More on Niqab Folkes and friends – ‎”it’s a front (sic) to a civilised country like Australia”

So said Australia’s worst (n)ever Prime Minister Nicholas “Niqab” Hunter Folkes, houri of Rozelle, as he shepherded a bunch of unwelcome ragtag scruffbag insurgents wearing dirty sheets uninvited into a number of public buildings.

Take a look at everyone’s favourite failed far right politician as seen a couple of weeks ago on SBS Insight.

And a couple of days ago, Seven News and TAB reported on Nick and his cavalcade of cowardly clowns imposing their xenophobia and bigotry on Sydneysiders going about their normal business.

Seven story

And full marks to the two young presumably Muslim guys who challenged these freaks.

We wonder if the Septic Six had the required police permit for their “demonstration”.

Nine News has the story as well along with alluring shots of Sergio Seraglio batting his kohl-enhanced eyelashes fetchingly at the bemused cameraman.

Yes Nick you and your pathetic entourage are indeed an affront to Australia!

311 thoughts on “More on Niqab Folkes and friends – ‎”it’s a front (sic) to a civilised country like Australia”

  1. Strangely, I don’t remember Nick getting the money shot on the show. I assume that ended up on the cutting room floor.

    Is there nothing this guy wont do for publicity.

    • Well Greg, when you’ve got SFA else to offer than entertainment, that’s pretty much all they will do.

      When they’re not masturbating to beauty pagents.

  2. “”Is there nothing this guy wont do for publicity.”

    Probably not, he’s beating u lot hands down though.

    He sends his regards, & would like to convey his thanks for your continuing free publicity

    • That’s what any APP member says when they want people to shut up. Years ago Darrin Hodges thanked me for all his free publicity (We’re talking 3-4 years here). Yet, funnily enough, all that free publicity has lead to a grand total of 0 successes by the APP.

      Guess what, Nick, publicity is not always good publicity. Yes, thanks to TAB more people know about you, but no one else actually likes you or your party. You’ll realise that if you compare the amount of publicity you do, with the amount of support you get in elections, and your turn out at rallies.

      Every single time there is an anti-racism rally, or pro asylum seeker rally, it outnumbers any APP rally to a ratio of 10 to 1. Anytime the APP runs for any electoral office, it comes last. So tell me, Nick, what use is publicity if all it does is make people hate you?

    • How exactly are Sergio and his merry men dealing with problems in Islam? How does lurking in women’s toilets help anyone?

      And the biggest question of all Otto-have you ever met a Muslim in real life? Or only on the internet?

      • Well the way I figure it is that they are against the burqa because they can’t have a perve at the women wearing these types of clothes, so Sergio, being their Knight in Black Mascara, took it upon himself to liberate his fellow perverts from their day dreaming and fantasising about what’s under the burqa, and snuck into female toilets to document what these women have been hiding.

        Sergio said he plans to release these tapes in a few months…. a few months no doubt after every pervert has had their turn masturbating over the footage.

      • I have met plenty of muslims and I agree the ones I have met don’t pose any threat to us at all. Unfortunately in other places around the world where the muslim percentage of the population is higher than 5% people like me wouldn’t be able to say the same thing. The muslims who carried out 9/11 blended in with Americans and put on a friendly face whilst plotting their murderous acts. In no other religion is there small pockets of followers constantly EVERY SINGLE DAY carrying out atrocities in the name of their false God. 18,500 attacks on innocent people in the past 10 years by muslims. WTF is going on? As for purving on women, what is to stop the burqa wearing women purving on men? Why is it the man can marry 4 wives but the women can’t marry 4 men? Your whole religion is full of hatred, deceit, bullshit and lies. Even if you are a peaceful muslim I still question your mind set if you believe that a 7th century mass murdering pedophile is the perfect example to man kind.

        • Hitler met with any number of leaders, including the future King of England. He was trying to establish credibility and acceptance for his murderous regime and its ghastly philosophy.

          Much like this influx of Fascists we are enduring at the moment. Like you.

          There is video of the mufti with Hitler. How did I invent that?

          You are truly an idiot. That’s newsreel film footage, not video. Hate to tell you, but even though there were experimental television broadcasts in 1936 the workable video recorder was not invented until the 1950s. Hitler was long dead. So was the Mufti.

        • In no other religion is there small pockets of followers constantly EVERY SINGLE DAY carrying out atrocities in the name of their false God.

          I think the victims of Fred Phelps, the victims of the abortion clinic bombings, the victims of paedophile clergy, the Stolen Generations, the Forgotten Australians and many other victims of atrocities committed by Christians may have something to say about that.

        • “I have met plenty of muslims and I agree the ones I have met don’t pose any threat to us at all. ”

          So, you’re saying that individual Muslims are absolute fine, and fit into our country well, but groups of Muslims are a threat? But, you know what groups of Muslims are made up of….individual muslims!

          “The muslims who carried out 9/11 blended in with Americans and put on a friendly face whilst plotting their murderous acts.”

          No they didn’t. The Muslims who carried out 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. They got on planes heading to America-they weren’t sleeper cells!

          ” In no other religion is there small pockets of followers constantly EVERY SINGLE DAY carrying out atrocities in the name of their false God.”

          So, to be clear, even you admit they’re small pockets of followers? And yet we should punish the majority for the acts of the few?
          Should we punish all the Caucasian males in Australia because of the actions of Ivan Milat, Martin Bryant, the snowtown murderers, etc?

          ” 18,500 attacks on innocent people in the past 10 years by muslims.”

          How many attacks have there been in australia by non-muslims in the last 10 years? Enough to justify a blanket accusation against all non-muslims, or are we only allowed to judge muslims by their worst example, not anyone else?

          “Why is it the man can marry 4 wives but the women can’t marry 4 men?”

          In Australia, they can do neither. And so it will remain.

          ” Your whole religion is full of hatred, deceit, bullshit and lies.”

          And did you talk to these muslims you’ve met, and discuss your view of their religion? Come on, think about it. You’ve met plenty of muslims and all the ones you’ve met you said are friendly. But if they’re all following a religion of hatred-how can that be possible? Maybe, just maybe, you, a person who has studied Islam based on….what exactly, a few blogs, comments by racist political parties, may be missing something in a religion that a follower who you agree poses no threat to Australia may be able to inform you of.

          ” Even if you are a peaceful muslim I still question your mind set if you believe that a 7th century mass murdering pedophile is the perfect example to man kind.”

          Where exactly in the Quran does it say that Mohammad was a paedophile? I got a Quran on my book shelf, you give me the Sura number, I’ll check it out.

          And just to be clear-are we banning all religions if their prophets engaged in violence? In which case-all of Judaism and Chrstianity have to go (Have you read Judges?), as does Buddhism (Buddha totally up and killed a dude!). Just wnat to be sure you’re cool with this?

        • Do you read what you type, “truth teller”? The only ‘truth’ I gathered from most of what you typed was that it was complete and utter crap.

          18,500 attacks committed on innocents by Muslim men? That seems pretty low in the scheme of attacks committed by mankind. What about the thousands of tortures, assaults, burglaries, rapes & murders committed on a DAILY BASIS to innocent people by non-Muslims?

          I’m so fucking sick of racists picking selective ‘evidence’ (read: bullshit, because most of it isn’t true anyway), and ignoring everything that disproves their fucked-up ideologies (I would say arguments; but it doesn’t take much to debunk any ‘point’ you make).

          The attacks on America, 9/11/01 were planned by a radical, ultra-extremist group of fuckheads who had completely lost what their religion preaches or represents. Islam is not a hateful religion. No religion is hateful at its core; unfortunately we are unable to prevent extremist interpretation of religious texts. The same is with any religious extremist; take the Westborough Baptist Church for example (if you don’t know them, look it up). There are acts of terrorism committed by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, such as the ongoing turmoil in Israel, or the bombings aimed at protestants by Irish Catholics years ago.

          Violence is committed every day by all sorts of people – religious or not – but racist apologists like yourself choose to make a huge racket about such a small slice of the pie; proving nothing but your own ignorance.

        • Another good example of bloodshed in the name of God; the CRUSADES. No religion’s hands are particularly clean from that historical event.

        • what about the IRA?? they went bombing their own ppl… the crusades… spanish inquasitition… oh wait there not muslims theyre all of chrisitian denomination… another question… if the “muslim god is a false god” does tht make jesus and moses false as well? coz they all spoke the words of the same god tht mohammed spoke of… the bible is quoted in the qu’ran… jesus’ birth… n death is told in the qu’ran… so tht’s all false??

        • . Unfortunately in other places around the world where the muslim percentage of the population is higher than 5% people like me wouldn’t be able to say the same thing.

          Unfortunately, this is regurgitated bullshit.

          Try Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Mali, Maldives…

          Afghanistan and Iraq do not constitute the entire Muslim world or even a representative sample of it.

          18,500 attacks on innocent people in the past 10 years by muslims.

          [citation needed]

        • mindmadeup wrote: “I think the victims of Fred Phelps, the victims of the abortion clinic bombings, the victims of paedophile clergy, the Stolen Generations, the Forgotten Australians and many other victims of atrocities committed by Christians may have something to say about that.”

          The list doesn’t come close to what Muslims have done.

          How many homosexuals has Fred Phelps had killed?

          How many children have paedophile clergy killed? Where does the bible enjoin or condone paedophilia? Anyway, weren’t you lot defending Mohammed when it came to paedophilia?

          How many aboriginees were executed under the Stolen Generations program? Were they really “stolen” or were they saved from abusive environments.

          The “Forgotten Australians” are orphans and others raised in institutions. What are you suggesting? That they should have been left to fend for themselves on the street or left in the charge of abusive parents/relatives?

          What are all these other “atrocities committed by Christians”? What part of Christian doctrine commanded them to perform those atrocities.

          I can give you chapter and verse for all the Muslim atrocities. All you’ve got is you prejudices.

        • How many children have paedophile clergy killed?

          That would have to rate as one of the most disgusting comments ever to appear on this blog.

          We are talking ruined lives here…life sentences for those children. A whole gamut of psychological traumas which will never go away.

          And so frantically eager are you to evoke your favourite object of hate that you dismiss those clerical crimes stretching over hundreds of years by saying “how many children have paedophile clergy killed”.

          You are a revolting piece of Fascist shit.

        • “Were they really “stolen” or were they saved from abusive environments.”

          Wait, you’re denying the stolen generation now as well? Do me a favour-go ask the Aborigines on National Sorry Day if they had actually been “freed from abusive environments”, tell me what they tell you, okay?

          “The “Forgotten Australians” are orphans and others raised in institutions.”

          Well, except quite a few of them had parents, but parents deemed unable to raise them-single mothers most often. They were told their parents were dead, then taken to another country where they were raped by priests.

          Apparently, you think this is better than living with their still-alive mothers. So let’s be clear here, you don’t mind paedophilia, actual acts of paedophilia, acts of children being raped by elderly men….but you have an absolute issue with a book which you claim states a Muslim man raped a girl (Waiting for a quote on that too), which you think other Muslim men will follow (Again, source please). But when children are actually raped, you think that’s okay-nor actually they should be thankful for being placed in a safer place than being kept safe with their still-alive mothers.

          Wonderful ethics you got their Otto. Do me a favour, keep away from my kids.

          “I can give you chapter and verse for all the Muslim atrocities.”

          Cool, then why don’t you? Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

          Or is it a case you really don’t care about kids getting raped at all-it’s just about hating Muslims?

        • mindmadeup April 6, 2012 4:10 pm quoted my question: ‘How many children have paedophile clergy killed?’ and then continued: ‘That would have to rate as one of the most disgusting comments ever to appear on this blog. We are talking ruined lives here…life sentences for those children. A whole gamut of psychological traumas which will never go away.’

          Are you seriously comparing the horrors of Islam with “ruined lives” and “psychological traumas”. You truly are a twit!

          You need some perspective. Take a look at the sort of thing Islam dishes out — http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E3DE143EE033A25751C2A96E9C946897D6CF

          And furthermore, you continually ignore the crucial difference. The clergy who did that were BAD Christians. The Muslims who carried out the massacre were GOOD Muslims. The Muslims who tried to mitigate it were BAD Muslims.

        • The Armenian Massacre was about politics. The Armenians were a minority ethnic group within Turkey and the Ottoman Empire.

          So tell us about the Rwanda massacre then – Christian against Christian. And a whole lot more we could mention.

          Your last paragraph tells us you are a polemicist not a historian.

          And you are still an apologist for paedophile clergy.

        • Okay you’ve made your point and it doesn’t appear you’re going to be shifting your position. So let’s confront your fears. Please acknowledge the following:

          a) Muslims have been here for over 200 years, yet we haven’t seen
          i) installations of Sharia Law
          ii) suicide bombings
          iii) evidence of widespread FGM or forced marriages
          iv) evidence to suggest that Muslims are raping and marrying children
          v) non-Muslims killed by those who are apparently instructed by the Quran to kill infidels

          b) The top contributing countries to Australia do not have Muslim majorities:

          United Kingdom 1,192,878
          New Zealand 544,171
          China 379,776
          India 340,604
          Italy 216,303
          Vietnam 210,803
          Philippines 177,389
          South Africa 155,692
          Malaysia 135,607
          Germany 128,558
          Greece 127,195
          South Korea 100,255
          Sri Lanka 92,243
          Lebanon 90,395
          Hong Kong 90,295
          Netherlands 88,609
          United States 83,996

          ci) Muslims in Australia have countless opportunities to blow things up, kill non-Muslims, steal children from playgrounds and schools, storm Parliament House in Canberra (there’s 300,000 of them remember), burn down churches and pubs and the list goes on.

          cii) 2000 people ride each train during peakhour in Sydney, yet we have nowhere near the security level at train stations as we do at airports.

          We live in a secular society, a democratic society, a society that despite having a long way to go, values women. All of the things all Muslims apparently violently oppose.

          Yet a deafening nothing.

          A resounding nothing.

          The only sound that CAN be heard is the overwhelming sound of thousands and thousands of Muslims from various national backgrounds working, living, loving, breathing, buying, voting and engaging in all things Australian.

          What say you?
          Have they set a date?
          Does it matter how many Muslims are in Australia?
          If 300,000 Muslims are unwilling to do anything about this horrible, unlivable, sinful country, would 600,000 be more willing? And if so, where are they going to come from?
          If Muslims are supposedly the only group who have ever committed atrocity throughout history with their following of a holy book the ONLY reasoning, how come countries like the United States, Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, Sweden, Germany etc are practically untouched by terrorism and all the foul aspects of Sharia Law, yet the most fearful and alert?

          Again, a resounding nothing.

          People like you live in fear. ‘They’re coming for us’, you keep telling yourself.

          But you don’t know when, comparing the wait for the big bad Islamic boom to falling off a building. Right now, we are in the middle of a free-fall plummet, where with every Australian-born baby to Muslim parents, and every Muslim migrant, we inch closer to what several hundred thousand Muslims living here have had over 200 years to do – kill us all and turn Australia into a giant mosque.

          ‘But Fox News tells me that they’ve committed murder and blown themselves up and stuff!’… Yeah they have – and here’s where we turn in circles and will continue to do so:

          Some Christians, Catholics and Jews have killed, but their holy book (or version 2.0 at least) doesn’t tell them to.
          Some Muslims have not killed, and their holy book DOES tell them to.

          How do you explain that? The logic that can be drawn from this is that if you read a book, eg a Bible or a Quran – it doesn’t have the least bit of influence as to whether you choose to kill another human being or not.

          A Catholic reads a Bible and kills another person.
          A Muslim reads the Quran and doesn’t kill anyone.

          Please explain. Please explain why we choose to ignore the literally MILLIONS of Muslims worldwide who have NEVER raped or killed or done ANYTHING that you accuse them of wanting to do. Please explain why we choose to ignore the fact that people from ALL religions cherry-pick (thanks Samhriddi) the bits they truly believe in from their holy texts. And if you’re going to refer to holy texts, are you willing to acknowledge that there is a great deal of ethical teachings within the Quran? A lot of parallels with how followers of the Bible are encouraged to live their lives?

          When you’re ready to admit that you’re living in fear, and that while you believe there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that you’re right, but MUCH MORE evidence to suggest that you’re wrong, you’ll be welcome here.

          People who watch the news must think that all that goes on in Australia is murder, violence, crime etc on a daily basis. But what the news doesn’t report is the 22,999,990 people who did the right thing that day. And they’re the kind of people you’re choosing to ignore.

        • JM April 6, 2012 4:01 pm wrote: ‘you’re denying the stolen generation now as well? Do me a favour-go ask the Aborigines on National Sorry Day’

          What would that achieve. They are a lobby group. They will just give me their version of what happened. I have heard other more dispassionate versions.

        • “What would that achieve. They are a lobby group. They will just give me their version of what happened. I have heard other more dispassionate versions.”

          From who, Otto? You so far seem determined to not to talk to anyone related to the issues you care passionately about, why is that? Are you worried that they won’t confirm to the image that has been kept in your heads? Worried your theory won’t pass when faced with real-world evidence?

          So let’s get this clear, you have a strong opinion on Aborigines, having met a total of 0 Aborigines; a strong opinion on Muslims, having met a total of 0 Muslims, and a strong opinion of the lost Australians, having met a total of 0 child migrants.

          And more stuff you ignored:
          Apparently, you think this is better than living with their still-alive mothers. So let’s be clear here, you don’t mind paedophilia, actual acts of paedophilia, acts of children being raped by elderly men….but you have an absolute issue with a book which you claim states a Muslim man raped a girl (Waiting for a quote on that too), which you think other Muslim men will follow (Again, source please). But when children are actually raped, you think that’s okay-nor actually they should be thankful for being placed in a safer place than being kept safe with their still-alive mothers.

          Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

          Or is it a case you really don’t care about kids getting raped at all-it’s just about hating Muslims?

        • Vince wrote: ‘Another good example of bloodshed in the name of God; the CRUSADES. No religion’s hands are particularly clean from that historical event.’

          What does “in the name of” mean? Anyone can claim to be acting “in the name of” anything or anyone they like. If I rape children and say I am doing it “in the name of” Vince, does that make Vince responsible? No. Apart from my invoking his name, he may have nothing to do with it. What if I do it “because of” Vince? Would that make Vince responsible? No. He might have told me not to do it, and I might have done it just to spite him.

          The only time you can blame one person for what another did is if the latter did it at the behest of the former. So if you are going lay the “blame” for the crusades on Christianity, you are going to have to show that the bad things done during the crusades were enjoined by Christian doctrine.

          Where is the biblical text or Christian theologian that said anything like: “Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them”? There isn’t one. Islam has one, but Christianity doesn’t (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm).

          There is however in Christianity a command to help those in need. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:42-46&version=NIV

          That command plus the instinct for self-preservation is what caused the Crusades. The crusades were defensive wars begun to rescue Christians in the middle east from Muslim atrocities and to prevent the Muslims from eventually doing it to the Christians in Europe. But like all wars, once they get going, “shit happens”. You can’t blame Christianity for the “shit”. You can blame it for the crusades, but not for the “war crimes” that occurred during them. Christianity was responsible for the crusades, but not for the evil deeds done during the crusades. The speech of Urban II in 1095 gives the reasons for the crusades http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html#robert

        • “Where is the biblical text or Christian theologian that said anything like: “Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them”?”

          Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

          While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD’s anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: “Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel.” So Moses ordered Israel’s judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man’s body and into the woman’s stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

          Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

          They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

          Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

          If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

          Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

          One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

          Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

          Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

          I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

          Sorry what were you saying?

        • “There is however in Christianity a command to help those in need.”

          And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.
          2:83 And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate.
          2:110 And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and whatever good you send before for yourselves, you shall find it with Allah; surely Allah sees what you do.
          2:177 It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts — these are they who are {rue (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).
          2:190 And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
          2:215 They ask you as to what they should spend. Say: Whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.
          2:220 On this world and the hereafter. And they ask you concerning the orphans Say: To set right for them (their affairs) is good, and if you become co-partners with them, they are your brethren; and Allah knows the mischief-maker and the pacemaker, and if Allah had pleased, He would certainly have caused you to fall into a difficulty; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
          2:277 Surely they who believe and do good deeds and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate they shall have their reward from their Lord, and they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.
          3:130 O you who believe! do not devour usury, making it double and redouble, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, that you may be successful.
          4:2 And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime.
          4:10 (As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies and they shall enter burning fire.
          4:29 O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.
          4:36 And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful;
          4:85 Whoever joins himself (to another) in a good cause shall have a share of it, and whoever joins himself (to another) in an evil cause shall have the responsibility of it, and Allah controls all things.
          4:110 And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.
          4:135 O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah’s sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.
          5:8 O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.
          5:32 For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
          5:55 Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
          5:89 Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men out of the middling (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck; but whosoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days; this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear; and guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, that you may be Fateful.
          6:151 Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you — (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty — We provide for you and for them — and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.
          6:152 And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his maturity, and give full measure and weight with justice — We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability; and when you speak, then be just though it be (against) a relative, and fulfill Allah’s covenant; this He has enjoined you with that you may be mindful;
          7:156 And ordain for us good in this world’s life and in the hereafter, for surely we turn to Thee. He said: (As for) My chastisement, I will afflict with it whom I please, and My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it (specially) for those who guard (against evil) and pay the poor-rate, and those who believe in Our communications.
          7:199 Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.
          9:18 Only he shall visit the mosques of Allah who believes in Allah and the latter day, and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate and fears none but Allah; so (as for) these, it may be that they are of the followers of the right course.
          9:60 Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.
          9:71 And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
          16:90 Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that you may be mindful.
          17:23 And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (so much as) “Ugh” nor chide them, and speak to them a generous word.
          17:26 And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully.
          17:31 And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong.
          22:28 That they may witness advantages for them and mention the name of Allah during stated days over what He has given them of the cattle quadrupeds, then eat of them and feed the distressed one, the needy.
          22:41 Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah’s is the end of affairs.
          22:78 And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!
          23:1 Successful indeed are the believers,
          23:2 Who are humble in their prayers,
          23:3 And who keep aloof from what is vain,
          23:4 And who are givers of poor-rate,
          24:56 And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Apostle, so that mercy may be shown to you.
          28:52 (As to) those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it.
          28:53 And when it is recited to them they say: We believe in it surely it is the truth from our Lord; surely we were submitters before this.
          28:54 These shall be granted their reward twice, because they are steadfast and they repel evil with good and spend out of what We have given them.
          29:8 And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others) with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them, to Me is your return, so I will inform you of what you did.
          30:21 And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.
          30:38 Then give to the near of kin his due, and to the needy and the wayfarer; this is best for those who desire Allah’s pleasure, and these it is who are successful.
          31:3 A guidance and a mercy for the doers of goodness,
          31:4 Those who keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and they are certain of the hereafter.
          31:5 These are on a guidance from their Lord, and these are they who are successful:
          42:23 That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.
          46:15 And We have enjoined on man doing of good to his parents; with trouble did his mother bear him and with trouble did she bring him forth; and the bearing of him and the weaning of him was thirty months; until when he attains his maturity and reaches forty years, he says: My Lord! grant me that I may give thanks for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may do good which pleases Thee and do good to me in respect of my offspring; surely I turn to Thee, and surely I am of those who submit.
          49:11 O you who believe! let not (one) people laugh at (another) people perchance they may be better than they, nor let women (laugh) at (other) women, perchance they may be better than they; and do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames; evil is a bad name after faith, and whoever does not turn, these it is that are the unjust.
          49:12 O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.
          51:15 Surely those who guard (against evil) shall be in gardens and fountains.
          51:16 Taking what their Lord gives them; surely they were before that, the doers of good.
          51:17 They used to sleep but little in the night.
          51:18 And in the morning they asked forgiveness.
          51:19 And in their property was a portion due to him who begs and to him who is denied (good).
          58:13 Do you fear that you will not (be able to) give in charity before your consultation? So when you do not do it and Allah has turned to you (mercifully), then keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey Allah and His Apostle; and Allah is Aware of what you do.
          73:20 Surely your Lord knows that you pass in prayer nearly two-thirds of the night, and (sometimes) half of it, and (sometimes) a third of it, and (also) a party of those with you; and Allah measures the night and the day. He knows that you are not able to do it, so He has turned to you (mercifully), therefore read what is easy of the Quran. He knows that there must be among you sick, and others who travel in the land seeking of the bounty of Allah, and others who fight in Allah’s way, therefore read as much of it as is easy (to you), and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and offer to Allah a goodly gift, and whatever of good you send on beforehand for yourselves, you will find it with Allah; that is best and greatest in reward; and ask forgiveness of Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
          90:12 And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is?
          90:13 (It is) the setting free of a slave,
          90:14 Or the giving of food in a day of hunger
          90:15 To an orphan, having relationship,
          90:16 Or to the poor man lying in the dust.
          90:17 Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
          93:9 Therefore, as for the orphan, do not oppress (him).
          93:10 And as for him who asks, do not chide (him),
          98:5 And they were not enjoined anything except that they should serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience, upright, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and that is the right religion.

