Will they never learn?

From the deep-rooted, considered and vehement expulsion presented by both “Sam” and “FatBoyMuslim” in the extract quoted – thought defended as justified based on principal religious teachings by Mohammed the Paedophile – proponents and practitioners of Islam in the Australian context are sick and fiendish individuals who should be ridiculed for their demented thinking.

The dark soul at the heart of Islam has been exposed for all to see.

Let me guess: “FatBoyMuslim” and/or “Sam” are Lebanese.

I invite them to provide a correction if my guess is wrong. But, then, how could one trust them!

[Brendiggg]

Yawn

[Spot of Borg]

What do you mean you don't know what I am talking about? It was a QUESTION. Pretty to-the-point I thought too. Basically I want to know exactly what your point is with all this stuff you post. What do you see your overall point to be that you are conveying to us with all the words?

And I have been having internet troubles the past few months while I am travelling is why I am mostly absent.

Spot