          Sorry what were you saying?

    • So you applaud Sergio for invading women’s toilets?

      He wouldn’t want to be in any that women from here might visit. Pity he has no balls, we were looking forward to removing them.

  3. Lol JM you are a Dhimmi, have you read the Koran, Mohammed was a pedofile I for one will not support any cult whos supposed profit was a rock spider.

    • Honestly, if there is a religion where people praise an almighty spider, please let me know about it! I may have to convert!

      Anyway, where exactly in the Koran does it say Mohammad was a paedophile? Also, something I’ve asked many a bogan, is there any evidence that Muslims in Australia are more likely to be paedophiles than anyone else in the community? Because even if a religious book permitted such a terrible act (And again, need a source for it), that means nothing if nobody’s carrying it out. After all, the Bible permits incest, rape, murder, and genocide, but funnily enough no one at any church I’ve been to have performed any of those acts!

      • JM,

        Rock Spider: A term used to refer to a paedophile. In common usage within correctional facilities. Derived from the analogy that a paedophile, like a rock spider, is always getting into little cracks.

        Thanks to urban dictionary.

      • JM,

        The pedophile idea is raised over and over by anti-Muslim bigots, to try and demonize their “enemies”, but this only serves to reveal their ignorance..

        What the bigots don’t seem to understand is that the Quran was written at a time when most people would be considered lucky if they reached the ripe old age of 35. It was a very different time!

        Carrying out sexual acts with a barely-adolescent girl is unthinkable in this day and age, but in Mohammed’s times, it was simply the order of the day – he was doing nothing very special, and he was doing nothing very different from what ordinary people did throughout the Middle East (including the Israelites of the Bible).
        The Bible itself – filled with bloodthirsty injunctions to rape, pillage and murder – is an extraordinarily regressive text from a modern point of view but in fact merely mirrors the social standards of its day.

        Retrospectively applying modern standards of propriety to ancient events is a mistake that people tend to make with astonishing regularity. Some of the greatest liberal thinkers of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century held views on race that many modern Neo-Nazis would never dare to express openly. Does that mean they were ignorant and bigoted? Yes, but only if your definition of ignorance and bigotry is the modern one. By today’s definitions, almost everyone in those times was bigoted.

        We’ve come a long way as a species. I personally fail to understand why anyone would adopt a “Holy Book” written thousands of years ago as any kind of standard for living in modern society, but people do it all over the world. Singling out Islam and Muslims is just stupid, and little more than a political stunt.

  4. The problem of Islam

    Now where have I heard something like that before?

    Oh yeah, “The Jewish problem”! That Hitler dude thought he’d figured out a final solution too. Sound good to you, Otto?

    • It sounded good to the Ottomans faced with their Armenian Christian problem in 1915. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

      The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem liked it too for his Jewish problem but couldn’t implement it because his friend Hitler lost the war.

      Mohammed adopted it for his Banu Qurayza problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

      Allah in the Quran likes it as a solution to his “enemies of Islam” problem. http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

      But it is not a solution I support for Australia’s Muslim problem. The solution I support is to end all Muslim immigration, block all attempts at islamisation, and deprogram those who already have Australian citizenship.

      Muslims standardly accuse enemies of their religion of being intolerant right-wing racists. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      • You are an intolerant right wing racist. Other atheists would agree with that.

        Don’t bother teaching anyone here to suck eggs by posting your selective Wikipedia entries.

        What do you expect? That we are all going to say “oh noes the Fascists were right all along about teh_Mooslems”

        You lot remind me of a pervert waving his dick around and pushing it against some unsuspecting woman in a crowded train. Go and frot somewhere else.

        • On the subject of perving… did anyone else think the guy in the sunglasses was really cute? Haha.

        • @ mindmadeup Is Islam a race? No.

          There is nothing inaccurate or misleading about the articles. Look up the footnotes.

          There is no denial of the Armenian genocide except by Turkey.

          There is video of the mufti with Hitler. How did I invent that?

          Did I invent the quotes from the Quran or are they there? They are there.
          Am I interpreting them in a “selective”, ie. non-mainstream Muslim way? No!

          Show me the works by Muslim theologians accepted at authoritative Muslim universities like Al-Azhar University in Egypt that interpret those quotes in any but a fundamentalist sense. You can’t. There aren’t any. All you have is your prejudice and the pap fed to you by ignorant and/or lying Muslims.

          It is you who are selective. It is you who are the fascist. It is you who are the bigot, the imbecile, the red neck, the moron, the twit, the fool, the bogan. All you have is your ignorance, low IQ and unwillingness to look at the facts honestly. Your self-assigned moral superiority and Sir Galahad complex give you a warm inner glow and you don’t give a shit about anything else. As long as you feel good the world can go to hell.

          Stalin is gone but the useful idiot you instantiate is not..

        • Quick question Otto:

          Have you ever met a Muslim in real life? Yes or no.

          BTW-aren’t there plenty of Bible quotes supporting or advocating evil acts? Are we banning Christianity and Judaism too as incomaptible-or doesn’t that count?

        • JM asked: “aren’t there plenty of Bible quotes supporting or advocating evil acts? ”

          There are none in the New Testament. The objectionable ones in the Old Testament are no longer in force. The objectionable ones in the Quran and Haddith are still in force.

          So the Muslims are a threat to you. The Jews and Christians are not.

        • The objectionable ones in the Old Testament are no longer in force.

          What, because a semi-mythical prophet and his misogynist disciple said so 2000 years ago? Oh and by the way the Jews have nothing to do with your NT.

          Pardon us while we chortle.

          Oh and Otto in case you missed it the first time…we eavesdropped on you in the sauna with the boys at Arseholes Defence League

          http://tinyurl.com/85tp7np

          😀

        • mindmadeup asked whether the the reason that the violent commands in the Old Testament were no longer in force was “because a semi-mythical prophet and his misogynist disciple said so 2000 years ago”

          No. The reason is that the violent passages in the Old Testament were either commands directed only to particular people at particular times (like the commands to Joshua to exterminate the inhabitants of particular cities) or they were laws by which the ancient state of Israel was to be governed (the stuff about stoning adulterers etc). As objectionable as those passages are, they are no threat to anyone today.

          mindmadeup wrote: “the Jews have nothing to do with your NT.”.

          Actually it was written by Jews.

        • WRONG

          The NT was allegedly written by a combination of newly minted Christians of both Jewish and Greek origins.

          Don’t try and argue with anyone here on hermeneutics.

        • “There are none in the New Testament.”

          Really? Have you read all of the epistles? Paul was a lot of thing, but he didn’t particularly like women (Wanted them to cover up) or homosexausl (wanted them put to death). And people today still use these biblical references to justify their hatred.

          ” The objectionable ones in the Old Testament are no longer in force. The objectionable ones in the Quran and Haddith are still in force.”

          So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

          Or you could just say you’re basing your beliefs on biased paranoid ramblings of a crazy guy you met on the internet.

          And again-have you ever met a Muslim in real life? Why are you embarrassed about answering it? Do you think maybe your opinion of Islam may be lacking any evidence if you’ve met no Muslims at all?

          Do you know a lot of good theories about people that are made without any contact with the population of interest? Any at all? Or is it just your “All Muslims are evil and trying to turn the entire world Muslim” theory that is based on meeting a total of 0 Muslims?

      • It sounded good to the Ottomans faced with their Armenian Christian problem in 1915.

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

        The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem liked it too for his Jewish problem but couldn’t implement it because his friend Hitler lost the war.

        Mohammed adopted it for his Banu Qurayza problem.

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

        Allah in the Quran likes it as a solution to his “enemies of Islam” problem. http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

        And all of this is relevant because…?

        But it is not a solution I support for Australia’s Muslim problem. The solution I support is to end all Muslim immigration, block all attempts at islamisation, and deprogram those who already have Australian citizenship.

        What Muslim problem?

        You have to define a problem before you start coming up with “solutions”. I really don’t see a problem with Muslims at all.

        Xenophobes are the problem, with their ridiculous ranting, raving, sloganeering and burqa-parades, and petty publicity stunts that don’t do anything for their disgraceful cause but do make them look like idiots.

        Muslims standardly accuse enemies of their religion of being intolerant right-wing racists. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

        Heh. What do you expect them to call you, Otto?

        If you consider yourself an “enemy of Islam”, you’re hardly the most tolerant person in the world.

        As a secular humanist, I have problems with Islam itself, but only to the extent that I have problems with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. I am also sensible enough to realize that most religious people cherry-pick their religious views, and do not follow their holy books to the letter.

        I don’t know if you’re racist or not, but you’ve provided ample evidence of xenophobia in your rants. I am not a Muslim, but I do think you are an intolerant right-wing bigot, with a tremendous, entirely undeserved sense of entitlement.

        • Samriddhi wrote: “You have to define a problem before you start coming up with “solutions”. I really don’t see a problem with Muslims at all.”

          The problem is that all Muslims say that they believe in doing what Mohammed said Allah wants them to. One of those things is to bring the whole world under sharia by any means whatsoever.

          Do you see that as a problem?

        • Samriddhi wrote: “you’ve provided ample evidence of xenophobia in your rants”

          Rants? What rants? All I had posted was a list of dot points. You see rants everywhere because that’s all your mind is full of.

          If I’m a xenophobe, how come I would love to see every Muslim immigrant replaced by an Egyptian or Iraqi or Indian or Pakistani CHRISTIAN refugee.

          I’d love to see you idiots ask them if they had ever met a real live Muslim.

        • If I’m a xenophobe, how come I would love to see every Muslim immigrant replaced by an Egyptian or Iraqi or Indian or Pakistani CHRISTIAN refugee.

          because you are an exceptionalist. And a xenophobe.

        • Still not answering: Have you ever met a Muslim in real life? It’s a simple question-why can’t you answer it? I’ve met plenty, some are great friends and work colleagues of mine. Yet you can’t say whether you have actually ever met a person from the religious group you seem to think you completely understand. Why not?

          “One of those things is to bring the whole world under sharia by any means whatsoever.”

          Yet, they aren’t. C’mon, if you’ve actually ever met a Muslim, you’d realise that like most religious people, Muslims just want to get on with their lives. There isn’t a vast international conspiracy, nor a worldwide plan. Just people trying to get on and live tiher lives. What problem do you have with them doing that?

        • The problem is that all Muslims say that they believe in doing what Mohammed said Allah wants them to. One of those things is to bring the whole world under sharia by any means whatsoever.

          What crock.

          All Christians believe in doing what the Bible tells them to do. One of those things is murdering kids for talking back to their parents. Do you see that as a problem?
          In case you hadn’t noticed, Christians tend to proselytize a lot more in countries like Australia.

          Like I said, people cherry-pick their religions all the time. I’ve never yet met a Muslim who wanted to impose Sharia law on the whole world or even live under Sharia law himself. Of course, the fundies exist, but the contention that their views are accepted by most mainstream Muslims is sheer baloney.

          If you’d actually met many Muslims, you’d know that most of them don’t sit around all day, hatching plans of world domination – they have lives to get on with, families to feed, kids to raise, mortgages to pay.
          They’re just normal folks, you know, with their own culture and traditions.

          Why is it so hard for you to accept that?

        • Rants? What rants? All I had posted was a list of dot points. You see rants everywhere because that’s all your mind is full of.
          If I’m a xenophobe, how come I would love to see every Muslim immigrant replaced by an Egyptian or Iraqi or Indian or Pakistani CHRISTIAN refugee.
          I’d love to see you idiots ask them if they had ever met a real live Muslim.

          The rants which you try to pass off as reasoned arguments, the rants you’ve spread all over the site, like infected pustules.

          I’m glad that you want to see more people from my country of origin, but that doesn’t excuse you from being a xenophobe.

          Not hating certain groups does not preclude xenophobia. Hitler admired the Japanese, you know. Are you telling me he wasn’t a xenophobe?

        • mindmadeup wrote that I am both an “exceptionalist” and a “xenophobe”

          You can’t be both.

          The exceptionalist does not fear all foreigners.

          The xenophobe fears the foreigner because of the presence of “foreign-ness” in them.That means that the xenophobe fears anyone in whom there is “foreign-ness”. That means he fears all foreigners.

        • The xenophobe fears the foreigner because of the presence of “foreign-ness” in them.That means that the xenophobe fears anyone in whom there is “foreign-ness”. That means he fears all foreigners.

          A xenophobe fears all foreigners? God, you are tedious.

          Foreign-ness is not defined by nationality. Foreign-ness is defined by how different you PERCEIVE a group to be from you.

          You obviously think ‘Muslims’ are a special (different) category of people who supposedly subscribe to a particular worldview that you despise. Therefore, you hate them and are paranoid about them.

          You do not perceive other nationalities/ethnic groups/religions to be so different from you. Therefore you do not hate them and are not paranoid about them.

          Therefore, you are a xenophobe.

      • “The solution I support is to end all Muslim immigration, block all attempts at islamisation,”

        How exactly, Otto, have you been put at risk of Islamisation? How has Islam effected you in anyway shape or form?

        ” and deprogram those who already have Australian citizenship. ”

        Please please please, tell me how an Australian citizen would be “deprogramme” from Islam? Are you think Spanish Inquisition style, or Chinese cultural Revolution?

        • JM asks: “How has Islam Effected you in anyway shape or form?”

          (1) For one thing it has made be reluctant to publish my address.

          (2) Your question is unbelievably stupid. It’s like asking someone who is falling from a building “How has falling from a building affected you? What harm has it done you?” Well, duh! Almost none – YET.

          (3) Mind you, if you had asked how has Islam affected others, I could point you to the 1 million Armenians killed around 1915 or the almost 1 million Iraqi Christian refugees now in Syria. I could tell you about what islam did to the Hindus of India. I could show you videos from Egypt in the last 12 months. I could point to the rise in honour killings in the USA. But you didn’t ask that did you.

        • So, Otto, the total effect Islam has had on you has been made yo fearful to give out your address? And-were you giving your address to a lot of people previously? Are there cases where you would have normally put out your address, but didn’t because you were worried “Teh Muslims” were going to get it somehow?

          And yet you admit that Islan has effected you not a bit. No effect-but it will, you promise, it will effect you one day.
          Remember how the Catholics, or the Jews were going to end Australia? Then the Asians? They were going to destroy this country-but no, this time you’re right.

          And just to be clear, as you are basing you entire fear and paranoia of Islam on historical acts, do you fear Germans as well? They could be suddenly becoming Nzis! What about Serbians, pretty much all of Europe, or any other area which has engaged in ethica warfare? Or do only Muslims get that special paranoia.

          And what’s your source for the “rise of honour killings” in the USA?

        • Mind you, if you had asked how has Islam affected others, I could point you to the 1 million Armenians killed around 1915 or the almost 1 million Iraqi Christian refugees now in Syria. I could tell you about what islam did to the Hindus of India. I could show you videos from Egypt in the last 12 months. I could point to the rise in honour killings in the USA. But you didn’t ask that did you.

          Please point to one area of the world that has been continuously inhabited for a reasonably long period and HASN’T had some sort of religious/ethnic conflict.

          The Bosnian war killed something like 70,000 Bosniaks and displaced well over 1.5 million of them.

          The Nazi genocide was carried out in the name of Christianity and the Nazi ideology.

          The Communists killed close to 1.2 million people in the Gulags, purely on the basis of ideology.

          Pol Pot ended up killing 20% of his country’s population, again on the basis of a political ideology.

          If you’re trying to make the case that Muslims are the only ones guilty of murderous frenzies, I’m afraid you’re going to have a hard time.

        • JM April 6, 2012 3:39 pm wrote: ‘So, Otto, the total effect Islam has had on you has been made yo fearful to give out your address?’

          No. It was one effect, but not the only effect.

          JM wrote: ‘And-were you giving your address to a lot of people previously? …’

          No. There was no “previously”

          JM wrote: ‘ you admit that Islan has effected you not a bit. ‘

          No. I do not and did not.

          JM wrote: ‘Islan … you promise, it will effect you one day.’

          It’s not a promise. It’s a prediction.

          JM wrote: ‘Remember how the Catholics, or the Jews were going to end Australia? Then the Asians? They were going to destroy this country-but no, this time you’re right.’

          (1) I know that Protestants said that about Catholics, but I don’t know that there was ever a sizeable group that said it about the Jews.
          The Protestant view of Catholics was based partly on ignorance and partly on zeal for the purity of the Protestant religion. My view of Islam is based neither on ignorance of Islam nor on zeal for the purity of any particular religion. It is based on knowledge of the doctrines and history of Islam and the dynamics at work in Muslim societies whereby the zealots among them will always end up calling the shots.

          (2) As for “the Asians” it remains to be seen whether they will “end” Australia. I don’t even really know what that means. What counts as an “end” to Australia? Everyone who comes to Australia changes it a little. Also, Asians aren’t a religious monolith. Some are more Christian than your average Australian. Some are buddhists and share an ethic remarkably similar to that of Christianity. The hindus seem remarkably tolerant and no danger to anyone. There was a certain criminal element in the Asian triads of the 1980’s but that problem seems to be over. But the Muslims, be they “Asian” or blond-blue-eyed Aryan are another matter altogether. Wherever they have gone in the West they have formed ghettos and used standover tactics to cleanse the area of the kufar. They don’t form ghettos because the rest of society is excluding them. They do it because their religion commands it.

          (3) When you sarcastically say “this time you’re right”, what are you really saying? That I must be wrong because other people who said something different were wrong? That does not follow. Are you saying that because it is irrational to fear one group, it is irrational to fear any group? That does not follow either. It’s a piece of stupidity, prejudice and mental laziness on your part

          JM wrote; ‘And just to be clear, as you are basing you entire fear and paranoia of Islam on historical acts …’

          I wish you were not only clear but correct as well. I base my entire fear on history, Islamic doctrine and the dynamics at work within Muslim communities.

          JM wrote: ‘And what’s your source for the “rise of honour killings” in the USA?’

          My source is various news reports. For example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391531,00.html

        • “No. It was one effect, but not the only effect.”

          What was the other effects?

          “JM wrote: ‘And-were you giving your address to a lot of people previously? …’

          No. There was no “previously””

          So…Muslims haven’t stopped you from handing out your address-you never handed out your address.
          Or are you telling us, from the moemnt of your conception, you were terrified of a Muslim invasion? Makes sense, as the moment you were conceived you had known just as many Muslims as you do now.

          “No. I do not and did not. ”

          You said Islam had not effected you YET. That’s what you said. Are you saying you lied previously. If so, tell us how Islam has actually effected you directly.

          “It’s not a promise. It’s a prediction.”

          And how have your abilities to predict the future been going so far? Predicted anything important yet?
          You have a theory, not a prediction, and like all theories I have to wonder what it would take to falsify it. What would have to happen for you to say “I was wrong, my beliefs of a future Muslim invasion were wrong”? What would have to happen for you to say it? If you say nothing will convince you, then guess what, you have an unscientific theory.

          “but I don’t know that there was ever a sizeable group that said it about the Jews.”

          The Immigration department large enough for you? We placed strong restrictions on Jewish migrants even after WWII!

          “The Protestant view of Catholics was based partly on ignorance”

          Whereas your views are based on far right news sources, articles you don’t even read (See below), and meeting with a grand total of 0 Muslims. Yep, that’s well informed, is it?

          “They don’t form ghettos because the rest of society is excluding them. They do it because their religion commands it. ”

          Tell me the name of the muslim ghetto in Melbourne, if it exists. And then tell me the exact sura of the Quran that says that Muslims must live in ghettos, then explain why the Muslims I know live in a mixed community?

          And isn’t that the exact same thing, like word for word Pauline Hanson said about the Asian communities. But no, I’m sure this time you’re right.

          “Are you saying that because it is irrational to fear one group, it is irrational to fear any group? That does not follow either. ”

          No, I’m saying whenever there is a new ethnic or cultural group in Australia, the far right, anti-immigration group state that “They’re not Australians, they form ghettos and never fit in”-even though every single previous example of a new culture both A) fits in, and B) either moves out of the ghettos, if they were ever in them, or turns them into far more profitable areas to live in (Footscray, Yarraville and Box Hill are quite profitable now thanks to the Vietnamese migrants, and Carlton would not be the same if it weren’t for the Italians).

          Every single time a new group comes in, there’s talk of invasion, a destruction of Australia culture-and every single time within 1-2 generations, everyone, except the extreme deniers of the APP, accept them. And then the anti-immigration parties say the exact same thing about the new group that’s turned up.

          I ask again, Otto-have you ever met a Muslim in real life? Have you ever tried? How can you say you “know Islam” and “know what Islam will do to Australia” if you’ve never met a single Muslim? I wouldn’t trust a Doctor who’s never seen a disease before, only hearing about it online-so why should anyone trust the advice of a guy who has never ever met a Muslim?
          And, of course, asking again, what would have to happen for your theory on Islam to be proven false?

          “My source is various news reports.”

          Firstly, you’re using fox news, a notoriously biased and un-researched news source.
          Secondly, you didn’t read the article:
          “They may be on the rise in the U.S., as seen anecdotally in Kanwal’s death and a handful of other prominent attacks:” -which occur over a space of over 20 years. And how many attacks are there? 4!

          Yep, your entire basis for the statement that “Honour killings are on the rise in the US” is a far-right new channel stating “They might be, based on 4 acts over more than a twenty year period”

          Tell you what, I bet you $100 right now, that there is at least 10 times (Probably closer to 100 times) as many non-Muslims males killing their wives/daughters/mothers, etc over the same 20 + year time period for similarly stupid reasons. Are you going to say that’s wrong, and in fact there are less than 4 cases of non-Muslims killing their wives for some stupid sense of honour?

        • Still awaiting an answer on this question too Otto:
          how exactly would you “deprogram” Muslims in Australia?

        • How to deprogram Muslims?

          One thing that seems to work is to make them read the New Testament (in school perhaps). It had that effect on Sam Solomon.

          Another thing would be to put Islam-challenging material into the school curricula, for example the sort of material this guy challenges Muslims with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCFGZfOD4o

          Another thing would be to teach the real violent history of Islam in schools.

          Another would be to ban all outward signs of being a Muslim, like the hijab. Without being constantly reminded of their Muslim identity they tend to forget it.

        • “One thing that seems to work is to make them read the New Testament…”

          Ha! Failsafe strategy Otto! Brainwash them with another sky fairy! You do realise that the God in the Quran and the God in the New Testament are believed to be one and the same, right?

          “Another thing would be to put Islam-challenging material into the school curricula, for example the sort of material this guy challenges Muslims with [YouTube crapola]…”

          Sure! Let non-qualified ‘Christian World News’ ‘educators’ on YouTube take over the role of teachers despite the fact that multi-faith and belief systems already make up a notable portion of the K-12 syllabus.

          “Another thing would be to teach the real violent history of Islam in schools.”

          Sure, if you think that biased education is valuable for our children. But as has been pointed out before – you’re choosing to ignore the millions of Muslims worldwide who have chosen a life of peace. There is more evidence to suggest that Islam is a religion of peace than to suggest that it is a religion of violence as demonstrated by the comparable percentages of its worldwide followers who must either choose a path of peace or violence. Disagree?

          “Without being constantly reminded of their Muslim identity they tend to forget it.”

          And if you constantly didn’t see women wearing material over their hair, you might even forget your irrational fear of Muslim women!

        • JM wrote various things

          JM wrote: “No. It was one effect, but not the only effect.” What was the other effects?

          REPLY: Who cares! It was AN effect.

          JM wrote: ‘And-were you giving your address to a lot of people previously? …’ No. There was no “previously”” So…Muslims haven’t stopped you from handing out your address-you never handed out your address.

          REPLY: One can stop things from ever happening

          JM wrote: Or are you telling us, from the moemnt of your conception, you were terrified of a Muslim invasion?

          REPLY: No

          There had been this interchange: JM wrote: ‘ you admit that Islan has effected you not a bit. ‘ ME: No. I do not and did not.

          JM now writes: “No. I do not and did not. ” You said Islam had not effected you YET. That’s what you said. Are you saying you lied previously. If so, tell us how Islam has actually effected you directly.

          REPLY: No. I denied that Islam had not yet effected me.

          JM: “It’s not a promise. It’s a prediction.” And how have your abilities to predict the future been going so far? Predicted anything important yet?

          REPLY: I’ve been spot on about Egypt. I predicted 1 year ago that Egypt would end up being taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. And its happening. It’s Iran all over again.

          JM: You have a theory, not a prediction, and like all theories I have to wonder what it would take to falsify it. What would have to happen for you to say “I was wrong, my beliefs of a future Muslim invasion were wrong”? What would have to happen for you to say it? If you say nothing will convince you, then guess what, you have an unscientific theory.

          REPLY: (1) I have both a theory and a prediction. (2) I don’t predict a future Muslim invasion. The invasion is already underway. I predict a Muslim takeover if nothing is done to prevent it (3) The theory will be falsified if nothing is done to prevent the takeover and the takeover does not occur (4) Guess what, I have heard of Popper too. (5) You have a theory that says that a theory that is unfalsifiable is unscientific. Is that theory itself scientific? How could it be falsified?

          JM: “but I don’t know that there was ever a sizeable group that said it about the Jews.” The Immigration department large enough for you? We placed strong restrictions on Jewish migrants even after WWII!

          REPLY: But does that mean that a sizeable group thought they would “destroy the country”? Anyway, so what if they thought that? You seem to be proceeding on the assumption that if one claim about “foreigners” is false, all are false. That’s an horrendously stupid assumption.

          JM: “The Protestant view of Catholics was based partly on ignorance”. Whereas your views are based on far right news sources, articles you don’t even read (See below), and meeting with a grand total of 0 Muslims.

          REPLY: Incorrect.

          JM: “They don’t form ghettos because the rest of society is excluding them. They do it because their religion commands it. ” Tell me the name of the muslim ghetto in Melbourne, if it exists. And then tell me the exact sura of the Quran that says that Muslims must live in ghettos, then explain why the Muslims I know live in a mixed community?

          REPLY:

          (1) To say that Muslims form ghettos doesn’t mean they have finished the task wherever they are. Ghettos are in the early stages of formation in, for example, the Auburn-Bankstown-Lakemba area of Sydney. Things are more advanced in certain parts of Britain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKIeag1HUc

          (2) The Quran does not, IN TERMS, command Muslims to form ghettos, but obedience to various commands in the quran has the effect of driving Muslims into “ghettos” Most of the verses are at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm The most important one is ‘O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors’ http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.051 Here is how it is elaborated upon in a fatwa http://islamqa.info/en/ref/2179

          JM: And isn’t that the exact same thing, like word for word Pauline Hanson said about the Asian communities. But no, I’m sure this time you’re right.

          REPLY: Just because it’s not true about the Asian communities doesn’t make it not true about the Muslim ones.

          JM: “Are you saying that because it is irrational to fear one group, it is irrational to fear any group? That does not follow either. ” No, I’m saying whenever there is a new ethnic or cultural group in Australia, the far right, anti-immigration group state that “They’re not Australians, they form ghettos and never fit in”-even though every single previous example of a new culture both A) fits in, and B) either moves out of the ghettos, if they were ever in them, or turns them into far more profitable areas to live in (Footscray, Yarraville and Box Hill are quite profitable now thanks to the Vietnamese migrants, and Carlton would not be the same if it weren’t for the Italians). Every single time a new group comes in, there’s talk of invasion, a destruction of Australia culture-and every single time within 1-2 generations, everyone, except the extreme deniers of the APP, accept them. And then the anti-immigration parties say the exact same thing about the new group that’s turned up.

          REPLY: So what? Something isn’t false just because a “far right anti-immigration group” says it. Am I supposed to say the world is flat just because right-wing neo-nazis say it’s round? There is something unique to this particular group of immigrants. It’s their religion. I don’t just mean that their religion is unique. Every religion is unique. I mean they are the only group that has come here nursing a religious ideology that requires them to keep apart from everyone else, to see themselves as superior to everyone else, and when the time is right, to kill or subjugate everyone who doesn’t adopt that ideology.

          JM: I ask again, Otto-have you ever met a Muslim in real life? Have you ever tried? How can you say you “know Islam” and “know what Islam will do to Australia” if you’ve never met a single Muslim? I wouldn’t trust a Doctor who’s never seen a disease before, only hearing about it online-so why should anyone trust the advice of a guy who has never ever met a Muslim?

          REPLY: I hate to burst your bubble, but I have met a Muslim in real life. So what? Chamberlain met a Nazi in real-life too, and came away with a very positive impression of him. He was lied to. Muslims are under a religious obligation to dissimulate and lie about Islam to non-Muslims. Didn’t you even know that?

          JM: “My source is various news reports.” Firstly, you’re using fox news, a notoriously biased and un-researched news source. Secondly, you didn’t read the article: “They may be on the rise in the U.S., as seen anecdotally in Kanwal’s death and a handful of other prominent attacks:” -which occur over a space of over 20 years. And how many attacks are there? 4! Yep, your entire basis for the statement that “Honour killings are on the rise in the US” is a far-right new channel stating “They might be, based on 4 acts over more than a twenty year period”

          REPLY: Incorrect. I said “My source is VARIOUS news reports. FOR EXAMPLE http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391531,00.html” Here is another EXAMPLE. Tell me if the source is too right wing for you http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-uk-rising

          JM: Tell you what, I bet you $100 right now, that there is at least 10 times (Probably closer to 100 times) as many non-Muslims males killing their wives/daughters/mothers, etc over the same 20 + year time period for similarly stupid reasons. Are you going to say that’s wrong, and in fact there are less than 4 cases of non-Muslims killing their wives for some stupid sense of honour?

          REPLY: (1) You source for that is what? (2) I was talking about honour killings, not wife beatings. An honour killing is (by definition) one motivated by Islamic doctrine – the doctrine that the man is responsible for keeping his family truly Muslim. Are you saying that non-Muslim wife beatings are motivated by Islamic doctrine? Or are you saying that non-Muslim wife beatings mean that there are no honour killings? Or are you saying that non-Muslim wife beatings mean that honour killings aren’t so bad after all? Just what are you saying?

        • Otto, to help you to understand the rediculousness of your assetions I’ve provided the following summary of the difference and similarities between Islam and Christianity.

          Similarities:
          1. An ancient doctorine continaing certain sections which if read litterally and out of context appear to support violence and rape.
          2. Said doctorine has been used over many centuries to justify various attrocities.
          3. A small number of followers of said doctorine continue to use it to justify ongoing attrocities.
          4. However, the majority of followers use said doctorine to help them in some way shape or form (as an theist I have no idea what this is).

          Differences
          1. You are a Christian
          2. You are not a Muslim.

        • “JM wrote: “No. It was one effect, but not the only effect.” What was the other effects?

          REPLY: Who cares! It was AN effect.”

          I care. What were the other effects?

          “REPLY: One can stop things from ever happening”

          So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

          “I denied that Islam had not yet effected me. ”

          So we’re going around in circles again, are we? Let’s ask it again:
          How has Islam directly effected you?

          “(3) The theory will be falsified if nothing is done to prevent the takeover and the takeover does not occur”

          Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

          “But does that mean that a sizeable group thought they would “destroy the country”? Anyway, so what if they thought that? ”

          Yes there was such a group-pretty much every fascist group did and still does believe that. And it matters because it was previously a theory about a religious group that was used to target them for attacks and blame.
          You have another theory about another religious group which you use to target them for attacks and blame. See the similarity?

          And about the ghettos, I asked for the name of the Islamic ghetto in Melbourne. After all, Melbourne has a large Muslim population-if all Muslims must form ghettos as part of their “invasion” usrely a well informed guy like you could name the one in Melbourne.

          Wait, you’re also saying the Quran forces Muslims to not be friends with non-Muslims? Then…why do they? I’ve friends who are Muslim, It’s almost like you’ve interpreted a source in a way that fits your theory, and denied any other interpretation…such as this one:

          http://www.answering-christianity.com/friends.htm

          As you can see if you read it, thy state the interpretation is inaccurate, it doesn’t state Miuslims cannot take Christians and Jews as “friends” but as “allies”, and ater states this is because of fear that Christians and Jews would adopt the fledgling religion only to abandon it and weaken it. Which is not an unsurprising way for a new religion to go, as long as it is considered in context. Kinda like how there’s a lotta Anti-semitism in the Gosepls, because at the time of writing both Jews and Christians were trying to dsicredit the other.

          Is it the only interpretation? No. But this demonstrates that the Quran does not just have one sole interpretation-it can and is interpreted in many ways to fit the modern world. You seem to think only one interpretation, your interpretation as a book of war, is valid.

          “I mean they are the only group that has come here nursing a religious ideology that requires them to keep apart from everyone else, to see themselves as superior to everyone else, and when the time is right, to kill or subjugate everyone who doesn’t adopt that ideology. ”

          Well….they aren’t. Judaism and Christianity both have texts saying they’re apart and superior to everyone else. And the Old Testament does encourage the murder of non-believers. Deutoronomy chapter 17 encourages the stoning of non-believers.

          Now, I know, you’re going to tell me no one follows that anymore, even though some think it’s okay. And then you’re going to tell me that all Muslims follow every single letter of the Quran in the way you interpreted it, even though Muslims aren;t going through Australia killing non-believers, are they?

          And here’s another spike in your theory-the Islamic Golden Age. During the Medieval times, the Islamic empre was a pinnacle of science, medicine, philosophy and tolerance. During that time Jews not only were better treated in the Islamic empire than anywhere in Europe, they even thanked the Muslim invaders when they took over parts of Spain. The Empire lasted centuries….yet Jews were still better treated there than anywhere else in Europe. When the empire began to recede from Spain, and the Spainish Inquisition forced the Jews out of Spain as well, those Jewish refugees were welcomed into Turkey, and Spain was mocked for losing such valuable members of society.

          Surely, with Islam being a global power then, if they were going to kill all the Jews, why didn’t they do it during that Golden Age, when, let’s face it, they would have been able to get away with it without any reprisals (Christian Europe wouldn’t have complained!).

          “Muslims are under a religious obligation to dissimulate and lie about Islam to non-Muslims.”

          Okay, so let me get this straight. Even if you meeat 1 million Muslims, and they all seem nice, and seem busy gettign on with their lives, that will not make you doubt for a second that they’re going to kill you as soon as they get a chance?
          And again, with taqqiya. Taqqiya is a thing that pretty much all the far right interpret as meaning “Muslims are allowed to lie to you”-when it never means any such thing!

          Taqqiya means, and has always meant “Denying or rejecting your own religion if your life is at threat”
          So, if you came at someone with a knife and said “I’m gonna kill all the Muslims” taqqiya would allow a Muslim to say “I’m not a Muslim, so piss off”
          Tell me where in the Quran (Which doesn’t actually mention Taqqiya, does it-that comes from after Muhammad’s death) or any other major Islamic text does it state that Muslims are allowed to lie about an aspect of their faith, or the values of their faith, in order to lull a Non-Muslim in a false sense of confidence.

          Unless you’re going to tell me that taqqiya is such a strong deception that Muslims got together in the 8th Century AD, and decided that “Taqqiya means lying to non-believers about anything-our religion, their weight…but don’t tell anyone, or write it down. Keep it secret for thousands of years” Is that what you believe?

          “(1) You source for that is what?”

          I don’t have one-I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

          “(2) I was talking about honour killings, not wife beatings.”

          So, honour killings are bad, but if a Non-Muslim kills his wife, or his daughter for some stupid sense of honour (Such as “She left me, and made me look bad” or “She cheated on me, or I thought she cheated on me, and made me look bad” or, even more shockingly “She left me, so I’ll kill her kids to hurt her”)-you don’t mind that? Is that right? It’s only a shocking thing when a Muslim does it?

          “Are you saying that non-Muslim wife beatings are motivated by Islamic doctrine? ”

          What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

          “Or are you saying that non-Muslim wife beatings mean that honour killings aren’t so bad after all? ”

          No, not at all. All murder is wrong, by a family member even more so. But you seem to think that there’s an epidemic of honour killings in the west, compared to non-muslims killing their family members. Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

        • Also, Otto, in regards of “Honour killings are, by definition, only done by Muslims”-you’re wrong there too.

          Hindu, Judaism and Christianity all have lunatics killing family members in the name of religious honour. India has the murders of women marrying outside their caste or religion, in Brazil, until 1991, wife killing was seen as legal, and in Colombia until 1980 a man could legally kill a wife he thought was adulterous (Source: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l243-Violence-against-woman—Issue-Of-Honor-killing.html)

          And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

          What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

          “Another thing would be to put Islam-challenging material into the school curricula, for example the sort of material this guy challenges Muslims with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCFGZfOD4o

          So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

          But hey, I think that could actually work, IF he’s followed by a Jew challening Christianity, and trying to get people to convert to Judaism, then a Hindu challenging Judaism and trying to get them to convert to Hindu, then a Sikh challenging Hinduism and trying to get them to convert to Sikhism, etc. If they go fast enough the kids might even have enough time to learn things of secondary importance…like math.

          “Another thing would be to teach the real violent history of Islam in schools.”

          And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

          Y’know, I didn’t study a lot of Islam in High School-mostly did the Russian and French revolution in Year 12. But your idea is revolutionary-if we’re going to have one “true” history for an entire religious group, why don’t we have all history described as one “true” history? It would save time if you got rid of all those pesky “schools of thought” and just replaced it with one “true” history. And the best part, is it’s completely different to what the autocratic dictatorships in Cambodia, Nth Korea, China and Burma. Completely different, in a way I’ve yet to figure out.

          “Another would be to ban all outward signs of being a Muslim, like the hijab. Without being constantly reminded of their Muslim identity they tend to forget it.”

          And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether? You seem to be certain that this plan would work, so I woud love to hear bout your research in this area.
          Because, last time I checked, France banned all outside forms of religion in any government building, whether they be Jewish, Christian or Muslims, yet somehow this hasn’t not become a perfectly atheist society. Turkey is the same, yet still somehow remains Muslim-is their memory that good!
          Similarly, I don’t carry a crucifix on me all day, yet somehow don’t get so distracted that I forget to be a Christian.

          I’m beginning to realise why the far right racists love to cover themselves in a flag at every opportunity. Without it, according to Otto, they might forget they’re Australian and start being, I don’t know, Swedish or something.

          In fact, under his theory, and it’s a good one, Otto must takes of his pants at least once a day, otherwise he’ll forget he’s a man and start wearing make up.

      • Hi Otto, I hear Coles are selling Halal yoghurt. Better go spam thier page.

        How is you “journal” going, anyway? Hit double figures?

  5. I DO NOT LIKE NIQAB, I THINK NIQAB IS A WAY TO KEEP ONE HIDE HER IDENTITY.
    IT IS A PERMITTED AND IMAGINARY RULE BY SOME RELIGIOUS, NOT OF ISLAM.

  6. Hi there bogans, nonbogans,
    Personally, I get upset at seeing a girl clad in a burqa/Niqab because I feel like I am not trusted to look upon or treat these ladies/girls with respect and courtesy. If it is their choice, I have no problem, if they are forced into it, that makes me sad. Unfortunately, the world is full of haters and controllers. How we treat and speak of others is not a reflection of them, but a reflection upon ourselves. I would like to think that I am fair, equitable, strong enough to endure crap uneducated bigots throw around and to raise my children in that same ethos. A little bit of courtesy and a lot of respect go an awfully long way toward peace and acceptance.

    • Hi Shezzam,
      To be honest, I don’t like the burqa either-but I don’t see how banning it will make anything any better. The men who refuse to let women out without wearing it won’t change their minds by a ban, they just won’t let the women out. And for those who chose to wear it, this is the government telling them that their religion and Australia can’t mix-which is exactly the sort of view that prevents integration (That’s right, all you little APP members out there-it’s you guys that are stopping integration!).

      And it is true that some choose to wear it. I met with a woman who wore a niqab out of her own choice, to restrict male stares, and I know for a fact she wasn’t being forced by her husband. And I know this for a fact because women who are being forced to do things by their husband, don’t usually file for divorce, place a restraining order out on their husband, yet still challenge him in the courts for child support payments.

      • i personally would never wear the burqa… but tht being said i’m not sayin no to wearin the hijjab at a later point in my life… but these women arent forced to wear it… they choose to wear it… ok they showed shit on the tv bout the ban of the burqa in france where they showed 1 woman who claimed her husband said she has to wear it… wht about the other muslim chick they interviewed tht actually works as a burlesque dancer?? tht woman tht claimed she was forced to wear the burqa and naqib actually only wore it when she was outdoors but part of the interview took place indoors where she didnt wear either… the idea of these women wearing the burqa, niqab or even hijjab is tht its not removed in the presence of anyone who is not immediate family… so if a female claims tht she’s forced then she is manipulating for her 15 mins of fame just like those losers tht put them on for the attention…

        the attempt to ban the burqa is in itself an attempt at control… lets then go an ban the nuns from wearing traditional habits coz tht also conceals their bodies…or ban the amish from wearing their tradtional dress… lets make it law tht we all go back to neandethal days and just walk round in the buff… tht way we’ll all save money on clothes… but then u’d have ppl bitch about tht…

        hey otto… here’s somethin tht might get ya hard…
        http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bosnian+genocide&docid=5010354725650609&mid=58420BE9BB461C63D3FC58420BE9BB461C63D3FC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE4

        have a geezer at wht christians did to muslims during the bosnian war…

  7. I CAN SCREAM AS A FAIR RIGHT SUPORTER WITH STUFF THAT I FOUND ON A WORDPRESS BLOG AND YOU CAN’T TALK BACK TO ME YOU COMMY MUSLAM_DICK SUCKING FAGOT!!!!!!!!!

    These people are not allowed to be involved in the conversation with other adults until they learn to talk like adults.

    • Got the guts to have a debate Nicholas? Do you know who you’re talking to?

      If you’d like to have a debate, you must first address the questions that have been put to you.
      Hell – take your best shot. Ask as many questions as YOU like. Number them, eg:

      1. Nick’s first dopey question
      2. Nick’s second dopey question
      3. Nick’s third dopey question

      etc.

      And then TAB admin will address each and every question of yours. Like an adult discussion should happen.

  8. I had mentioned several things (the stuff in quotes) that could be done to deprogram Muslims in Australia. Notice that none of mindmadeup’s responses amount to a denial of the effectiveness of those measures. She opposes them for other reasons.

    mindmadeup April 8, 2012 8:43 am wrote: “One thing that seems to work is to make them read the New Testament…” Ha! Failsafe strategy Otto! Brainwash them with another sky fairy! You do realise that the God in the Quran and the God in the New Testament are believed to be one and the same, right?

    REPLY: (1) Better a harmless fairy-tale than the Islamic one. (2) I do realise that some people believe Allah and the God of the Jews are the same. Those people are usually called Muslims and their only reason for believing it is that the Quran says so.

    mindmadeup April 8, 2012 8:43 am wrote: “Another thing would be to put Islam-challenging material into the school curricula, for example the sort of material this guy challenges Muslims with [YouTube crapola]…” Sure! Let non-qualified ‘Christian World News’ ‘educators’ on YouTube take over the role of teachers despite the fact that multi-faith and belief systems already make up a notable portion of the K-12 syllabus.

    REPLY: The guy is not from Christian World News. He’s an Egyptian.

    mindmadeup April 8, 2012 8:43 am wrote: “Another thing would be to teach the real violent history of Islam in schools.” Sure, if you think that biased education is valuable for our children. But as has been pointed out before – you’re choosing to ignore the millions of Muslims worldwide who have chosen a life of peace. There is more evidence to suggest that Islam is a religion of peace than to suggest that it is a religion of violence as demonstrated by the comparable percentages of its worldwide followers who must either choose a path of peace or violence. Disagree?

    REPLY:

    (1) I like (ironically speaking) your assumption that only a biased person believes that the history of Islam is violent.

    (2) There is no evidence that the millions of Muslims have “chosen” a life of peace. They are simply not in situations that calls for them to bare their Muslim teeth. Here is a situation that did. Notice anything different about them? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E3DE143EE033A25751C2A96E9C946897D6CF&scp=186&sq=christian+massacre&st=p

    (3) There is no evidence at all that Islam is a religion of peace. Neither its history nor its sacred texts nor its mainstream theology says it is. ‘”Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: ‘Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!’ Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: ‘Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.’ Islam says: ‘Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.’ The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

    mindmadeup wrote: “Without being constantly reminded of their Muslim identity they tend to forget it.”. And if you constantly didn’t see women wearing material over their hair, you might even forget your irrational fear of Muslim women!

    REPLY: The fear is not irrational. Your lack of fear is irrational.

    • I had mentioned several things (the stuff in quotes) that could be done to deprogram Muslims in Australia.

      Why should we?

      I would rather “deprogram” racists and bigots such as you if that were possible. Letting our formidable commenters loose on you seems to do the trick.

      She opposes them for other reasons.

      Which “she”? We have several. I’m a “he”. We all detest your Christian Taliban and the damage it does.

      And the admin who replied to you has admirably shown you up for the fool you are. You know nothing about how schools and education are conducted.

        • Cool, you want to deprogram Muslims. So let’s go to the questions I asked about your deprogramming plans:

          W) And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

          X) What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

          Y) So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

          Z) And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

          AA) And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

  9. “REPLY: (1) Better a harmless fairy-tale than the Islamic one.”

    Harmless, really? Have you read Paul’s letters? As I’ve said before, very sexist, and very anti-gay.

    “Those people are usually called Muslims and their only reason for believing it is that the Quran says so.”

    And me. I also believe it. Having studied Islam for a few years, I see the similarities, and recognise it as the same religion but in a different context.

    “(2) There is no evidence that the millions of Muslims have “chosen” a life of peace.”

    So, not only do you have a theory that can’t be falsified, you’re going to say that all Muslims are guilty until they prove their innocence? How exactly does a person prove that not only are they not a murderer, they will never ever be one?

    Tell me, Otto. Hell, I’ll make it relevant to you. I’m concerned you’re going on an Anders Breivik style slaughter of children. Prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you will never ever ever do it.
    Otherwise, under your own ethics, we should have you arrested and charged, to protect our children.

    “(3) There is no evidence at all that Islam is a religion of peace.”

    Apart from, y’know, the word Islam meaning peace.

    “Neither its history nor its sacred texts nor its mainstream theology says it is.”

    Apart from the Golden Age of Islam where Jews were better treated than anywhere else in the world, and science and philosophy were encouraged.
    And these line from the word of Mohammed:

    Repel evil with that which is better. (23:96)

    Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors (Al-Baqarah 190-193)

    But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).” (Surah 8, Verse 61).

    God advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.” (Surah 16, Verse 90)

    But you’re right. I couldn’t find anything else in a 30 second google search.

    “Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini”

    So, your source on Islam is the leader of Iran? How many trips has he made to Australia? What threat is he to Australia? How is he supporting Muslims in Australia, considering they majority of Muslims in Australia either fled his regime, or have a different religion than him?

    But, no, no, you keep on using him as a source. And an atheist can use Fred Phelps as a source for Christianity, and Hitler as a source for intepreting Wagner.

    “REPLY: The fear is not irrational. Your lack of fear is irrational.”

    Cool, so you’ll now be happy to tell us how you are being rational in being scared of Muslim women, right?

  10. Greg Lou April 6, 2012 5:09 pm wrote: Otto,http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime Checkmate.

    REPLY: (1) I am not here to defend Christianity. I am here to attack Islam. Islam is evil even if Christianity is too. But Islam is far more dangerous to you because it preaches deception and violence, whereas Christianity does not.

    (2) Gallup thinks your checkmate study is bunkum http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3094#.T4EOY9WGWSo

  11. JM April 8, 2012 12:57 pm wrote various things

    JM: “REPLY: (1) Better a harmless fairy-tale than the Islamic one.” Harmless, really? Have you read Paul’s letters?

    REPLY: Yes. I see no threat of harm to anyone in them.

    JM: “Those people are usually called Muslims and their only reason for believing it is that the Quran says so.” And me. I also believe it. Having studied Islam for a few years, I see the similarities, and recognise it as the same religion but in a different context.

    REPLY: X is similar to Y does not entail X = Y

    JM: “(2) There is no evidence that the millions of Muslims have “chosen” a life of peace.” So, not only do you have a theory that can’t be falsified, you’re going to say that all Muslims are guilty until they prove their innocence?

    REPLY: (1) My theory is falsifiable (2) Muslims are all “guilty” of being Muslims.

    JM: How exactly does a person prove that not only are they not a murderer, they will never ever be one?

    REPLY: (1) They can’t, except by killing themselves. So what? (2) One can prove that their religion sanctions what Westerners regard as murder. And one’s knowledge of human nature tells one that, other things beings equal, people are more likely to do what is sanctioned than what is prohibited. (3) One has Islam’s 1400 year bloody Quran-sanctioned history to go by

    JM: Tell me, Otto. Hell, I’ll make it relevant to you. I’m concerned you’re going on an Anders Breivik style slaughter of children. Prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you will never ever ever do it.

    REPLY: (1) Your concern is as touching as it is, no doubt, sincere. (2) You have more reason to be worried about the Muslim next door than about me. His religion sanctions Breivik type activities. I do not subscribe to a religion than sanctions them.

    JM: Otherwise, under your own ethics, we should have you arrested and charged, to protect our children.

    REPLY: That would only follow if I was as much or more of a threat as the Muslims are.

    JM: “(3) There is no evidence at all that Islam is a religion of peace.” Apart from, y’know, the word Islam meaning peace.

    REPLY: You have studied Islam for years and you still think that Islam means “peace”? I’m so impressed! “Islam” means “submission” or “surrender” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IAdrzBZD64

    JM: “Neither its history nor its sacred texts nor its mainstream theology says it is.” Apart from the Golden Age of Islam where Jews were better treated than anywhere else in the world, and science and philosophy were encouraged.

    REPLY: Yes, those are about the only things that point towards Islam being a peaceful religion. Upon closer examination the initial impression they give disappears. I have written a separate post about them (“On the Golden Age of Islam” April 8, 2012 3:54 pm). I see you have deleted it as “spam”. LOL, It bursts you little bubble doesn’t it!

    I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.

    JM: “Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini” So, your source on Islam is the leader of Iran?

    REPLY: No. He is just one source (and a better source than you).

    JM: How many trips has he made to Australia?

    REPLY: 0. So?

    JM: What threat is he to Australia?

    REPLY: None. He is dead. So?

    JM: How is he supporting Muslims in Australia, considering they majority of Muslims in Australia either fled his regime, or have a different religion than him?

    REPLY: He is not currently supporting anyone. He is dead. As for the majority Muslims, namely the Sunni, they have the same religion as the Shia (most Iranians). They are different sects, not different religions.

    JM: “REPLY: The fear is not irrational. Your lack of fear is irrational.” Cool, so you’ll now be happy to tell us how you are being rational in being scared of Muslim women, right?

    REPLY: Yes, I can tell you AGAIN: being Muslims, they believe it is their god given duty to assist IN ANY WAY THEY CAN to make the world eventually submit to the will of Allah as transmitted by Mohammed.

    • “REPLY: Yes. I see no threat of harm to anyone in them.”

      Really? Well, of course, you’re a man. You wouldn’t see any problems with lines like this:

      “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ”

      You are also, presumably a straight male, so would not see a problem with:

      ” For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.” from the epistle to the Romans, and

      “Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine” In Timothy

      “My theory is falsifiable ”

      Well, you have two theories, neither of which are falsifiable.
      1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

      2) The other theory is that Muslims are not and cannot be peaceful. How exactly does a Muslim disprove that? If they are peaceful, you’l just say they’re biding their time to attack. If they say you’ll never attack, you’ll just say it’s taqqiya (Your misinterpretation of which I notice you do not acknowledge). So how does a Muslim prove that they are peaceful to you?

      “(2) Muslims are all “guilty” of being Muslims.”

      So, now we hit on the crux of the matter. You don’t care about Muslims committing or not committing crimes-that’s irrelevant to you. Their crime is being Muslim. So they can never ever be allowed fair judgement because of it. Even if they spend the rest of their lives helping and supporting others, you could never even accept the possibilities that they are a better person than the worst serial killers currently in our prison, because they are Muslim.

      Am I right? How far off am I?

      “(1) They can’t, except by killing themselves. So what?”

      So, when you ask for Muslims to prove they’ll will never be murderous, their only option is to kill themselves? Really-that should be interesting-shall we apply it for any other groups that we deem “may” possibly know someone or share a common characteristic with someone who may or may not be a murderer?

      ” (2) One can prove that their religion sanctions what Westerners regard as murder. And one’s knowledge of human nature tells one that, other things beings equal, people are more likely to do what is sanctioned than what is prohibited.”

      So, you’re telling me that if Australia suddenly made it legal to kill certain people, you’d probably kill someone in your life? Because, as you said, you’re more like to do something that is sanctioned than is prohibited.
      I don’t know about you, but I have a moral code that extends beyond what is legal. And I’m a bit worried that it’s only the law that’s holding you back from being a murderer.

      ” (3) One has Islam’s 1400 year bloody Quran-sanctioned history to go by”

      Okay, so surely we need to charge all Christians as well, as Christianity has a 1400+ year history of bloody repression, holy wars, and genocide to go by.
      No, of course, I forgot-anyone who kills anyone in the name of Christianity is a bad Christian. Whereas any Muslim who kills anyone is a good Muslim. You’ve yet to tell us why you, and you alone are allowed to judge all Christians and Muslims are being good followers of their religion.

      “You have more reason to be worried about the Muslim next door than about me. His religion sanctions Breivik type activities. I do not subscribe to a religion than sanctions them. ”

      Nope, you haven’t proved anything there. After all, if you’re worried about Muslims lying about what their intentions are, I gotta tell ya, they got nothing on serial killers. After all, if you were planning to kill a bunch of kids, would you tell us ahead of time?

      And just for the record “Don’t worry about me-worry about that other guy”-is not a plausible defense when being accused of murder. You should at least say “I wouldn’t do it” rather than “I’m less likely to do it than other people”
      Also, don’t indicate that it’s only a law against murder that stops you from killing people.

      Try again. I am concerned you are going to kill a bunch of kids-prove to me that you aren’t going to.

      “REPLY: That would only follow if I was as much or more of a threat as the Muslims are.”

      Wait, so people who are accused of murder are allowed to say how much of a threat they are now, is that right? Is everyone allowed to say “I’m less likely to kill than someone else”-or will there be some central governing body that makes this decision, apart from you?

      Again, saying “I’m less of a threat than the muslims” doesn’t prove your innocence. In fact, it seems to indicate that you actually are a threat, but by your own definition are not as big a threat as muslims (Which really isn’t saying much, as by your definition, Muslims will do everything short of switching off the sun).

      And, by the way, didn’t Ander Behring Breivik say something similar, something like the act I did was terrible, but necessary to stop Muslim invasion, or something like that. So if we paraphrase a bit, wouldn’t he be saying the exact same thing as you just said “I killed a bunch of kids, but that is fewer children than would have been killed by the Muslims”

      “Islam” means “submission” or “surrender””

      And using youtube as a source. Go you! What’s next-you’ll show us a video of keyboard cat complaining about sharia law?
      Anyway, apologies-Islam does not mean peace, it has the same root word as peace, resulting in one interpretation that personal peace is achieved though submitting to Islam. Also, the most common greeting in Muslims means “Peace be upon you”-now to me that sounds like a rleigion that clearly likes peace. Especially when you include some of these quotes as well:

      From Mohammad’s last sermon:
      “”Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.””
      “Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer; treat well as a neighbor the one who lives near you, that you may be a Muslim [one who submits to God].
      “”The most righteous of men is the one who is glad that men should have what is pleasing to himself, and who dislikes for them what is for him disagreeable.” (Qur’an, Surah 59, 83)

      So, to me at least, there’s more than no indication that Islam likes peace. But I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation as to why the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them done unto you”) which appears 5 times in the Quran, means something entirely different as the Golden Rule that was spoken by Jesus. Go.

      “I have written a separate post about them (“On the Golden Age of Islam” April 8, 2012 3:54 pm).”

      Not me, I don’t delete comments as I’m not an admin. But go ahead-let’s bring out your sources that show that Jews, while being forced out of Spain for fear of being tortured, and regularly subjected to pogroms in Russia and Prussia, forced removal in England, and blamed regularly for everything that ever want wrong ever….were actually better treated in Europe than in an Islamic empire at the same time. I look forward to your response.

      “I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.”

      And I’ll address all the comments you missed in a follow up. post as well.

      “He is just one source (and a better source than you).”

      Oooh, someone’s getting sensitive here.
      How exactly is the Ayatollah Khomeini a good source on Islam today? Considering A) he is dead, B) the majority of Muslims in Australia follow a different Sect of Islam than him (And I’m sure you’ll know that the different strands of Islam don’t really get along-or is that just them trying to trick us), and C) Those that do follow his strand of Islam are people who have fled, or descended from those, who fled his regime?
      Your using as a source an dead Muslim leader who literally no one in Australia actually agrees with. So, how is that any better a source than using Fred Phelps as a source for Christianity?

      “being Muslims, they believe it is their god given duty to assist IN ANY WAY THEY CAN to make the world eventually submit to the will of Allah as transmitted by Mohammed.”

      Has any Muslim you’ve met ever told you that? Oh no, that would break their taqqiya (Even though it wouldn’t, and that doesn’t mean what you say it means), right?

      • JM asks: How exactly is the Ayatollah Khomeini a good source on Islam today?

        He spent his life studying it. He was sufficiently respected to become the leader of a Muslim country. Duh!

        What are you saying? That Islam has changed since 1979?

        The differences between the shia (Khomeini ) and sunni (most Muslims) are very few, despite the fact that they are regarded as serious enough for shia and sunni to kill each other

        JM wrote: Your using as a source an dead Muslim leader who literally no one in Australia actually agrees with

        REPLY: That’s ludicrous. You haven’t asked literally everyone in Australia whether they agree. The current regime in Iran agrees with Khomeini. It stands to reason that they would have agents in Australia. Seen this? http://www.theaustralianpost.com/australian-news/iranian-sheikh-mansour-leghaei-is-being-deported-to-iran/

        • “He spent his life studying it. He was sufficiently respected to become the leader of a Muslim country. Duh!”

          As has every crazed lunatic who commits terrible acts in the name of Christianity. Say what you will about Fred Phelps-he has studied Christianity ver ywell. So I repeat, how is Khomeini and better a source on Islam than Phelps is for Christianity?

          “What are you saying? That Islam has changed since 1979?”

          Everything changes, Otto. Everything.

          “The differences between the shia (Khomeini ) and sunni (most Muslims) are very few, despite the fact that they are regarded as serious enough for shia and sunni to kill each other”

          So, they think the differences are big enough-right? This is again the problem with believing you know more about Islam than a Muslim, and can judge the differences.
          For example, the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism are very few, as well. But it would still be incorrect for the Pope to be used as a guide on all Christianity, just as it is wrong to use Khomeini as a guide for Islam.

          “You haven’t asked literally everyone in Australia whether they agree.”

          Ah, true. Thatwhat percentage would you say, of Muslims in Australia would support Khomeini, considering, as I’ve said, virutally all of the Msulims in Australia either have never ever followed his beliefs, or fled the country to escape persecution from him.

          ” The current regime in Iran agrees with Khomeini.”

          The same powerless regime that brutally tortured and executed its own people for declaring the recent election fraudulent? So not only are you saying that Khomeini is a good source for Islam for all Muslims, even the ones who don’t follow Khomeini, and those who fled for their lives from Khomeini, you’re also saying the regime supports Khomeini, ignoring that Khomeini’s belief supports power for the current regime, and the only reason the regime can stay in place is because it is brutally persecuting, torturing and killing anyone who disagrees with it.

          Regimes that have popular support, you may be interested to know Otto, don’t need to persecute and kill people to stay in power.

          “It stands to reason that they would have agents in Australia. Seen this?”

          Wow, you found one person! Go you! But let’s just be clear-are you disputing my statement that at the very least the vast majority of Muslims in Australia either have never supported Khomeini, or fled for their lives from the regime that supports Khomeini? Are you, instead, stating that Khomeini is a good source for Islam because the majority of Muslims in Australia do follow him?

          It stands to reason that they would have agents in Australia.

        • JM asks: How exactly is the Ayatollah Khomeini a good source on Islam today?

          He spent his life studying it. He was sufficiently respected to become the leader of a Muslim country. Duh!

          1. Khomeini firstly is a Shi’ite so the majority of Muslims who are Sunni would not be following any teachings of his.

          2. If you need a rough Western analogy Shia is Catholic/Orthodox, Sunni is mainstream Protestant.

          3. Iranian Shia Islam is different from Shia Islam practised elsewhere.

          4. Islam, unlike Christianity, does not have a central hierarchy or magisterium. No imam or other teacher holds sway over any other. In that respect it is more like Judaism. So are you going to judge the Chief Rabbi of Australia, who is considered mainstream Orthodox, by the flamboyant Rabbi Smuley Boteach of California, who is also Orthodox or Rabbi Martin Kahane of Israel who was an ultra-nationalist politically and Orthodox theologically?

          So are you going to judge all Jews by their rabbis, good or bad? Or all Christians by their pastors good or bad, whether that pastor be the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Fred Nile, Fred Phelps, Tim Costello, Father Bob etc etc?

          5. The Islam practised by an observant Muslim at Mosque A is as valid for him/her as the Islam practised by someone who attends Mosque B.

          So folks, we have heard the word of Hoffman! in keeping with the Gospel according to Hoffman we can now judge all Christians and all manifestations of Christianity by the actions of Innocent III, Gregory IX, Sixtus IV, Torquemada, Matthew Hopkins, Fred Nile, Jim Wallace, Joseph Kony….

          and these guys

          http://listverse.com/2010/02/23/10-people-who-give-christianity-a-bad-name/

          Hoffman has said so!

        • By the way, Otto, more stuff you missed. We’ve got enough for a whole alphabet, now:

          A) How exactly are either of these theories falsifiable:
          1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

          2) The other theory is that Muslims are not and cannot be peaceful. How exactly does a Muslim disprove that? If they are peaceful, you’l just say they’re biding their time to attack. If they say you’ll never attack, you’ll just say it’s taqqiya (Your misinterpretation of which I notice you do not acknowledge). So how does a Muslim prove that they are peaceful to you?

          B) You don’t care about Muslims committing or not committing crimes-that’s irrelevant to you. Their crime is being Muslim. So they can never ever be allowed fair judgement because of it. Even if they spend the rest of their lives helping and supporting others, you could never even accept the possibilities that they are a better person than the worst serial killers currently in our prison, because they are Muslim.

          Am I right? How far off am I?

          C) So, when you ask for Muslims to prove they’ll will never be murderous, their only option is to kill themselves? Really-that should be interesting-shall we apply it for any other groups that we deem “may” possibly know someone or share a common characteristic with someone who may or may not be a murderer?

          D) So, you’re telling me that if Australia suddenly made it legal to kill certain people, you’d probably kill someone in your life? Because, as you said, you’re more like to do something that is sanctioned than is prohibited.
          I don’t know about you, but I have a moral code that extends beyond what is legal. And I’m a bit worried that it’s only the law that’s holding you back from being a murderer.

          E) Okay, so surely we need to charge all Christians as well, as Christianity has a 1400+ year history of bloody repression, holy wars, and genocide to go by.
          No, of course, I forgot-anyone who kills anyone in the name of Christianity is a bad Christian. Whereas any Muslim who kills anyone is a good Muslim. You’ve yet to tell us why you, and you alone are allowed to judge all Christians and Muslims are being good followers of their religion.

          F) Try again. I am concerned you are going to kill a bunch of kids (Especially as you’ve indicated the only thing stopping you from killing is the law)-prove to me that you aren’t going to.

          G) I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation as to why the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them done unto you”) which appears 5 times in the Quran, means something entirely different as the Golden Rule that was spoken by Jesus. Go.

          H) “I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.”-still waiting on this

          I) Has any Muslim you’ve met ever told you that? Oh no, that would break their taqqiya (Even though it wouldn’t, and that doesn’t mean what you say it means), right?

          J) Are you actually telling us you think the child migrants were better cared for in Australia, where they were raped by priests, belieiving, incorrectly, that their parents were dead, rather than with their mother’s in England?

          K) Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

          L) What is your more dispassionate source for your interpretation of the Stolen Generation?

          M) Finally, after days of being asked, you answer you have met a real Muslim. Why so hesitant? Why avoid the question for DAYS? I know you read it, because you responded in non-direct ways (“Ask someone from Egypt if they’re met a Muslim)-so why wait so long to answer?

          N) So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

          O) What were the other effects of your fear of Islam?

          P) So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

          Q) Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

          R) Why, is Muslims were always going to kill non-Muslims, did they not wipe out the non-believers in their Golden Age?

          S) Tell me where in the Quran (Which doesn’t actually mention Taqqiya, does it-that comes from after Muhammad’s death) or any other major Islamic text does it state that Muslims are allowed to lie about an aspect of their faith, or the values of their faith, in order to lull a Non-Muslim in a false sense of confidence.

          T) I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

          U) What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

          V) Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

          W) And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

          X) What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

          Y) So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

          Z) And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

          AA) And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

      • JM wrote: “Islam” means “submission” or “surrender”” And using youtube as a source. Go you!

        But JM did not look at the youtube, for if JM had JM would have known that the person speaking was Sam Solomon, a native Arabic speaker who learnt the Quran by heart as a child and spent 15 years studying to be an Islamic jurist. I think he would have a better understanding of arabic that JM.

        And although JM now admits that Islam does not mean peace JM does not say what it does mean. HINT: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Islam

        • DERIVATIVES
          Islamic |-ik| adjective
          Islamicization |isˌlämisiˈzā sh ən; iz-| noun
          Islamicize |isˈlämiˌsīz; iz-| verb
          Islamism |ˈisləˌmizəm; ˈiz-| noun
          Islamist |-ist| noun
          Islamization |isˌlämiˈzā sh ən; iz-| noun
          Islamize |ˈisləˌmīz; ˈiz-| verb

          ORIGIN from Arabic ‘islām ‘submission,’ from ‘aslama ‘submit (to God).’

          The Arabic word ‘Islam’ means submission and obedience, and derives from a word meaning ‘peace’.

          Word Origin & History

          Islam
          “religious system revealed by Muhammad,” 1818, from Arabic, lit. “submission” (to the will of God), from root of aslama “he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted,” causative conjunction of salima “he was safe,” and related to salam “peace.”

    • And stuff you’ve missed:

      Are you actually telling us you think the child migrants were better cared for in Australia, where they were raped by priests, belieiving, incorrectly, that their parents were dead, rather than with their mother’s in England?

      Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

      What is your more dispassionate source for your interpretation of the Stolen Generation?

      Finally, after days of being asked, you answer you have met a real Muslim. Why so hesitant? Why avoid the question for DAYS? I know you read it, because you responded in non-direct ways (“Ask someone from Egypt if they’re met a Muslim)-so why wait so long to answer?

      Anyway, how did it go? Did you talk to them about your beliefs of their religion? Did you judge them as good Muslims, or bad Muslims, as you seem to think you’re able to do?

      So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

      What were the other effects of your fear of Islam?

      Tell me the name of the muslim ghetto in Melbourne, if it exists.

      So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

      How has Islam directly effected you?

      Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

      Why, is Muslims were always going to kill non-Muslims, did they not wipe out the non-believers in their Golden Age?

      Tell me where in the Quran (Which doesn’t actually mention Taqqiya, does it-that comes from after Muhammad’s death) or any other major Islamic text does it state that Muslims are allowed to lie about an aspect of their faith, or the values of their faith, in order to lull a Non-Muslim in a false sense of confidence.

      I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

      What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

      Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

      And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

      What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

      So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

      And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

      And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

  12. I love harassing young girls from the TV show Young Talent Time! In fact, I was telling one of the 14 year old contestants the other day that she had sexy legs!

    Entirely appropriate, don’t you think?

    I also think that I have the right to comment on rights in Australia when I flunked High School and am now supported by Centrelink while the Government pays for me to fumble my way through an intensely simplistic University degree at the tender age of 43.

    • Yay!!! Scott’s back! 🙂
      But this can’t be Scott, C’mon… for starters:

      1. Most of it is factually correct.

      2. The language is clear & concise.

      Who ever it is, stop pretending to be Scott, he is after all an Australian icon, icon of where we fucked up everything or something like that.

      Also:
      * YTT girl is 15 & Scott Pengelly insists that she is 16, my concern is more on the lines of “so fucking what??”

      * Scott Pengelly is not fumbling through any degree at La Trobe, he’s been shown the door with a very firm message, not to return.

      Will the real Scott Pengelly please stand up, please stand up 😀

      • Of course, Scott’s dribbling comment was edited, as he is not welcome here until he manages to acknowledge our desires to have discussions with him on-topic. He is a constant question-avoider.

        Apologies for getting the info wrong. La Trobe University sure have dodged a bullet. I guess his poor mother is stuck with him for a while longer.

        • Oh! Maaaaaaan!
          Here I was after some Sunday evening entertainment 😦

          mindmadeup, Can you PLEASE!! pretty please, re instate Scott’s original rubbish?? just for amusement’s sake???

          How can Scott discuss any issues? Be kind to the guy, he has the brain of a pigeon (Sorry Pigeons). And I’m pretty sure he has a delusional type mental disorder.

          Just think of it as giving your readers a punching bag to play with when they’re bored 😀

  13. JM April 8, 2012 12:18 pm cited http://www.answering-christianity.com/friends.htm as proof that Muslims are not forbidden to take Christians as friends

    REPLY:

    (1) The site JM cited is written for a western audience and obviously styles itself as the mirror reverse of http://answering-islam.org/ It is therefore untrustworthy..

    (2) The fatwa I cited was by a Muslim cleric speaking to a Muslim audience http://islamqa.info/en/ref/2179. He is the guy at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Munajid

    (3) JM considered only Surah 3:28. The fatwa was based on lots of passages.

    • (1) The site JM cited is written for a western audience and obviously styles itself as the mirror reverse of http://answering-islam.org/ It is therefore untrustworthy..

      Why? Because you don’t like anything which exposes your mendacious position?

      The fatwa I cited was by a Muslim cleric

      Please outline how something said by a Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has relevance to Australia.

      • I’d also like to know wht this alleged lost passage is… as there have never been any lost… the Qu’ran has never been updated to allow for passages to so call vanish…

      • JM wrote: Please outline how something said by a Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has relevance to Australia

        REPLY: It is an authoritative exposition of Islamic doctrine. It is therefore relevant to Muslims everywhere.

        • Oh fuck you’re never going to be reached. Here is some more Islamic doctrine Otto:

          “Honor each other: “O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous.” Chapter 49, Verse 13

          God loves the kind: “God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable.” Chapter 60, Verse 8

          About Jesus: “And in their [the earlier prophets] footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.” Chapter 5, Verse 46

          Good and evil: “Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein, and whoever recommends and helps an evil cause shares in its burden.” Chapter 4, Verse 85

          Reaction to evil: “Repel (evil) with what is better. Then will he, between whom and thee was hatred, become as it were thy friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint.” Chapter 41, Verse 34 and 35

          Do good: “Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous – Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men – for God loves those who do good.” Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

          Reward for righteousness: “Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily, to them will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions.” Chapter 16, Verse 97

          Acts of compassion: “And what will explain to you what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a (slave) from bondage; or the giving of food in a day of famine to an orphan relative, or to a needy in distress. Then will he be of those who believe, enjoin fortitude and encourage kindness and compassion.” Chapter 90, Verses 12-17″

          Love and mercy: “And among His signs is this that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts); verily in that are signs for those who reflect.” Chapter 30, Verse 21

          Forgiveness and justice: “Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” Chapter 7, Verse 199

          Revelation: “Say ye: ‘We believe in God and the revelation given to us and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God.’ ” Chapter 2, Verse 136

          About the virgin Mary: “Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: ‘I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God.’ He said: ‘Nay I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.’ 1 She said: ‘How shall I have a son seeing that no man has touched me and I am not unchaste?’ He said: ‘So (it will be): thy Lord saith “That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us:” it is a matter (so) decreed.’ ” Chapter 19, verses 16-21.

          Honor one’s parents: “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none save Him, and show kindness to your parents. If one or both of them attain old age with thee, say not ‘Fie’ unto them or repulse them, but speak unto them a gracious word.” Chapter 17, Verses 23-24

          Muslims have no choice but to follow these verses as they are from the Quran. Is this correct?

        • The Prophet Prohibited the Killing of Women and Children: the following are hadith where the Prophet condemned the killing of innocent women and children during time of war that it is impossible to deny them.

          Saheeh Bukhari

          Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

          Narrated By ‘Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

          Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

          Narrated By Ibn ‘Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah’s Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

          Saheeh Muslim

          Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.

          Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

          It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

          Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.

          Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

          It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

          Sunan Abu Dawood

          Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.
          ——————————
          Chapter : Not known.

          Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi’ : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant.

          Maliks Muwatta

          Book 021, Hadith Number 008.

          Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

          Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'”

          Book 021, Hadith Number 009.

          Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

          Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.

          Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

          Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

          Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, “Will you ride or shall I get down?” Abu Bakrsaid, “I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah.”

          Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, “You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

          “I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”

        • Taken from: http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/doesislampromotepeace.php

          (isn’t it pressing to have to read reams of copy-paste, Otto?)

          Nowadays, after September 11th, in an age when prejudice against Muslims runs rampant in America, countless people are now trying to rationalize their unwarranted hate by writing articles which misapply and/or misquote verses from the Koran in an attempt to show that it is a basic teaching of Islam that non-Muslims must be dominated and/or killed. It has become so common now that every such article is almost identical, and as such a refutation of Answering Islam’s typically deceptive attempt to debunk an unassailable religion should be a sufficient answer to them all, and an exposition of the likely dishonesty that goes into ripping these verses out of context.

          And I’m not some amateur Christian inerrantist who says, “That’s out of context!” and doesn’t explain how. No, I’m going to expose some quite probably deliberate deception that is a hallmark of Answering Islam as well as a number of skeptic’s similar “Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?” articles. I’ll also expose the out-of-context verses others quote to make Islam look militant: this “Islam promotes terrorism” s**t has gotta stop

          WELL, IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE?

          First, let me point these things out. Making peace between people, according to Koran 2:224, is a virtue. The Koran is meant (amongst other things) to bring inner peace, according to 20:47. MAKING PEACE WITH AN UNBELIEVER IS A MARK OF A TRUE BELIEVER ACCORDING TO 25:63. Allah is the bringer of peace according to 59:23. Even the word “Islam” is related to (derived from, some say) the Arabic word for “peace”, “salaam”. Does that not sound to you like this is a religion of peace?

          But no, Answering Islam with their lying ways has to say otherwise in their lying ways at http://answering-islam.org/TWOR/ peacepromoting.html, one of their most disgusting articles ever. Their article starts on an ignorant note, when they say:

          For the record, let me say that Jesus Christ taught his followers to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” (Injil, Matthew 5:44 NKJV).

          This is apparently meant to be contrasted with the Koran, but the Koran says the same thing:

          41:34 Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee thereis enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend.

          They ask the question:

          Now let us get on with our subject: DOES ISLAM PROMOTE PEACE? If so, what kind of peace?

          Both inner and outer peace, as I have pointed out.

          Then they get to the deceptive misapplying of the Koran’s verses, that same old same old misapplying that I’m getting awfully tired of. Now watch as I add context and these verses transform before your very eyes…presto!

          “As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. … He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them.”

          (47:4-6)

          Yes, if you are martyred, you will automatically go to Paradise. But the Koran consistently refers to the approved fighting as being against persecutors, as the original Muslims were persecuted throughout the Prophet’s (peace be on him) lifetime. This article itself points out earlier, in its introduction to its list of deceptive misapplications of verses, these verses from the Koran:

          “Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed…. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.”

          2:256 which says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

          So what’s the matter? Why can’t they put these verses together in their heads to arrive at the following equation: do not be an aggressor + no compulsion in religion + fighting an oppressive fight to die in God’s way = not dying in God’s way? When I say “they”, I mean both the author of this article. The purpose of the article is to show that Islam is not a religion of peace, but it proves itself wrong right there! They indavertently answer their own question: “What leads young men to volunteer to die for the privilege of killing others ‘for the cause of Allah’?” By the verses they’ve cited themselves, it is not by the cause of Allah, so it is obviously unIslamic political influences. I get asked the same question myself a lot and that’s the answer. I just don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp for so many people!

          THE KORANIC VERSES ANSWERING ISLAM HAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

          Now let’s move on to the misapplied Koranic verses:

          “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. … The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan …”

          (4:74,76)

          As I said, all you have to do is add some context and watch it transform before your very eyes. Now they quote 4:74 and 4:76. Why did they leave out 4:75? Because it exposes their deception:

          4:75 How is it with you, that you do not fight in the way of God, and for the men, women and children who, being abased, say, “Our Lord, bring us forth from this city whose people are evildoers, and appoint to us from Thee a helper’?

          So as you can see, if your people are being abased and stuck in a city of evildoers (in this case, Arabs and Jews who were persecuting the early Muslims), then fight in the way of God. The same applies to the next quote, which is just a few verses later:

          “The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home …”

          (4:95,96)

          Next we get a very popular misapplied verse. This is one of the most commonly seen ones.

          “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. … lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way …”

          (9:5)

          Now here are the conveniently left out verses following:

          9:6 And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security–that, because they are a people who do not know.

          9:7 How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger–excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing.

          9:8 How? If they get the better of you, they will not observe towards you any bond or treaty, giving you satisfaction with their mouthts but in their hearts refusing; and the most of them are ungodly.

          9:9 They have sold the signs of God for a small price, and have barred from His way; truly evil is that they have been doing,

          9:10 Observing neither bond nor treaty towards a believer; they are the transgressors.

          9:11 Yet if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then they are your brothers in religion; and We distinguish the signs for a people who know.

          9:12 Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and purposed to expel the Messenger, beginning the first time against you? Are you afraid of them? You would do better to be afraid of God, if you are believers.

          This also applies to a verse from the same context they quote later:

          “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given … and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

          (9:29)

          The next verse is not misapplied but simply assumed to be more brutal than American methods of punishment:

          “Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them …”

          (5:34,35)

          Yes, those are the punishments, in varying degrees of extremities, and they are opposed to what? Sending people to a prison where they will quite possibly be mutilated, beaten, raped repeatedly, tortured or murdered, and depriving their family of them, even if the culprit is the provider of the family, for years, punishing all the loved ones who did nothing. American punishment is more brutal than most Americans know. In any case these punishments were for the persecutors of the early Muslims, as the verse states, and as far as I know the death penalty is the only punishment which remains in every Islamic country.

          The next verse they quote is suspiciously poorly translated, judging by the comparison of it to all the most respected translations of the Koran by Muslims and non-Muslims alike (remember that the translation I always use, Arberry’s, is a non-Muslim’s one):

          “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme”

          (8:39)

          Here is the correct version of the verse:

          8:39 Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely; then if they give over, surely God sees the things they do.

          The next verse they quote is about the same war (against the oppressors at Madinah)…

          “Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.”

          (8:65)

          …and this very important verse is between the two verses they quoted:

          8:56 Those of them with whom thou hast made compact then they break their compact every time, not being godfearing.

          OTHER COMMONLY MISAPPLIED VERSES

          Let me get this out of the way here, expose some other out of context verses that other people are always using for these ends but which were not mentioned in this article. First, there’s 66:9, which is always quoted in part: “Struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge shall be Gehenna–an evil homecoming!” The verse actually begins with, “O Prophet”, so that it was a command to Muhammad (peace be on him) and not to us. Another verse quoted in part is 47:4, which is always quoted as, “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds.” The part these anti-Islamic folk conveniently leave out follows: “Then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.” Till the war lays down its loads. In other words, until the other people stop! This was from a surah revealed during the flight of the early Muslims from their Meccan persecutors.

          Finally, there’s 25:52, which says, “Obey not the unbelievers, but struggle with them thereby mightily.” The omitted verse before it says, “If We had willed, We would have raised up in every city a warner.” What city is it referring to? Mecca again: that’s when this surah was revealed, more persecution by the Meccans.

          ALL THOSE “ISLAMIC” COUNTRIES….

          The next section of Answering Islam’s article can be summed up by the following quote:

          There is no country in the world that exemplifies true Islam. Yet Islam claims to be a religion that has the answers for society, a religion that offers peace and wholeness.

          It certainly offers a lot of peace and wholeness to me. The article said earlier:

          Just as there are many who call themselves Muslims who do not live according to the teachings of Muhammad, it is safe to say that many who call themselves “Christians” do not live according to the teachings of Christ.

          So what’s the problem? The article even complains about America being an amoral “Christian country”, and I can think of North Ireland as a shining example of a “Christian country” where terrorism is a way of life. Why do these connections never occur to the Christians who point out all these things? Something else I just don’t understand.

          “MUHAMMAD’S EXAMPLE”

          After an irrelevant anecdotes and another verse from surah 9 about the same thing the other verses were about, a hadith is quoted which indeed makes Muhammad (peace be on him) look cruel:

          “A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.’ Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.’ So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.”

          (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261: Narrated by Anas bin Malik.)

          What kind of an example is this? A false example. Why? Because to us, any hadith which contradicts the Koran is a false one. The ahadith are not infallible, and are judged by the Koran. The Koran depicts the prophets as being pure and sinless. Sahih Bukhari is, from what I’ve learned, the least respectable source of ahadith. This hadith is not repeated, as more trustworthy ones usually are. I’d say it’s out. Not that I’m anything near an expert at assessing hadith, but this is my article, after all. As I point out in my article on the blessed Jesus in the Bible and in the Koran on this site’s “Bible and Koran” page, nasty actions were also slanderously attributed to Jesus (peace be on him).

          WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD? AND IF IT WAS, DOES THIS COMPARE TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CONQUESTS?

          I really do not care if Islam was spread by the sword, since the spreading in question happened after the blessed Prophet’s death and thus was not under his supervision. His time has occupied for most of his life simply fleeing from persecutors. The fact is, Islam was spread in part by the sword, but so was Christianity. So what of it? As Answering Islam’s article said earlier, there are people who corrupt both religions. To make a religion into an excuse for war against its wishes (and I have already proven that it is in Islam’s case against its wishes) is just in human nature for some people. It’s done with just about every religion.

          Does it compare to the Old Testament conquests? All I know is that, as I have shown, the Koran tells you to make war only on your persecutors, whereas the Old Testament involves conquest in which God orders:

          Now go and smite Am’alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

          Try to find a place in the Koran where God orders the killing of babies to anyone at war. I dare you.

          TREATMENT OF APOSTATES

          Yes, there are ahadith telling you that apostates must be executed–but as I’ve said before, the Islamic rule is that if a hadith contradicts the Koran, it is false, and the Koran says, “No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error.” (2:256)

          TREATMENT OF WOMEN

          If there is anything anti-Islamic people are oh so stubborn about, it is refusing to believe that the Koran is very tolerant toward women. It gives them divorce and inheritance rights that they didn’t get in America until the twentieth century. The command to beat wives is a mistranslation, as Osama Abdallah points out at answering-christianty.com. Do a word search there for “wife-beating” and find the article for the “no beating” theory and you’ll see what I think is irrefutable evidence for the mistranslation of the verse. Answering Islam’s article says:

          The New Testament Scriptures teach that “husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.” (Eph 5:28,29)

          Yes, St. Paul did say that, and he also said:

          Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

          There’s no way out of it: when it comes to women in the Bible vs. women in the Koran, women in the Koran win by a mile.

          THE MUSLIM’S RELATIONSHIP TO GOD

          That’s right: God is essentially unknowable yet closer to us than our jugular vein. We cannot have a personal relationship with God as we can with a human, simply because He is God and never was a human. We Muslims never have a problem with this, because we can see clearly: God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, beyond everything, above everything. Therefore we can have no personal, humanoid relationship with Him, although we can have a sort of subject-ruler relationship with Him, and He sometimes answers our prayers. No problem there, just common sense.

          The article then says:

          Muslims are quick to say, “We believe all the prophets!” and “We believe in Jesus! He was a great prophet!” In response to these statements, I ask my Muslim friends, “What does it mean to believe a prophet? Does it not mean to understand and believe their message? And where do we find the message of the prophets? Is it not in the Scriptures of the prophets?”

          It’s in the Koran, which records the teachings of most of the prophets, without a single mistake. After this the article goes on with that same old “the Koran endorses the Bible, show me where it says the Bible is corrupt” thing that I’ve answered already in other articles, then goes on with nonsense I’ve also refuted elsewhere on this site that there are no major corruptions in the Bible, then with nonsense about some ill-supported “central message” of the whole Bible that Jesus (peace be on him) was to die, in which the author finally even resorts to shouting (apparently being so frustrated with his or her inability to come up with a new argument against Islam that hasn’t been thrashed into oblivioun on a thousand Islamic pages that now he or she must shout):

          Dear friend, if Jesus did not die on the cross, then please tell me, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE ANIMAL SACRIFICE? And WHY ALL THE PROPHECIES ABOUT A SUFFERING MESSIAH? And WHY DID JESUS HIMSELF KEEP TELLING HIS DISCIPLES THAT HE WOULD BE CRUCIFIED AND BE RAISED AGAIN THE THIRD DAY? I invite you to read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 for starters—two Old Testament passages which predict with precision how the Messiah would suffer and die as a sacrificial payment for the sins of the world. God is holy and His holiness requires that sins be paid for. “The payment for sin is death!”—NOT good works—but death and eternal separation from God! Jesus died in our place. He took our hell, so that God can count us righteous and allow us to live with Him forever.

          The answers are: (1) A sacrifice is a literal sacrifice, a waste of an animal you could have used in order to show your devotion to your god–that’s just common knowledge in religion outside Christianity; (2) There are zero prophecies about a “suffering Messiah”, as a new page I’m planning will show; and (3) I, like most Muslims, do not take the historicity of the Gospels in the Bible for granted, so I don’t know that he said that. If God chooses to forgive me, no one need take my hell. What kind of wretch would forgive you but then still have to punish someone? Of all the many, many Christians I’ve brought that point to, not one has ever given me a satisfactory answer, and I’d be shocked to death if one ever did. Once again, it’s just common sense, the sort of common sense which Christian doctrine lacks. Finally, the Koran repeatedly says that faith AND good works are what get you saved.

          Does Islam promote peace? How can it promote true peace when it denies the very means God has provided to establish a lasting peace between God and man, and between man and man?

          This is really what they have to resort to by this point, because once again I think the author probably knows deep down inside that his or her points have been brought up again and again elsewhere and answered with utmost logic and tact again and again by Muslims. What establishes a lasting peace between God and man is man’s submission to God, and what establishes a lasting peace between man and man is their willingness to work for it, which as I’ve pointed out earlier, is promoted thoroughly by the Koran. Islam is a religion of peace and there’s nothing anyone can do to change the obviousness of that fact, regardless of how much they deceive, repeat and shout.

        • I’m more inclined to want to understand more about Islam by asking Muslims, in the same way I’d want to learn more about Catholicism by asking Catholics.

          200 years of Muslims living in Australia, Muslims who read and live by the Quran, and what we’ve got is thousands and thousands of them – doing the right thing, living immersed in our culture, befriending non-Muslims and harming not a soul.

          What say you?

        • Otto, again I have to ask, as it seems any source that is written by anti-Muslims is acceptable, but any source that says anything positive is not:

          Have you ever accepted information that challenges your world view? Or is it everything you see and read either confirms your hypotheses, or is disregarded as “Taqqiya” or “Designed for Islam”, etc

    • “(1) The site JM cited is written for a western audience and obviously styles itself as the mirror reverse of http://answering-islam.org/ It is therefore untrustworthy..”

      So, because the site I referenced is opposing an anti-Islamic site, it can’t be considered trustworthy? So, just to be clear, if a Jew wrote a book opposing Mein Kaupf, would thae be untrustworthy to you?

      Did you ever think maybe it’s your source that can’t be considered trustworthy? Ever think that the anti-Islamic sites are at least paetially supported by racists who don’t like anything brown or non-Christian, and will twist things in a negative way to get more people to hate a people group of brown people, in this case Muslims? No, no of course you didn’t. You accept anything that confirms to your world view, and denies anything that doesn’t.

      “(2) The fatwa I cited was by a Muslim cleric speaking to a Muslim audience http://islamqa.info/en/ref/2179. He is the guy at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Munajid

      Sure, I’m sure you’ll find Muslims who accept your interpretation of that Surah. I have found one that disagrees. My point is, which you have skillfully avoided acknowledging, that Islamic texts can and are interpreted in a a multitude of ways, just as ALL religious texts. Your interpretation is not the sole interpretation of the whole Quran. Some interpretations are, like you would like, repressive, others are progressive.

      And as for the sura, the source I picked up did not state “So based on this sura, Muslims are allowed to be friends with non-Muslims”, it said “Overall, Muslims are allowed to be friends with Non-Muslims”
      Which, as you know, happen in reality. Muslims and non-Muslims are friends. Now, I know you think that is taqqiya, which again you misinterpret, but since taqqiya only allows Muslims to lie about being Muslims, that’s not really a correct usage, is it?

  14. THE BENIFICENT RULE OF ISLAM (Turkey 19th century)
    [from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Life_under_Ottoman_rule%5D

    “the Armenians were subject to the whims of their Turkish and Kurdish neighbors, who would regularly overtax them, subject them to brigandage and kidnapping, force them to convert to Islam, and otherwise exploit them without interference from central or local authorities.[31] In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Muslim dhimmi system, they, like all other Christians, were accorded certain limited freedoms (such as the right to worship), but were in essence treated as second-class citizens and referred to in Turkish as gavours, a pejorative word meaning “infidel” or “unbeliever.”[32]:25, 445 The British ethnographer, William Ramsay, writing in the late 1890s after having visited the Ottoman Empire, described the conditions of the Armenians:

    Turkish rule…meant unutterable contempt…The Armenians (and Greeks) were dogs and pigs…to be spat upon, if their shadow darkened a Turk, to be outraged, to be the mats on which he wiped the mud from his feet. Conceive the inevitable result of centuries of slavery, of subjection to insult and scorn, centuries in which nothing belonged to the Armenian, neither his property, his house, his life, his person, nor his family, was sacred or safe from violence – capricious, unprovoked violence – to resist which by violence meant death.[32]:43

    In addition to other legal limitations, Christians were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law; they were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses; their houses could not overlook those of Muslims; and their religious practices were severely circumscribed (e.g., the ringing of church bells was strictly forbidden).[33]:24 Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of exorbitant fines to execution.”

    • So your source on the Golden Age of Islam being worse for Jews than the pogroms, persecution, Inquisitions and genocide of Europe during the same time….is only talking about the 19th century…when as we both know, the Ottomon empire was collapsing?

      Do you use those values to judge, say, buildings as well? Not judge it by how strong it is now, but judging it my how strong it will be in four centuries? Because that’s what you’re doing here.

    • So perhaps you could identify which of the ‘lovey dovey’ passages from the Quran I provided have actually been abrogated.

      Could the existence of certain lovey dovey passages that appear after some of the violent passages you’ve eluded to abrogate them?

      http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
      http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm
      http://jdstone.org/cr/files/morecontradictionsinthenewtestament.html

      My goodness – contradictions in a holy text…! Looks as though we’ll have to decide for ourselves…

      • You appear not even to know that what determines whether a verse is abrogated is not where it appears in the Quran, but when it was revealed in time. The traditional chronological order is given in http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur%27an

        Surah 9 comes as good as last. Only one surah comes later and all it says is “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful 1 When comes the Help of God, and Victory,R 2 And thou dost see the people enter God’s Religion in crowds, 3 Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy). ”

        Nothing abrogates Surah 9:29. Therefore, of the luvey dovey verses in the Quran, all those incompatible with Surah 9:29 have been abrogated, and the rest are irrelevant.

        Surah 9:29 says “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

        It is the same message as we find in Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

        And as for the Muslim respect for universal human rights, you’ve got to be joking! — Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Bukhari Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! WHAT MAKES THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF A PERSON SACRED?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

        Notice that in Islam not all human life is sacred. There is no natural “right to life” in Islam. Only Muslim lives are sacred: “In Islam, there is no “natural” sense of morality or justice that transcends the specific examples and injunctions outlined in the Quran and the Sunnah. Because Muhammad is considered Allah’s final prophet and the Quran the eternal, unalterable words of Allah himself, there is also no evolving morality that permits the modification or integration of Islamic morality with that from other sources. The entire Islamic moral universe devolves solely from the life and teachings of Muhammad” — http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

        • Well, I for one am really glad abrogation can work out exactly the way Otto thought it would, and there is only one interpretation of Islam and the Quranic texts, and the whole feud within islam between different interpretations doesn’t exist.

          Except, of course, it’s not the case. There is not one clear ruling of “The old text has now been abrogated by the new text”, especially over the last century.

          Some Muslim scholars believe instead that different texts are to be used in different situations:
          “http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=8785”

          Or this sutdy, demonstrating even whether any abrograted verses exist is itself a matter of debate is the Islamic community:
          “This issue is of paramount importance, since the Muslim heritage includes writings that went into unreasonable excesses in their claims of naskh. While a few scholars claimed that hundreds of verses were abrogated, the great majority of scholars rejected these unsubstantiated claims. For example, Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti narrowed down the number of “abrogated” verses to 19. Other scholars, like Shah Waliyyullah Al-Dahlawi and Sobhi Al-Saleh, even narrowed them down to smaller numbers. The fact that there are legitimate disagreements about the number of abrogated verses in the Qur’an is itself an indication that some if not most of these claims are far from definitive, if not mistaken, based on strong evidence. ”

          Source-http://www.imooftoronto.com/news–announcements/muslims-and-non-muslims-relations.aspx

          Let me guess-this is another source that cannot be accepted, because it does gel with your own understanding. All part of the conspiracy to lull westerners, and absolutely not evidence that abrogation, like all issues in Islam is not clearly defined as one way or another, but a topic of debate and discussion within the Islamic field of sutdy, just like all religions are examined and studied.

        • “You appear not even to know that what determines whether a verse is abrogated is not where it appears in the Quran, but when it was revealed in time.”

          Is that so?

          “Definition: A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law.”

          Fatwa:

          “Islam teaches us to recognize goodness in every human being and reciprocate kindness with kindness at all times.”

          (Date: 22/4/2010. Mufti Ahmed Kutty)

          Fatwa:

          “Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur’an in the beginning of the same Surat Al-Ma’dah: [O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.] (Al-Ma’dah 5 :8)”

          (Date: 26/11/2005. Dr Muzzamil Siddiqi)

          Fatwa:

          “Islam gave people the right of freedom. Freedom is granted to people by Islam without them having to pursue it, thus respecting the human being. 
Islam gave them freedom of thought, freedom to seek knowledge, freedom to express opinion, freedom of speech and criticism, freedom of belief, freedom of action that doesn’t harm others, freedom of property under legal conditions and regulations without harming, nor reciprocating harm. This is the general rule in Islam. Any freedom which results in harm to yourself or reciprocating harm to others, must be prevented and brought in to this principle: your freedom ends where the freedom of others’ begins. 
Freedom of immorality, which calls man to be free to corrupt their religion, their bodies, their minds, their money and honor, is none other than dissolution and deprivation and does not accord with a righteous life, and thus is opposed by Islam.”

          (Date: 11/5/2010. Yusuf al-Qaradawi)

          Fatwa:

          “Making alliances with candidates who do not carry the Islamic project or even with non-Muslim candidates is permissible, because it does not violate the Shari’a (Islamic Law) There is nothing wrong with Islamists collaborating with non-Islamists with whom they live in the same community in order to achieve certain goals.”

          (Date: 19/12/2011. Abd al-Rahmaan al-Birr)

          Fatwa:

          “Islamic law allows Copts to build churches in Islamic countries. Christians and Jews are allowed to build their own places of worship.” (Former Grand Mufti Nasr Fareed Wassel issued a religious edict in 1999 that permitted church building in Islamic countries, saying Islam allowed “people of the book” – Christians and Jews – to freely practice their religious rituals as long as they aren’t hostile to Islam.
          The statement also said Islamic laws order Muslims to provide Christians and Jews with places for worship, which implies protecting and restoring them from damage.
          For decades, Egyptian Copts have been calling for a law to unify the standards and conditions of construction for both Muslim and non-Muslim places of worship.

          (Date: 24/10/2011. Grand Mufti Ali Gomma)
          (Date: 1999, Grand Mufti Nasr Fareed Wassel)

          Fatwa:

          “Migration to non-Muslim countries is permissible, whether for the need of scientific research or commercial and cultural aims, or security purposes.”

          (Date: 11/8/2010. Yusuf al-Qaradawi)

          Fatwa:

          “Yusuf Saanei emphasized that Muslims are nation of tolerance and that tolerance is taught by the Holy Quran. He stressed that the diversity of faiths is the will of Allah and no one can oppose Allah’s will. If Allah wanted all mankind to be Muslims, all persons would have been led by Allah to that path.”

          Fatwa:

          “Terrorist attacks are not only outlawed by Islam but also renders perpetrators completely out of the fold of the faith. When the forbidden element of suicide is added, the severity is even greater.” (August 16: Islam is a religion founded upon the principle of peace, love and harmony and most Muslims oppose and condemn terrorism.)

          (Date: 1/3/2010. Dr Muhammad Ul Qadri)

          Fatwa: (click to view)

          Just a few for you to consider, Otto.

  15. mindmadeup April 9, 2012 8:27 am wrote: I’m more inclined to want to understand more about Islam by asking Muslims, in the same way I’d want to learn more about Catholicism by asking Catholics. … What say you?

    REPLY: Been there, done that, didn’t work. They would give me spiels but when I tried to scratch below the surface they clammed up. One of them, for example told me, “There is no compulsion in religion”. He had grown up in Iran where people regularly get executed for apostasy. I asked him how that squared with his statement about no compulsion in religion. He never gave me an answer. He said he would get back to me. He never did.

    You need to scratch below the surface.

    If I want to find out about Islam I look at what Muslims say to each other and at what ex-Muslims tell me. Because of the doctrine of taqqiya nothing else they say can be relied upon.

    • “If I want to find out about Islam I look at what Muslims say to each other and at what ex-Muslims tell me.”

      Yep, because there’s no better source on a religion, than people bitter about it and leaving it. Kinda like there’s no better source on a person’s character, then speaking to their ex-girlfriends or boyfriends, right? Why don’t you follow this is all ways, Otto, refuse to take a job until you’ve speaken to the last person who quit from it, refuse to watch a movie or tv show until you speak to actors who were fired from it-refuse to do anything until you meet someone who has an already negative view of the religion?

      I’m not discounting their testimony, they almost certainly have legitimate grievancesz. The problem is, Otto, especially with religion, there’s not a lot of people who leave it on a happy basis, so there is overwhelming negative viewpoint. And this is true of EVERY religion.

      But you knew that already. Speaking to ex-Muslims doesn’t give you a “better source” it gives you what you want to hear. Tell me, when have you ever accepted information that challenges your world view?

      “Because of the doctrine of taqqiya nothing else they say can be relied upon.”

      Ah yes, he brings up taqqiya again, even though he doesn’t actually know what it means. I repeat, taqqiya by every definition allows a Muslim to state he is not a Muslim and/or denounce his faith, if he is as risk of being persecuted or killed because of his faith.

      Tell me where in the Quran (Which doesn’t actually mention Taqqiya, does it-that comes from after Muhammad’s death) or any other major Islamic text does it state that Muslims are allowed to lie about an aspect of their faith, or the values of their faith, in order to lull a Non-Muslim in a false sense of confidence.

      And while we’re at it, if you state that any interpretation of the Quran that you disagree with is part of a conspiracy to lull Westerners, and eveyr Muslim you meet who is nice is just pretending to be nice and waiting for a time to kill you, what would disprove your theory? You have said it would be disproven if no Muslim invasion happens, but what’s the time frame for that? How long does nothing need to happen before you say “Whoops, I was wrong-no more shouting terrorists at my local Hallal butcher”?

      BTW, back on ex-Muslims, how do you know they’re ex-Muslims? Maybe they’re practicing taqqiya, to encourage you to stoke the flames of religious war? See-this is where your paranoia leads-we’ve all seen it before in the Spanish Inquisition. First you demand everyone converts or leaves the country, then you get paranoid that the people who state they have converted, really haven’t at all.

    • Didn’t work for you perhaps. Asking one Muslim who grew up in Iran doesn’t quite cut it I’m afraid, as to get a true understanding you’d need to take into account that there are around 1.6 billion.

      I’d say that out of those 1.6 billion, nearly 100% would be aware of the third pillar of Islam which is ‘Concern for and almsgiving to the needy.’ You will note that this pillar doesn’t refer to Muslims or non-Muslims in particular.

      All Muslims are living their lives in accordance with the five pillars of Islam.

  16. mindmadeup April 9, 2012 8:27 am wrote: 200 years of Muslims living in Australia, Muslims who read and live by the Quran, and what we’ve got is thousands and thousands of them – doing the right thing, living immersed in our culture, befriending non-Muslims and harming not a soul. What say you?

    REPLY: (1) Read Sam Solomon’s (little) book “Modern Day Trojan Horse” http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Day-Trojan-Horse-Immigration/dp/0979492955
    They are deliberately “harmless” now just as Mohammed was when he was weak.

    (2) I wouldn’t say they were immersed in our culture. They prefer ghettos. They only watch foreign TV (arabic, farsi, turkish)..

    (3) Harming not a soul? Read http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1917&Itemid=96

    • 1. Why?
      2. You’ve spoken to one Muslim in your whole life. I know many Muslims and they watch all the same old shit on free-to-air Aussie TV that I watch. They are friends with non-Muslims and they speak English in public. You’re generalising – not that that ever matters with you.
      3. HA AH HA HHA HA AH AH HA HA HA

      ONE ‘terrorist attack’ in 200 years where two people were killed.

      Puh-lease.

      Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament:
      http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

      • mindmadeup April 9, 2012 9:08 am wrote: “You’ve spoken to one Muslim in your whole life. ”

        REPLY: I didn’t say that, nor is it true.

        mindmadeup wrote: “ONE ‘terrorist attack’ in 200 years where two people were killed. Puh-lease.”

        REPLY: Again mindmadeup makes the mistake of thinking that because I only mention one member of a set, I only know one member of the set. This is a systematic error on her part.

        mindmadeup wrote: Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament:
        http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html.

        REPLY:: Non of the New Testament quotes order anyone to do violence to anyone else. On the other hand the Quran clearly does.

        • “…mindmadeup makes the mistake of thinking that because I only mention one member of a set, I only know one member of the set. This is a systematic error on her part.”

          Then where are your other examples of terrorist activity in Australia over the past 200 years?

          waiting

          “Non of the New Testament quotes order anyone to do violence to anyone else. On the other hand the Quran clearly does.”

          There are also many examples from the Quran ordering people to show restraint, help the needy, ignore those who don’t believe etc etc. Your point?

        • Did Otto and others with his similar mixed up feelings forget The Hilton Hotel Bombing in Sydney, because it was committed by non-Muslims?

    • 1-So all your sources are valid, but no one else’s is, right?
      2-Funny, all the Muslims I know love them some My Kitchen Rules-it’s not even in Farsi.
      And please, tell me the name of the ghetto in Melbourne. Considering that where I live in the city of Yarra, there’s a large Muslim population population, yet there’s also a heavy mix of every other type of population as well, I’d love to know if I’m living in a ghetto.

      3- Tell you what, Otto, who has caused more harm to Australia? Martin Bryant, or the two Muslims from that one terrorist attack that’s almost a century old?

      • JM wrote: please, tell me the name of the ghetto in Melbourne.

        REPLY: What would be the point of answering it? It’s an obviously stupid question, assuming as it does, that if there is not already a ghetto in Melbourne, Muslims are not in the process of creating one.

        Similarly, as regards your other questions, pick any answer you like and I defy you to draw a relevant conclusion from it. So why should I bother answering.

        • “…if there is not already a ghetto in Melbourne, Muslims are not in the process of creating one.”

          And this is a stupid assumption because…. why?

        • Okay, let’s see:

          200 years of Muslims in Australia:

          * 2 people killed by Muslims in terrorist attack. (rate of 0.00002 people killed per day)
          * Zero installations of Sharia law (rate of 0 laws instated per day)
          * Zero aspects of Australian ‘way of life’ eroded (rate of 0 aspects eroded per day)

          How much time shall we give it before we give your plans oxygen?

        • Otto, there have been Muslims in Melbourne just as long as there have been Muslims in Sydney. There are mosques in Melbourne, just as there are Mosques in Sydney.

          So….if Muslims must always end up forming ghettos, why can’t you tell us where the ghetto is in Melbourne?

  17. JM April 9, 2012 8:59 am wrote various things

    JM : “If I want to find out about Islam I look at what Muslims say to each other and at what ex-Muslims tell me.” Yep, because there’s no better source on a religion, than people bitter about it and leaving it.

    REPLY: No. It is because one source is known to have a reason to lie and is known to believe it is permissible to lie, whereas the other is not.

    JM: “Because of the doctrine of taqqiya nothing else they say can be relied upon.” Ah yes, he brings up taqqiya again, even though he doesn’t actually know what it means. I repeat, taqqiya by every definition allows a Muslim to state he is not a Muslim and/or denounce his faith, if he is as risk of being persecuted or killed because of his faith.

    REPLY: Whoever told you that was probably practicing taqqiya at the time. Where does the Quran or any major Islamic text define taqqiya that way?

    JM: Tell me where in the Quran (Which doesn’t actually mention Taqqiya, does it-that comes from after Muhammad’s death) or any other major Islamic text does it state that Muslims are allowed to lie about an aspect of their faith, or the values of their faith, in order to lull a Non-Muslim in a false sense of confidence.

    REPLY: “Reliance of the Traveller” is a major Islamic text. I am using the c. 1988 edition by Nuh Ha Mim Keller published by Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A. r8.2 starts at pp 744 & O9.0 starts at p 599. Most of the material I invoke is also at http://www.westernrevival.org/reliance_of_the_traveller.htm

    Reliance of the Traveller (“ROT”) implicitly teaches that Muslims can lie to further the cause of Islam. The inference can be drawn in three ways.

    (1) It is permissible for Muslims to lie to anyone they are at war with — ROT at r8.2 But Muslims are at war with all unbelievers. (Proof: ‘Jihad means to war against non-Muslims’. ‘Jihad is a communal obligation.’ ‘If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it’ – ROT at 09.0) Therefore it is permissible for Muslims to lie to unbelievers.

    (2) It is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever lying is the only way to achieve a praiseworthy goal — ROT at r8.2. But advancing the cause of Islam is a praiseworthy goal. Therefore it is permissible for Muslims to lie to advance the cause Islam whenever it is the only way to do it.

    (3) It is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever it does more good than harm — ROT at r8.2. Therefore it is permissible for Muslims to lie about Islam whenever it does more good than harm.

    JM: And while we’re at it, if you state that any interpretation of the Quran that you disagree with is part of a conspiracy to lull Westerners, and every Muslim you meet who is nice is just pretending to be nice and waiting for a time to kill you, what would disprove your theory?

    REPLY: I don’t state either of those thing, nor did I.

    JM: You have said it would be disproven if no Muslim invasion happens, but what’s the time frame for that? How long does nothing need to happen before you say “Whoops, I was wrong-no more shouting terrorists at my local Hallal butcher”?

    REPLY: No I didn’t say that. I said the Muslim invasion is already underway.

    JM: BTW, back on ex-Muslims, how do you know they’re ex-Muslims?

    REPLY: I’m 99% sure because by declaring themselves to be ex-Muslims they risk the death penalty for apostasy.

    JM: Maybe they’re practicing taqqiya, to encourage you to stoke the flames of religious war?

    REPLY: No. It is not in Islam’s interests to alert the West to its intentions (which is what stoking the flames of religious war would amount to in their case)

    JM: See-this is where your paranoia leads

    REPLY: It’s not paranoia. It’s solidlybased on the testimony of ex-Muslims, the jurisprudence of mainstream Islam, and Islam’s 1400 year track record.

    JM: we’ve all seen it before in the Spanish Inquisition. First you demand everyone converts or leaves the country, then you get paranoid that the people who state they have converted, really haven’t at all.

    REPLY: The Spanish Inquisition did not demand that everyone converted or left the country.

    • REPLY: The Spanish Inquisition did not demand that everyone converted or left the country.

      WRONG!

      There was the small matter of thousands of Jews forced to convert or leave the country. So-called “hidden Jews” and “hidden Muslims” (conversos) who had converted to Christianity but who still kept their Jewish and Muslim traditions.

    • Is Otto claims based on facts or stupid assumption especially?

      “REPLY: I’m 99% sure because by declaring themselves to be ex-Muslims they risk the death penalty for apostasy.”

      And

      “REPLY: It’s not paranoia. It’s solidlybased on the testimony of ex-Muslims, the jurisprudence of mainstream Islam, and Islam’s 1400 year track record.”

    • “REPLY: No. It is because one source is known to have a reason to lie and is known to believe it is permissible to lie, whereas the other is not.”

      Again, you’re misinterpreting taqqiya.

      And just to be clear, to you judge all religions based on their ex-members, or just Muslims?

      “REPLY: Whoever told you that was probably practicing taqqiya at the time. Where does the Quran or any major Islamic text define taqqiya that way?”

      I’m still waiting on you to demonstrate where in the Quran Muslims are allowed to deny any particular of the religion.

      Here are my sources:
      Momen, Moojan (1985). An Introduction to Shi’i Islam. Yale University Press. pp. 39, 183.
      Here’s another one, the oxford Islamic dictionary:
      http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/browse?_hi=0&_startPrefix=taqiya&jumppage.x=13&jumppage.y=8

      And here’s the Quranic source:
      “Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief – save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith – but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. ” (6: 106)

      You’ll notice that this specifically says Muslims can deny their religion, but not a specific aspect of their beliefs, but not unless they are being forced to.

      As you’ll no doubt have found out as you’ve searched for an Islamic source saying what you wanted it to say, you’ve probably realisd Taqqiya isn’t even mentioned in the Quran.

      ““Reliance of the Traveller” is a major Islamic text.”

      So, no Quranic sources, then?

      “Reliance of the Traveller (“ROT”) implicitly teaches that Muslims can lie to further the cause of Islam. ”

      So, you’ve interpreted it that way. And it’s impossible to interpret itin any other way, right?

      “It is permissible for Muslims to lie to anyone they are at war with — ROT at r8.2”

      Isn’t it great that the actual sources aren’t quoted. If someone doesn’t check your sources, they might believe you’re right.

      Sadly for you, I did check those sources, and here’s some of the specific examples as to when a Muslim is allowed to lie:
      ‘When, for example, one is concealing a Muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and then he seizes it, one is financially liable (A: to the owner) to cover the article’s cost. ‘

      Wow-that’s terrible, I can completely understand where you come from on that.

      The closest the very biased interpretation of the book you linked me to (It’s reviewed by a guy called “Ex-Leftie”-I’ll say that’s not biased when you say “Ottosucksmonkeyballs” would provide a fair and accurate biography of yourself) actually says what you think it says is yes, the book does say Muslims can lie in war (Not specifically to non-believer-the actual section you refer to don’t mention non-believers as all).

      However, your source that Muslims are always at war, don’t actually refer to that. Jihad is having an open interpretation, which the Author is sure means what he wants it to mean. Most of what it refers to is supporting your religion from attack.

      So, in other words, your own source states Muslims are allowed to lie to you, but not to me.

      By the way, there’s something else you didn’t mention about this text. It is a main text, true, of one school, of one sect in Islam. And what percentage of Muslims do you think follow it? 100% 90%

      No, it’s 35%. So just to be clear, your statement that all Muslims are allowed to lie to non-believers for whatever reason, which is based on your intepretation of one legal text (And legal texts can be adjusted, right, they’re not the word of God?), bending the truth to imply it says what you want it to say…and even then it’s only followed by 35% of the population. That’s right?

      Meanwhile, my sources come from the Quran. What percentage of Muslims would you say follow the Quran?

      “REPLY: No I didn’t say that. I said the Muslim invasion is already underway.”

      So, in other words, and we’re going around in circles again-there is no way your theory that “Muslims are invading Australia” can ever be disproven, right? Even if nothing happens until the day you die, you’ll still maintain that Muslims are going to try and kill you/force you to follow their religion, right?

      “REPLY: I’m 99% sure because by declaring themselves to be ex-Muslims they risk the death penalty for apostasy.”

      Except in the Quranic source I just mentioned, as well as the above definitions of taqqiya (Which, unless you are telling me oxford dictionary is part of the conspiracy), Muslims are allowed to deny being Muslims in order to escape persecution. It’s in the above sourcs I provided.
      Also, if Muslims are allowed to lie to further reach a goal, why can’t they be lying when they tell you they’re no longer Muslims?

      “REPLY: No. It is not in Islam’s interests to alert the West to its intentions (which is what stoking the flames of religious war would amount to in their case)”

      No, that’s not the way it has to be. What if the ex-Muslims are encouraging you to go out and commit acts of terror against Muslims, and those who support them, to reduce any threat Islam is perceived as having?

      “REPLY: It’s not paranoia. It’s solidlybased on the testimony of ex-Muslims, the jurisprudence of mainstream Islam, and Islam’s 1400 year track record.”

      Again, do you judge all religions on the basis of people who have left the religion? If so, to you also judge people on their testimony of their ex-partners?

      “REPLY: The Spanish Inquisition did not demand that everyone converted or left the country.”

      Well, as MMU pointed out, you’re right. They only demanded all Jews and Muslims converted or leave the country.
      Let’s just look at that for a second, Otto, all Jews and Muslims had to convert or leave the country. You say that’s okay, because it wasn’t everyone. But what did that leave?
      Christians. So you’re saying the Inquisition didn’t try to convert everyone, because they didn’t try to convert Christians into being Christians?

      You realise that is probably the dumbest thing you have ever said. No, wait, second dumbest, following the “If Muslims don’t see Muslims symbols, studies have shown that they will forget they’re Muslims”

    • By the way, Otto, here’s more of what you missed. Why so reluctant to talk about things? You say it is because I won’t listen-but I’m asking you the question, so I definately want to know your answer? :

      A) How exactly are either of these theories falsifiable:
      1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

      2) The other theory is that Muslims are not and cannot be peaceful. How exactly does a Muslim disprove that? If they are peaceful, you’l just say they’re biding their time to attack. If they say you’ll never attack, you’ll just say it’s taqqiya (Your misinterpretation of which I notice you do not acknowledge). So how does a Muslim prove that they are peaceful to you?

      B) You don’t care about Muslims committing or not committing crimes-that’s irrelevant to you. Their crime is being Muslim. So they can never ever be allowed fair judgement because of it. Even if they spend the rest of their lives helping and supporting others, you could never even accept the possibilities that they are a better person than the worst serial killers currently in our prison, because they are Muslim.

      Am I right? How far off am I?

      C) So, when you ask for Muslims to prove they’ll will never be murderous, their only option is to kill themselves? Really-that should be interesting-shall we apply it for any other groups that we deem “may” possibly know someone or share a common characteristic with someone who may or may not be a murderer?

      D) So, you’re telling me that if Australia suddenly made it legal to kill certain people, you’d probably kill someone in your life? Because, as you said, you’re more like to do something that is sanctioned than is prohibited.
      I don’t know about you, but I have a moral code that extends beyond what is legal. And I’m a bit worried that it’s only the law that’s holding you back from being a murderer.

      E) Okay, so surely we need to charge all Christians as well, as Christianity has a 1400+ year history of bloody repression, holy wars, and genocide to go by.
      No, of course, I forgot-anyone who kills anyone in the name of Christianity is a bad Christian. Whereas any Muslim who kills anyone is a good Muslim. You’ve yet to tell us why you, and you alone are allowed to judge all Christians and Muslims are being good followers of their religion.

      F) Try again. I am concerned you are going to kill a bunch of kids (Especially as you’ve indicated the only thing stopping you from killing is the law)-prove to me that you aren’t going to.

      G) I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation as to why the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them done unto you”) which appears 5 times in the Quran, means something entirely different as the Golden Rule that was spoken by Jesus. Go.

      H) “I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.”-still waiting on this

      I) Are you actually telling us you think the child migrants were better cared for in Australia, where they were raped by priests, belieiving, incorrectly, that their parents were dead, rather than with their mother’s in England?

      J) Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

      K) What is your more dispassionate source for your interpretation of the Stolen Generation?

      L) Finally, after days of being asked, you answer you have met a real Muslim. Why so hesitant? Why avoid the question for DAYS? I know you read it, because you responded in non-direct ways (“Ask someone from Egypt if they’re met a Muslim)-so why wait so long to answer?

      M) So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

      N) What were the other effects of your fear of Islam?

      O) So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

      P) Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

      Q) Why, is Muslims were always going to kill non-Muslims, did they not wipe out the non-believers in their Golden Age?

      R) I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

      S) What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

      T) Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

      U) And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

      V) What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

      W) So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

      X) And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

      Y) And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

      Z) how is Khomeini and better a source on Islam than Phelps is for Christianity?

      AA) what percentage would you say, of Muslims in Australia would support Khomeini, considering, as I’ve said, virutally all of the Msulims in Australia either have never ever followed his beliefs, or fled the country to escape persecution from him.

    • JM asked: “if you state that any interpretation of the Quran that you disagree with is part of a conspiracy to lull Westerners, and every Muslim you meet who is nice is just pretending to be nice and waiting for a time to kill you, what would disprove your theory?”

      REPLY: That’s not my theory. My theory is that lying to protect or advance Islam is a doctrine of mainstream Islam and that its existence means that you can’t trust anything any Muslim says about Islam where the context is one in which they are concerned that what they say could endanger Islam.

      • “My theory is that lying to protect or advance Islam is a doctrine of mainstream Islam ”

        Even though your source for that is one interpretation of one Islamic text, which is not th Quran, of which all interpretations in total are only followed by around 35% of the Islamic world. Therefore you can’t trust 100% of Muslims, right? Somehow, to you, 35% = 100%.

        “you can’t trust anything any Muslim says about Islam”

        But you can trust everything an ex-Muslim says about Islam, right? I ask again, would you take the word of an ex-Catholic when judging Catholocism, over a current Catholic, an ex-Mormon, ex-Jew, ex-Christian, etc-or do you only judge Muslims this way? If not, why not? After all, if former members of a religion are so reliable, why not use former members of all religions to judge the religion as a whole?

        And again I have to ask, what would prove your theory false? What opportunity do Muslims have to prove that they tell the truth? Considering you say the only way a Muslim can prove he or she is innocent is to kill themselves-is that the only testimony you’ll accept to prove a Muslim is telling the truth as well?

        Previously I’ve asked you how you will know if your theory about Muslims invading will be proven wrong. You said if no invasion happens, and yet state you haven’t set any time limit on it. (You’ve later said they’re already guilty of being Muslims-so won’t accept ever that they are not invading). More and more it seems that every single one of your theories is the same. Let me ask you again, when have you ever adjusted your theories? When have you found a new piece of information that challenged your theory and had to adjust it-or has every piece of information that challenged your theory was dismissed as part of a pro-Muslim conspiracy, which apparenlty includes the Oxford group of dictionaries.

        And I have to ask yet again, using your theories, I think you’re going to kill some children. Since I have accused you of this, you have said more and more things which suggest you do plan to do this (Lack of a flat out denial, trying to divert attention away from you to Muslims, never saying you wouldn’t do it, jut saying you’re “less likely to Muslims” and that “people should be more worried about Muslims than me”)-sounds pretty convincing. So tell me, Otto, prove to me, as you have asked Muslims to prove that they have never and will never commit terror, prove to us that you have never and will nwver kill children in a Breivik style terrorist attack. If you don’t do this, why shouldn’t we accuse you just as you’ve accused all of the world’s Muslims.

        And stuff from that one comment you’re replying that you missed:
        “So, in other words, and we’re going around in circles again-there is no way your theory that “Muslims are invading Australia” can ever be disproven, right? Even if nothing happens until the day you die, you’ll still maintain that Muslims are going to try and kill you/force you to follow their religion, right? ”

        “if Muslims are allowed to lie to further reach a goal, why can’t they be lying when they tell you they’re no longer Muslims? ”

        “What if the ex-Muslims are encouraging you to go out and commit acts of terror against Muslims, and those who support them, to reduce any threat Islam is perceived as having? ”

        “So you’re saying the Inquisition didn’t try to convert everyone, because they didn’t try to convert Christians into being Christians? ”

        As well as all the other comments from previous posts. Gosh, for a guy who believes in “the truth” you like to run away from questions, don’t you?

        • Otto argues in the same way most defenders of religion would argue.

          A: There’s a God.
          B: Prove it.
          A: No.
          B: Why not?
          A: I don’t have to.
          B: Why not?
          A: Prove there is NO God then.

          Otto has been provided with excerpts from the Quran and fatwas which state the Muslims can be friends with non-Muslims, visit churches, adopt new traditions in non-Muslim countries, give eulogies at non-Muslim funerals at non-Muslim places of worship, attend weddings and give wedding gifts to non-Muslims. He has been provided with Quran excerpts, hadiths and fatwas that state that Muslims may fight back but are unable to strike the first blow, and can make alliances with non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are not prevented from building places of worship in Muslim countries and Muslims are allowed to migrate to non-Muslim countries.

          https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/more-on-niqab-folkes-and-friends-%e2%80%8eits-a-front-sic-to-a-civilised-country-like-australia/#comment-25172

  18. Thanks Greg and M-Dawg, a laugh was needed after reading the previous posts.

    Umm, can we go back to anti racism guys? Please?

    All this religious nonsense is a bit lame.

    Mike

    • In addition to their battalions of knuckle-dragging foul-mouthed bigots the enemy have a coterie of pseudo-intellectual cut-and-paste artists which they deploy whenever the issue of tolerance towards any religious group they themselves do not favour arises. They act on the false assumption that we cannot construct an argument against them and will thus fall to our knees in astonishment at their “erudition”.

      It is always entertaining to see the enemy tie itself in theological knots as they do every time they post.

      You can skirt the religious arguments and hit them on their lack of facts and evidence. Let JM and the others have their fun tearing them to pieces. 🙂

    • Nice try Goblin

      Cut and paste -part of your standard repertoire of bigot tricks with which you attempt to deceive people who are not as aware of it as we are.

      Your bigotry and intolerance is thus clear to everyone here.

      James Douglas
      james.douglas747@gmail.com
      123.211.232.103

      Darren Morris
      frankwdux55@hotmail.com
      123.211.219.160

      PS Next time you try and recycle a Facebook fakie don’t forget to get the gender right.

      • Then my friends, you are clearly on the side of bigotry. My information was shite hey? Then the Koran, Hadith and the Sharia law manuals are all shite! I was merely quoting these books, this was not my opinion or made up, it was fact, something which doesn’t seem to get discussed on here much and obviously something you can’t handle because it would expose some truths! I think I’ll start an anti-antibogan site, where I can expose the supposed intelectual dribble you all spin with no factual details to back up any of your small minded bigoted reponses!

        • We are intolerant of bigots. And cherry-picking dodgy interpretations of supposed sources as you have done is propaganda.

          This site is not a showcase for the promotion of bigotry.

        • Nothing bigoted about the truth! My quotes where from the Islamic texts, how can quoting them be bigoted? Sorry guys but you’ve made a big boo boo, your site claims freedom of speech, but blocking information is not freedom of speech, you are a bunch of hypocrytes, and I’ll ensure I expose this fact with all I talk to. Good luck in your continuation of manipulating and limiting freedom of speech.

        • “I think I’ll start an anti-antibogan site,”

          It’s been done. And after declaring everyone a communist, or a leftie feral, it faded into obscurity.

        • Did you quote the entire Quran? Or just selected parts of it that suit your agenda?

          Good luck with your anti-antibogan site. The idea is hardly original.

        • I quoted the parts which are used as the agenda by the Muslims that have comitted over 19,000 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11. This is fact!!! Until people including “moderate muslims” (and OMG, yes, I do know and associate with Muslims), accept this fact in relation to the violence in the koran, hadith and Sharia Law manuals, and get rid of the more than 100 violent passages about jihad and killing of Christians and Jews, Islamic terrorism will continue! The trouble is, the muslims I have spoken to all reject that there is violence in the koran, and it’s like, hello, there are over 100 violent passages, this is why terrorism is happening, there is no distortion, there is no hijacking Islam. Give people a book that they are supposed to believe in and not all, but alot will take it all literally! This is happening, it’s not bigotry, it’s fact!

        • “…and it’s like, hello, there are over 100 violent passages, this is why terrorism is happening…”

          And I’m like, hello, we’re discussing Islam in Australia, and for over 200 years there have been no instances of Islamic terrorism.

          So what Quran are Australian Muslims and Muslims living in Australia reading? Or are they, like you, cherry picking parts of an ancient text to suit their agenda – the desire to live peacefully in our country?

        • Absolutely! And that’s a good thing. But the fact remains that there are way too many Islamists and Imans around the world, and it will start here, probably has already started, that promote violence from quoting the koran for the sole purpose of the Islamic agenda of world wide domination of Islam. It’s in the books, read them!

        • ” The trouble is, the muslims I have spoken to all reject that there is violence in the koran, and it’s like, hello, there are over 100 violent passages, this is why terrorism is happening, there is no distortion, there is no hijacking Islam.”

          So, let me get this straight. Muslims that you know are peaceful, and fine, and you get along well with them. You decide to respond to that positive social contact by calling their entire religion evil, based on evil, and needs to be repressed. Is that right?

          Point 1-Listen, you’ve met Muslims, and they’re good people. And if they’re good people who like their religion, and you’re sure the religion is entirely evil, why do they follow it?
          As a christian, I know people can pull out parts of the bible that are sexist, homophobic, encourage violence, and antisemitism. I can do that too. But there is a truth in the bible that goes beyond that, so despite the hatred and violence that does exist, there is a thing of beauty remaining-and that’s the reason I’m a Christian. So maybe instead of telling your Muslim friends how their religion is pure evil, ask them what they like about their religion.

          2) And as a christian, I know the fastest way to make a nice friendly religious person into an angry, shouting at you religious person is telling them that their belief system is evil, like you know better about a religion than someone following it for their entire life.

  19. I agree that promoting hatred of muslims is hate speech. I do not promote that. I never have. I just do not agree with the teachings of Islam, same as I do not agree with much of the teachings of other religions, that’s not bigoted, that’s my right! To espose truths and the realities of religions is not hatred or bigoted, it’s common sense. Once we accept that Islam is not all it’s cracked up to be and move forward with fact and truth, we can start to stop terrorism. Gee, that sounds bigoted to me!

    • Parts of the ancient text are violent. Much of it was written during war. Much of it was also written post-war, and that is why there is also a lot of preaching for peace and restraint in it.

      • Yep, agreed, but until I am confident that Islam is back in it’s box and I can go to Saudi Arabia and set up a church if I wish without being burnt alive, or go as a non-muslim to vist Mecca (you can’t do this), etc, etc I will continue to oppose Islam!

        • Islam back in its box? Are you high?

          Islam is freely practiced in our country, and what detriment have we seen? Terrorism? No. Public stonings? No. Public denouncement of radical Islamists (Hilaly) by the Muslims community? Yes.

          There are many like you who think they’ve got a chance in somehow cleansing this world of a religion that is the fastest growing behind Atheism. You don’t.

          War and discrimination and dictatorships come from men and patriarchy, and the thirst for power. Attack the individuals.

    • “Once we accept that Islam is not all it’s cracked up to be and move forward with fact and truth, we can start to stop terrorism.”

      Idiot!

      Islamic fundamentalists are born from those who berate them and their religion.
      There is no erasing the Quran, there is no cleansing the earth of Muslims and their religion. With every bigot like you that IGNORES the millions of Muslims worldwide that are living harmoniously and at peace with their non-Muslim brothers and sisters, and CHOOSES to highlight the aspects of their religion that, just like the Old Testament, hold violent passages, you will continue to alienate and isolate these people you are concerned about.

      If you honestly view all Muslims as ticking time bombs ready to unite and bomb the world and be done with it, then you may as well off yourself now.

      We get it! The Quran has violence in it! Hell, even the NEW Testament has violence in it. If MILLIONS of Muslims around the world are alive today, and have no desire to ever harm another soul – and there is MUCH MORE EVIDENCE of this than the evidence of the radical Muslims, then that is testament to the human character.

      We cannot judge people on what they haven’t done, simply because some of those who have come before them may have.

    • A fatwa is issued by a recognized religious authority in Islam. But since there is no hierarchical priesthood or anything of the sort in Islam, a fatwa is not necessarily “binding” on the faithful. The people who pronounce these rulings are supposed to be knowledgable, and base their rulings in knowledge and wisdom. They need to supply the evidence from Islamic sources for their opinions, and it is not uncommon for scholars to come to different conclusions regarding the same issue.

      As Muslims, we look at the opinion, the reputation of the person giving it, the evidence given to support it, and then decide whether to follow it or not. When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us.

      And it looks as though the large majority of Muslims in Australia are ignoring that one – and not being killed for it.
      Keep trying though, your persistence is about the only thing that you can be congratulated on.

      • “it looks as though the large majority of Muslims in Australia are ignoring that one”. So what? (1) the fatwa is the best supported view and mainstream view. (2) It “looks” that way to you, because you simply believe what muslims are saying to your face and close your mind to all evidence to the contrary. Did you watch the undercover mosque video I posted?

        Where is the “evidence from Islamic sources” supporting the contrary view? (I don’t consider http://islam.about.com/od/law/g/fatwa.htm to be an Islamic source)

        • “So what? (1) the fatwa is the best supported view and mainstream view.”

          Is it really the mainstream view if nobody follows it, ‘Otto’? Some fatwa… Apparently Muslims can’t befriend non-Muslims – BUT THE LARGE MAJORITY DO, particularly in Australia.

          {Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.}[60:8].

          “Allah does not forbid you in regard to those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.” (60:8)

          “In the present day situation it is permissible to keep friendly relations with non-Muslims including Hindus, and if the occasion arises where one must eat with them then if the food is halal (permissible) then there is nothing wrong with eating there.”

          “As Muslims, we are permitted to adopt new traditions that come from Muslims or non-Muslims, as long as they are not forbidden in Islam or run counter to its teachings.”

          “Islam teaches us to recognize goodness in every human being and reciprocate kindness with kindness at all times.
          You are therefore not only allowed but religiously mandated in Islam to speak about his goodness after his death. The fact that he was not a Muslim should never stop you from doing that. This does not mean that you participate in their specific religious rituals on this occasion.
          So go ahead and give a eulogy…there is nothing un-Islamic about it. By doing this, in fact, you are letting them know the truth about our religion. In fact, I can assure you, it is through such acts of kindness and generosity of spirit that Islam spread throughout the world, and not through the sword and might.”

          “A Muslim is permitted to enter Churches and other houses of worship. There is reference to that in the acts of some of the Prophet’s Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all). The issue, by and large, depends on the intention of the person doing that. If the intention is to receive blessings from or confess sins to anyone other than Allah, then such a visit is surely prohibited. If, on the other hand, the purpose is just to familiarize oneself with how Christians conduct their services, or to share in a happy occasion such as a wedding, then this is surely permissible.”

          “Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur’an in the beginning of the same Surat Al-Ma’dah: [O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.] (Al-Ma’dah 5 :8)”

          “It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya’) your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)”

          Dr. Abd el-Rahmaan al-Birr, a professor in the Knowledge of the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) at the University of Al-Azhar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood issued a fatwa about making alliances with non-Islamists.

          He said that making alliances with candidates who do not carry the Islamic project or even with non-Muslim candidates is permissible, because it does not violate the Shari’a (Islamic Law) There is nothing wrong with Islamists collaborating with non-Islamists with whom they live in the same community in order to achieve certain goals, said Dr. Abd el-Rahmaan.

          Islamic law allows Copts to build churches in Islamic countries, Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomma said in a statement on Wednesday.

          Gomma said in the statement that Dar al-Ifta, which issues religious edicts, earlier said that Christians and Jews are allowed to build their own places of worship.

          He added that former Grand Mufti Nasr Fareed Wassel issued a religious edict in 1999 that permitted church building in Islamic countries, saying Islam allowed “people of the book” – Christians and Jews – to freely practice their religious rituals as long as they aren’t hostile to Islam.

          The statement also said Islamic laws order Muslims to provide Christians and Jews with places for worship, which implies protecting and restoring them from damage.

          For decades, Egyptian Copts have been calling for a law to unify the standards and conditions of construction for both Muslim and non-Muslim places of worship.

          Migration to non-Muslim countries is permissible, whether for the need of scientific research or commercial and cultural aims, or security purposes. But the settlement should be bound with some conditions, such as to enable the person from carrying out religious duties, and the immigrant must be free from religious persecution. If one fears for his religion, he should come back. (Yusuf al-Qaradawi)

          Islam gave people the right of freedom. Freedom is granted to people by Islam without them having to pursue it, thus respecting the human being. 
Islam gave them freedom of thought, freedom to seek knowledge, freedom to express opinion, freedom of speech and criticism, freedom of belief, freedom of action that doesn’t harm others, freedom of property under legal conditions and regulations without harming, nor reciprocating harm. This is the general rule in Islam. Any freedom which results in harm to yourself or reciprocating harm to others, must be prevented and brought in to this principle: your freedom ends where the freedom of others’ begins. 
Freedom of immorality, which calls man to be free to corrupt their religion, their bodies, their minds, their money and honor, is none other than dissolution and deprivation and does not accord with a righteous life, and thus is opposed by Islam.

          Yusuf Saanei emphasized that Muslims are nation of tolerance and that tolerance is taught by the Holy Quran. He stressed that the diversity of faiths is the will of Allah and no one can oppose Allah’s will. If Allah wanted all mankind to be Muslims, all persons would have been led by Allah to that path.

          “Punishments such as stoning or throwing down from mountain tip are not, technically speaking, nullified in our era. However, our laws and regulations must be revised to exclude such punishments, not because they are no longer valid, but because their implementation is not authorized in the absence of the Infallible Imam. Mirza Qomi the renowned Shiite faqih of the 19th century says implementation of the hudud is excluded to the Infallible Imam, who is well-positioned to know how and when to implement them. But when in the absence of the Infallible Imam, the legislature may not prescribe the hududs in criminal laws.

          Please note that as per the criminal procedure laws, it is almost impossible to establish the crimes of which would ensue punishments like stoning. As per the procedure rules, adultery would only be established by the contemporaneous testimony of 4 righteous men who have witnessed the scene; this is practically impossible, given that a righteous man would avoid watching such a scene. Or, alternatively, the crime may be established by the person’s 4-time free and deliberate confessions. This would seldom happen, and the court would have the authority to pardon such an honest person whose religious beliefs drives him or her to confess to his or her sin.”


          “Mohammad Ebrahim Jannati:

          In our opinion, and based on the evidence and sources in our hands, we believe stoning has no valid basis in progressive fiqh. We shall publish a detailed article on the issue in a specialist journal in Qom.”

          Ali al-Sistanti

          Question: Is it permissible for a Muslim to have a non-Muslim friend?

          Answer: A Muslim is allowed to take non-Muslims for acquaintances and friends, to be sincere towards them and they be sincere towards him, to help one another in fulfilling the needs of this life. Almighty Allah has said in His noble Book: “Allah does not forbid you in regard to those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.” (60:8)

          ________________________________

          “(2) It “looks” that way to you, because you simply believe what muslims are saying to your face and close your mind to all evidence to the contrary. Did you watch the undercover mosque video I posted?”

          Yes, I watched the undercover mosque video. Did you watch the 300,000+ Muslims in Australia and how they’re behaving? ie. not killing each other for befriending non-Muslims, not killing each other for marrying non-Muslims, not killing each other from leaving Islam, not killing non-Muslims in general, etc etc.

        • Just a few more fatwas and hadiths for you. The difference between these, and the ones you’ve provided, is the majority of Muslims worldwide follow these.

          None of the TAB admin are Muslim. But we’ve got a lot of Muslim friends. Interesting really. I guess they’re all just biding their time before they kill us and take over the world.

        • Just to be clear, Otto, how do you get to judge what is an what isn’t an Islamic source? You’ve said one interpretation of one text that is not the Quran and is only supported by at best 35% of Muslims is an Islamic text, now you’re saying another source is not. On what basis do you have the right to say what is and isn’t Islamic?

          And again, I ask, what woudl a Muslim have to do to convince you he isn’t going to hurt you? And what could you do to prove to us that you aren’t going to kill a bunch of children?

  20. Fatwa No : 88412
    When lies are permissible

    “In principle telling a lie is forbidden. Severe threats were stated in many Ahaadeeth regarding telling lies. For instance, the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) said: “Beware of telling lies (falsehood), as telling lies leads to wickedness and evil-doing, and wickedness leads to Hellfire.” (Muslim)

    Therefore, it is forbidden not to abide by this principle EXCEPT IN CASE OF NECESSITY OR FOR A GENERAL NEED, AND WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE EXCEPT BY TELLING A LIE.”

    http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&lang=E&Id=88412&Option=FatwaId

    ie. if lying is necessary to paint Islam in a good light, go for it!

    • Otto you are seriously starting to bore the admins here.

      We are all well-educated and perfectly capable of doing our research without a pompous didactic little obsessive like you, who wants to turn our kids’ schools into Christian indoctrination madrassas wearing out your welcome and lecturing us.

      We are not interested in the “Robert Spencer”/Werner Reimann/APP school of Islamic studies thanks. There are genuine resources out there prepared by real scholars with respectable qualifications. Not by a bunch of closet Brownshirts.

      So cease posting nonsense.

      • The fatwa is genuine. You just want to sweep it under the carpet. It carries more weight than your opinion or what your lying/ignorant Muslim “friends” say to you. What’s the matter? You derided the first fatwa I posted for being “just one” fatwa. So I posted more. Now you deride me for being “obsessive”. Clearly you are operating on the principle that the fatwas I post prove nothing because they are always posted in the wrong quantity. One is too few. More than one is too many.

        • Fatwas only carry weight if Muslims abide by it.

          The evidence in this country is that Muslims are using their ‘God-given conscience’ and deciding NOT to abide by the fatwas you’re providing, such as ““It is not permissible for a Muslim to give allegiance to a disbeliever, LOVE him or BEFRIEND him, whether he is Jewish, Christian or anything else””.

          It doesn’t matter what my Muslim friends tell me. A fatwa is only as relevant as the amount of people who follow it.

          If a prominent Muslim in Australia came out tomorrow and delivered a fatwa suggesting that Australian Muslims now had to kill all the non-Muslims in Australia – do you think people would take him seriously?

    • Or perhaps if legislation passes where Muslims are outlawed, killed or deported, which is what many of you extremists desire.

      “In the New Testament, there’s the phrase ‘sexual immorality’ which translates a word meaning ANY sexual activity outside of marriage. This means that sex with anyone that you’re not married to is sexual immorality, even if you’re engaged to them. It was assumed in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that both men and women would remain virgins until marriage.

      In the Old Testament, for example, Genesis 38:24 shows the reaction to the news that a woman has had sex outside of marriage. And Exodus 22:16 shows that a man who has sex with a woman is expected to marry her. This is because the proper place for a sexual relationship is in marriage.

      The clearest chapter in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 7. The only ways to avoid sexual immorality are to abstain from sex as a single person, or to get married and then be faithful to your spouse. Notice in verse 39 that when a Christian has a choice about who to marry (that is, their marriage isn’t arranged for them), then they should marry a fellow Christian.

      God designed sex as his gift for marriage. You give your body to your spouse and they give you theirs. It’s meant to build a bond that lasts a lifetime, with the potential to create children as well.”

      Whoops – I wonder how many Christians have broken that little rule…

        • So…

          A Muslim source says:

          “When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us.”

          Note the God-given conscience. It’s the part where it’s up to the individual to decide what the most just course of action is. Christians act with their ‘God-given conscience’ all the time, and Muslims are no different.

          If Muslims really had to abide by the ‘kill non-believers’ ‘rule’ and all the other tired shit you bring up, then there’d be nobody left on the planet. Billions of Muslims, each of the ‘forced’ to kill non-believers etc.. Are you seeing the absurdity yet?

          300,000+ Muslims living in Australia. Friends with non-Muslims. Not dead. Marrying non-Muslims. Not dead. Simply being aware of non-Muslims and not killing them. Not dead. Telling lies (Carnita Matthews anyone?). Not dead.

          When are all of your predictions going to come to fruition?

  21. To Vince way back up the top of the post, the Crusades were in response to the taking of the Christian City of Constantinople and the move on Judea and modern day Israel, by the muslims from the east. Why do you bring up events from hundreds or thousands of years ago? Have the decency to detail your response with relevant modern examples as a rebuttal, otherwise you sound as bad as the people you are responding to! Also you say it is racist the comments about Islam? It is an ideology not a race, and you gild the lily when you say selective evidence when this thread and others from your perspective is selective, to load all examples onto the thread would drop the servers and kill the site, so of course it is selective, at least they use examples within a modern context, not THE CRUSADES, again see above this line for that.

    • Why do you bring up events from hundreds or thousands of years ago?

      Err…hundreds of thousands of years ago Homo sapiens didn’t really exist. Let’s can the hyperbole and bring it down to, say, 700 – 1000 years ago? A mere bagatelle in the long history of humanity.

      • Mick said hundreds OR thousands of years ago. His point is that using examples from so long ago doesn’t reflect the way the modern world functions.

  22. mindmadeup April 8, 2012 8:43 am wrote: “…you’re choosing to ignore the millions of Muslims worldwide who have chosen a life of peace. There is more evidence to suggest that Islam is a religion of peace than to suggest that it is a religion of violence as demonstrated by the comparable percentages of its worldwide followers who must either choose a path of peace or violence. Disagree?

    REPLY: (1) There is no evidence that they have “chosen a life of peace”. Islam requires them to kill for Islam WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. Only then will they have to choose. (2) Before the Caliphate was abolished they spent 1300 years demonstrating how “peaceful” Islam was. Why do you ignore that? (3) They are currently demonstrating how peaceful it is in the Sudan and Nigeria. Why do you ignore that? (4) Read http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Opinion-Polls.htm

    • “There is no evidence that they have “chosen a life of peace”. ”

      So, instead of the ol’ “Innocent until proven guilty” Otto, you’re asking for Muslims to prove thier innocence? I ask again, let us make this fair for all. You want Muslims to prove their innocence-then you prove your own.

      Prove to us all that you will never go out and kill a bunch of kids, in a Breivik style attack. If you can’t, if you find you cannot prove you are innocent and always will be innocent, then I ask you, what does a Muslim in Australia have to do in order for you to accept him as an innocent person?

      “Read http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Opinion-Polls.htm

      Why is it that Islamaphobes don’t understand maths?

      “ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

      NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
      http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

      People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
      http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

      YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
      http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

      Correct me if I’m wrong, Otto, but in each of these cases, even the Palestinians, which are currently at war with the Jewish people, in each of these cases doesn’t it show the majority do NOT support the above statements?

      Right? 20% of Muslims sympathise (Notice the word-sympathise, not support-big difference) means 80% do not sympathise, right? 1 in 4 saying the attacks were justified mean 75% do not think the attacks were justified, right? Turks supporting attacks in Iraq (Another war zone even, with a country seeing them fighting off invaders), still over 60% do not support suicide attacks. So, you’ve given us a lot of stats that pretty much say the majority of Muslims do NOT support suicide attacks or terrorism, right?

      Thanks for that!

      Let’s go through the (Very) few that actually state a majority support, shall we?

      “World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans”

      Okay, let’s examine it. It does not say innocents, it just says Americans. The statement could be taken to mean soldiers for starters. It does not say “Attack all nonbelievers, or Westerners”-just Americans.
      America does not have a very positive image in the Middle East, due to the nasty habit of bombing Islamic countries indiscriminantly, and the whole “Invading a country on false premises” thing. They feel America is an aggressor, attacking Islam, and want t ofight back.

      And before youstart saying “This is the evidence I need-this shows Islam is evil”-well the exact same thing is being said by the West, particularly America. What proportion of America would you say support attacks on Muslim nations?

      “Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah ”

      Probably because Hezbollah helps the poor more than the corrupt government of Lebanon. It’s the reason why they’re probably more popular than Al Quaeda (Especially-Al Quaeda is hated in the Islamic world). You give a poor person food, you’re going to get support.

      “Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).”

      Again, Hamas is seen as popular because it is fighting a force the Islamic world sees as an invader. And they have a legitimate basis for this belief (Or are you going to tell us that prior to 1940, Palestine was a vacant land, unoccupied for anyone).
      They don’t support Hamas because they love killing non-believers, it’s because they are seen as fighting for the freedom of the Palestinian people. And yet despite that, around a third of the Jordanians still oppose it.
      “Muslim majorities agree with al-Qaeda goal of keeping Western values out of Islamic countries;”

      Wow, that’s really proof that all Muslims are evil. Let’s just forget for the moment that ALL countries oppose having OTHER Countries values imposed on them! What percentage of China do you think would oppose Japan imposing their values on them? Or Germans would oppose Russia’s values being imposed on them? Find me a country that actually likes having other country’s values imposed on them, please do!

      “Pew Research: 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003
      41% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2007”

      So…they’ve changed their mind. People though Osama Bin Laden was great, became more aware and support dropped for him. So, even if segments of the Islamic world are supporting terrorism, your data is showing that support decreasing.
      Again, thanks for this.

      “Pew Global: 51% of Palestinians support Osama bin Laden
      54% of Muslim Nigerians Support Osama bin Laden”

      So ridiculously poor countries, involved in civil war, against largely non-Muslim enemies, support a guy who supports their fight and is going to attack their enemies….and yet your stats show support just slightly over a half?
      Surely, if your interpretation of Islam is accurate, then all Muslims would be supporting Osama Bin Laden, not slightly above a half?

      Oh wait, your own sources say thw Nigerian’s view have changed also:
      “49% of Nigerian Muslims have favorable view of al-Qaeda (34% unfavorable)”

      Wow, I guess that means the opinion of the Muslim world was changing.

      “Zogby International 2011: “Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favorably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head [Osama bin Laden] in Pakistan””
      “Gallup: 51% of Pakistanis grieve Osama bin Laden (only 11% happy over death)”

      Okay, so your proof that the majority of Muslims hate the West is that when a group of highly trained military soldiers invaded a foreign land, without permission of its sovreign leaders, to shoot an old man on dialysis, they weren’t jumping for joy?
      Listen, I’m glad Osama Bin Laden is dead, and I’m sure he’s burning in hell right now. But not being glad that an old man was shot dead by foreign soldiers doesn’t make you a bad person, you know? If we found an old Nazi, 90 plus years old, in an nursing home, who had conducted the most hurtful and destructive acts in WWII….if Israel or America invaded Australia to kill him, I would be at least a bit annoyed. Wouldn’t you? Or should we just get rid of our borders, and let soldiers come through whenever they want?

      “Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy”

      So, why would they be doing that? Think about it Otto, yoou’ve been telling us non stop that Muslims must kill non-believers, muct kill Westerners. If they are as you say they are, why would they not believe that a bunch of Muslims killed thousands of Westerners in America? Why would they come up with ridiculous theories to try and diminish their culpability for these acts? It’s almost like they were shocked and disturbed by the act and are trying to deny that someone of their belief could do such a thing.

      Which is fine, but goes against everything you say about Muslims. So again, thanks for providing us with proof that our opinion of Muslims is accurate.

      “Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.”

      Again, third world country, who feel they’ve been forced out of their land, who have very few resources, at war with highly trained military soldiers. Let me ask you this, if someone forced you out of your house at gun point, and said you could never come back, what would your response be?

      “NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;”

      So, Muslims aren’t allowed to dislike a Muhammad cartoon, now? Notice the word being used is “punish”-not “killed”, but punished, which could mean a fine, a suppression of the cartoon, a sacking, or even a boycott. But apparently, to you, a Muslim not liking a cartoon of his sacred prophet means he’s a terrorist.
      Are Muslims allowed to have an opinion on anything, without being terrorists? Are they allowed to review films, or is that too risky?

      This is my favourite stat that you’ve given us:
      “Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).”

      81% of MUSLIMS in AMERICA ALWAYS OPPOSE SUICIDE BOMBINGS! That’s what the data YOU’VE provided shows! Now you’ve got two choices here, both equally hilarious.

      1) Either you change your mind on EVERYTHING you just said, and say actually Muslims aren’t hardwired to all be evil, and that every Muslims, from conception to death isn’t just waiting for a moment to kill everyong, and they can just be innocent people you’ve misjudged due to your conspiracy theory.

      Or

      2) You tell us that YOUR OWN SOURCES, are biased, and that the sources YOU’VE BROUGHT UP, are wrong when they’re interpreted in the way you don’t want them to be interpreted. Even better, you could say that the sources YOU’VE LINKED TO, from a ANTI-MUSLIM WEBPAGE, are actually an example of Muslims lying, except for the ones who gave the answer you liked.

      Please answer which option you’re going for. I’d love to hear you either accept the faults of your theory, or try and convince us that YOUR OWN SOURCES, that YOU PROVIDED, are wrong.

    • WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT?

      Muslims in Australia have been criticised, demonised, polarised and basically told that their entire religion is a crock of shit and that they are all terrorists and pedophiles. Is now not a good enough time? Is it not enough evidence for you that millions of Muslims live their entire lives and die without killing the people whose one desire it is to destroy the very fabric of their religion?

      Otto, please tell me why you are deliberately ignoring the following comment I made:

      https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/more-on-niqab-folkes-and-friends-%e2%80%8eits-a-front-sic-to-a-civilised-country-like-australia/#comment-25172

      (2) ‘they’… Are you referring to Muslims in Australia?
      (3) Are you honestly comparing the political, economic, sociological and geographical climates of Sudan, Nigeria and Australia?
      (4) Read that thanks. It seems that JM has ripped you a new arsehole regarding opinion polls in a previous comment so I’ll simply echo his sentiments and statistical findings.

  23. mindmadeup April 8, 2012 8:43 am wrote: “One thing that seems to work is to make them read the New Testament…” Ha! Failsafe strategy Otto! Brainwash them with another sky fairy! You do realise that the God in the Quran and the God in the New Testament are believed to be one and the same, right?

    REPLY: No I didn’t know that and I still don’t.

  24. mindmadeup April 9, 2012 8:23 am wrote: The Prophet Prohibited the Killing of Women and Children

    REPLY: Mohammed also said they could be taken into captivity and the women raped.

    Quran [4.23] “forbidden to you are … all married women EXCEPT THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS”. (ie. slaves, even married ones).

    Quran [33.50] “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESSES OUT OF THOSE WHOM ALLAH HAS GIVEN TO YOU AS PRISONERS OF WAR …” (ie. woman taken into slavery)

    Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent ‘Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and ‘Ali had taken a bath (after a SEXUAL ACT WITH A SLAVE-GIRL FROM THE KHUMUS). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for HE DESERVES MORE THAN THAT FROM THE KHUMLUS.” – Note the girl is part of the booty, and that Ali “deserves” (ie. has the right) to have sex with her ( no consent required)

    Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got FEMALE CAPTIVES IN THE WAR BOOTY and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.” – note the lack of condemnation.

    Also see http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/former-dean-of-islamic-law-at-saudi-university-misunderstands-islam-says-islamic-law-permits-possess.html

    In any event, Mohammed’s policy towards women and children during jihad does nothing to show that there is no jihad in Islam.

  25. mindmadeup April 15, 2012 4:12 pm posted what he claimed were fatwas, but didn’t say where he got any of them from. Very impressive!

    I’m not going to hunt them all down. But here’s one of them.

    mindmadeup posted: Fatwa: “Migration to non-Muslim countries is permissible, whether for the need of scientific research or commercial and cultural aims, or security purposes.” (Date: 11/8/2010. Yusuf al-Qaradawi)

    A more complete version (in fact just a summary) is at
    http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/qaradawi-issues-opinion-emigration-muslim-majority-countries-muslim-minority-countries

    [Summary of Arabic text]
    “Migration to non-Muslim countries is permissible, whether for the need of scientific research or commercial and cultural aims, or security purposes. BUT THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE BOUND WITH SOME CONDITIONS, such as to enable the person from carrying out religious duties, and the immigrant must be free from religious persecution. IF ONE FEARS FOR HIS RELIGION, HE SHOULD COME BACK.

    The Muslim who goes to these countries must cooperate with brothers for maintenance of their identities and duties: to maintain his religious devotion, to develop his spiritual, cultural and intellectual life, to preserve the family, his wife and children, and to cooperate with his Muslim brothers around him. Muslims should build mosques for worship, establish schools to educate their children and set up centers for their social activities. Then there is a duty towards those who live around them, whether they are Americans or Europeans, that is to invite them to Islam and introduce it to them through words, his deeds, and example. Finally he bears a DUTY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC NATION OF WHICH HE IS A PART of, and should be concerned about Islamic issues globally.”

    What is it supposed to prove? It is consistent with the one I posted http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/27211 Mine went into more detail – which is not surprising as the above is just a summary anyway.

    • Oh but Otto, I DID post that Fatwa in that length you eluded to, but you chose to ignore it. Do you remember?

      https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/more-on-niqab-folkes-and-friends-%E2%80%8Eits-a-front-sic-to-a-civilised-country-like-australia/#comment-25260

      The source of the fatwa is here.

      Now, onto your attempted ‘further analysis’:

      “BUT THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE BOUND WITH SOME CONDITIONS, such as to enable the person from carrying out religious duties, and the immigrant must be free from religious persecution. IF ONE FEARS FOR HIS RELIGION, HE SHOULD COME BACK.”

      1. Australia is a secular country. No Muslim is restricted from practicing Islam. No Muslim is permitted from attending Mosques, which are allowed to be built. All Muslims have the opportunity to abide by the five pillars of Islam.
      2. If a Muslim fears his religion is under threat, or feels that he/she is restricted from participating in it, the instruction is to ‘COME BACK’ (to a Muslim country presumably) and not to bomb that country or kill the non-Muslims.

      “The Muslim who goes to these countries must cooperate with brothers for maintenance of their identities and duties: to maintain his religious devotion, to develop his spiritual, cultural and intellectual life, to preserve the family, his wife and children, and to cooperate with his Muslim brothers around him. Muslims should build mosques for worship, establish schools to educate their children and set up centers for their social activities. Then there is a duty towards those who live around them, whether they are Americans or Europeans, that is to invite them to Islam and introduce it to them through words, his deeds, and example. Finally he bears a DUTY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC NATION OF WHICH HE IS A PART of, and should be concerned about Islamic issues globally.””

      1. Where in here does it suggest that Muslims should go on killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children etc etc., (you know, all the perpetuated myths that fuckers like you like to push)?
      2. Failing finding that kind of evidence, you capitalised “DUTY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC NATION OF WHICH HE IS A PART”, but didn’t capitalise the ‘…should be concerned about Islamic issues globally’. Otto, I have a duty to the Australian Nation that I am a part of, and that certainly doesn’t tie me in with Australians who have killed/murdered/raped/generally gone against the ‘Australian way of life’, or the general humanitarian approach to life that the majority of humans on this planet have. I also have a duty to my ATHEIST NATION (ie. the global community of Atheists) whereby if I ever feel as though my right to be an atheist is being threatened, I will engage and speak up, just as many Muslims/Catholics/Jews/Christians/Hindus etc do when they feel their religion is being inferred inferior.

      Fatwas are generally part of longer published texts that contain many scholarly rulings on Islam – in fact one of the ones I quoted (and I’ve got a shitload more for you if you want to continue to play this game) was 600 pages long. “Aha!” says Otto, “I bet that you’ve pulled out the lovey dovey part, and the other 599 pages are full of hatred and telling Muslims to kill non-Muslims etc.” I’ve assumed this reaction from you, and I can tell you now that it is irrelevant.

      We are focusing on fatwas and their affect on the Islamic community who haven’t read every available 600 page manuscript from every Islamic scholar around the world.

      You focused on a positive fatwa, a fatwa where there is undeniable mountains of evidence suggesting that Muslims are abiding by it. I look forward to you continuing this fail-fest.

    • You’re back! The last time you were here, TAB admin were asking you some questions, and responding to an offer you made about a public debate. I guess therein lies the reason you’ve been away so long.

      7 not 6 you say? The plot thickens!

      Seven of you got around in burqas, drank beer, went into banks and the whole time were followed by two television crews. Do you not believe that anybody who witnessed this may have assumed that you were somewhat taking the piss, and that this therefore renders your ‘research’ somewhat void?

      LOL

  26. mindmadeup April 15, 2012 4:12 pm cited Yusuf al-Qaradawi as an exponent of lovey dovey Islam.

    Who is Qaradawi and what does he stand for?
    see http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6227.htm

    — “Throughout history Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers”

    — Islamic Law Should Be Implemented Gradually in Egypt; There Should Be No Chopping Off of Hands in the First Five Years

    • You are flailing now, and attempting to attack the source of a clearly positive fatwa that many many Muslims abide by. It is a red herring if ever I’ve seen one, and the tool of a person who understands that their once stable ground is shifting. You are being provided with irrefutable proof that Muslims are largely peaceful people, and you are being provided with fatwas, hadiths and sections of the Quran that confirm this, despite your references to more war-like surahs, those of which I’ve confirmed exist.

      If Anders Breivik came out tomorrow and said that we should all try to live harmoniously with each other and show respect to each other regardless of our backgrounds, I would say ‘Amen’. I don’t have any respect for the guy whatsoever, but those would be words of good advice, and the fact that he is saying them would align his position on THAT matter with those who I already respect and take advice from. (Of course, Breivik would most likely not say this but don’t try to let that throw you from the point I am making.)

      If Sheikh Hilaly came out and said the exact same thing, those that have denounced him and rejected his previous bullshit would also say ‘Amen’.

      Choosing to focus on irrelevancies in order to rubbish a fatwa that is clearly positive – a fatwa that endorses the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims – a fatwa that many many Muslims shape their current lives on is a blatant lie to yourself, and it confirms my assumptions about close-minded people like you – that even when presented with evidence that lies contrary to what you believe about a global society of people who are largely no different to you, you will still hold on to your perceptions, driven by fear and insecurity. We live in a country where there has never been a terrorist attack (bar that dodgy example of two guys shooting at people in Broken Hill 100 years ago). You say that there has been 19,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims well that has been acknowledged. In fact, I can acknowledge that without eluding to the thousands of terrorist attacks that are committed by non-Muslims – unless you want me to. But the point is that out of global population of over 1.6 BILLION Muslims, your figure draws a figure of 0.01% who are confirmed terrorists.

      Here are some other things that Yusuf al-Qaradawi has said, just for the record:

      “Al-Qaradawi has called for dialogue with Non-Muslims. He also puts emphasis on conversations with the West, including Jews, Christians, and secularists. He writes that this effort should differentiate itself from a debate, for the latter does not often result in mutual cooperation. Regarding the rights and citizenship of non-Muslim minorities, Qaradawi has said, “those people who live under the protection of an Islamic government enjoy special privileges. They are referred to as ‘the Protected People’ (dhimmi)… In modern terminology, dhimmies are “citizens” of the Islamic state. From the earliest period of Islam to the present day, Muslims are in unanimous agreement that they enjoy the same rights and carry the same responsibilities as non-Muslims themselves, while being free to practice their own faiths.”

      “In his book titled The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, al-Qaradawi wrote, “Islam does not prohibit Muslims to be kind and generous to peoples of other religions, even if they are idolaters and polytheists, … it looks upon the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, with special regard, whether they reside in a Muslim society or outside it. The Qur’an never addresses them without saying, “O People of the Book” or “O You who have been given the Book,” indicating that they were originally people of a revealed religion.””

      “Muslims are against the expansionist, oppressive Zionist movement, not the Jews.”

      “There is no enmity between Muslims and Jews….Jews who believe in the authentic Torah are very close to Muslims.”

      “He considers execution as a penalty in principle, but the only apostates that are to be executed are those that combine other crimes with apostasy (e.g. “incit[ing] a war against Islam”). He also advocates that the apostates to be executed should be given a chance to repent.”

      “Al-Qaradawi has spoken in favor of democracy in the Muslim world,[58] speaking of a need for reform of political climates in the Middle East specifically.”

      “After the September 11 attacks, al-Qaradawi urged Muslims to donate blood for the victims and stated,[61]

      Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin; this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads:

      Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind,” (Al-Ma’dah:32).

      The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, ‘A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn’t kill another person illegally’ Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless.”

      Let’s focus on the Fatwas, shall we? I can give you more if you need, although you’ve generally chosen to ignore them, despite their delivery being at a much later date than the last verses of the Quran which you suggest sentences all Muslims as killers.

    • Hey Otto, hate to repeat myself, but I’m still waiting to see how all Muslims can be killers, when your own sources state that over 80% of Muslims in America oppose suicide combings in all and every instance.

      • *edit-suicide bombings obviously. Though I’m sure Otto could find a website talking about the threat of Islamic suicide combings.

  27. mindmadeup wrote: Oh but Otto, I DID post that Fatwa in that length you eluded to, but you chose to ignore it.
    REPLY: At what date and time?

    mindmadeup wrote that according to the fatwa: If a Muslim fears his religion is under threat, or feels that he/she is restricted from participating in it, the instruction is to ‘COME BACK’ (to a Muslim country presumably) AND NOT TO BOMB THAT COUNTRY OR KILL THE NON-MUSLIMS.
    REPLY: The fatwa does not contain the capitalised words. mindmadeup imagined them into the fatwa.

    mindmadeup wrote: Where in here does it suggest that Muslims should go on killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children etc etc., (you know, all the perpetuated myths that fuckers like you like to push)?
    REPLY: The suggestion regarding jihad (as distinct from “killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children”) is in the word “duties”, to one who knows what a Muslim’s duties are. Qaradawi regards jihad as one of the duties. Watch the video starting at 422 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqeraQvO-w#t=422s
    INTERVIEWER: How do the Americans want to change our identity and turn our life inside out?
    QARADAWI: “They want us to teach the religion without jihad. they want us to omit the raids from the prophet’s biography, to omit the islamic conquests from history, to omit jihad from religious jurisprudence, to omit Khaled Ibn Al-Walid, Saladin, Qutuz, Muhammad the conqueror.”

    mindmadeup wrote: Fatwas are generally part of longer published texts that contain many scholarly rulings on Islam – in fact one of the ones I quoted (and I’ve got a shitload more for you if you want to continue to play this game
    REPLY: Go ahead! But only with references.

    mindmadeup wrote: You focused on a positive fatwa, a fatwa where there is undeniable mountains of evidence suggesting that Muslims are abiding by it.
    REPLY: (1) Is mindmadeup suggesting that my position is that Muslims normally defy fatwas? It isn’t (2) mindmadeup’s post seems to assume that the Qaradawi fatwa forbade violent jihad. It did not. (3) the fatwa has a luvey-duvey feel to it, which should disappear upon more careful reading. Does it say Muslims can settle in non-Muslim countries just because they want a better life for themselves and their children? No! It allows it for only 4 purposes. Most do not come for scientific research or business purposes. That leaves “cultural” and “security” purposes. What might they be? (4) apart from the duty to flee to an Islamic country, the fatwa assigns only two duties to Muslims – (i) build up Islamic communities in the host countries (ii) invite non-Muslims to join those communities. In other words, islamise the host countries.

    • “REPLY: Go ahead! But only with references.”

      Dear pot, may I introduce you to kettle?

      Anyway, still asking these questions, Otto, and you’re not getting any closer to answering:
      How can all Muslims can be killers, when your own sources state that over 80% of Muslims in America oppose suicide bombings in all and every instance?

      how do you get to judge what is an what isn’t an Islamic source? You’ve said one interpretation of one text that is not the Quran and is only supported by at best 35% of Muslims is an Islamic text, now you’re saying another source is not. On what basis do you have the right to say what is and isn’t Islamic?

      And again, I ask, what woudl a Muslim have to do to convince you he isn’t going to hurt you? And what could you do to prove to us that you aren’t going to kill a bunch of children?

      But you can trust everything an ex-Muslim says about Islam, right? I ask again, would you take the word of an ex-Catholic when judging Catholocism, over a current Catholic, an ex-Mormon, ex-Jew, ex-Christian, etc-or do you only judge Muslims this way? If not, why not? After all, if former members of a religion are so reliable, why not use former members of all religions to judge the religion as a whole?
      “So, in other words, and we’re going around in circles again-there is no way your theory that “Muslims are invading Australia” can ever be disproven, right? Even if nothing happens until the day you die, you’ll still maintain that Muslims are going to try and kill you/force you to follow their religion, right? ”

      “if Muslims are allowed to lie to further reach a goal, why can’t they be lying when they tell you they’re no longer Muslims? ”

      “What if the ex-Muslims are encouraging you to go out and commit acts of terror against Muslims, and those who support them, to reduce any threat Islam is perceived as having? ”

      “So you’re saying the Inquisition didn’t try to convert everyone, because they didn’t try to convert Christians into being Christians? ”

    • And all these too:

      Why so reluctant to talk about things? You say it is because I won’t listen-but I’m asking you the question, so I definately want to know your answer? :

      A) How exactly are either of these theories falsifiable:
      1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

      2) The other theory is that Muslims are not and cannot be peaceful. How exactly does a Muslim disprove that? If they are peaceful, you’l just say they’re biding their time to attack. If they say you’ll never attack, you’ll just say it’s taqqiya (Your misinterpretation of which I notice you do not acknowledge). So how does a Muslim prove that they are peaceful to you?

      B) You don’t care about Muslims committing or not committing crimes-that’s irrelevant to you. Their crime is being Muslim. So they can never ever be allowed fair judgement because of it. Even if they spend the rest of their lives helping and supporting others, you could never even accept the possibilities that they are a better person than the worst serial killers currently in our prison, because they are Muslim.

      Am I right? How far off am I?

      C) So, when you ask for Muslims to prove they’ll will never be murderous, their only option is to kill themselves? Really-that should be interesting-shall we apply it for any other groups that we deem “may” possibly know someone or share a common characteristic with someone who may or may not be a murderer?

      D) So, you’re telling me that if Australia suddenly made it legal to kill certain people, you’d probably kill someone in your life? Because, as you said, you’re more like to do something that is sanctioned than is prohibited.
      I don’t know about you, but I have a moral code that extends beyond what is legal. And I’m a bit worried that it’s only the law that’s holding you back from being a murderer.

      E) Okay, so surely we need to charge all Christians as well, as Christianity has a 1400+ year history of bloody repression, holy wars, and genocide to go by.
      No, of course, I forgot-anyone who kills anyone in the name of Christianity is a bad Christian. Whereas any Muslim who kills anyone is a good Muslim. You’ve yet to tell us why you, and you alone are allowed to judge all Christians and Muslims are being good followers of their religion.

      F) Try again. I am concerned you are going to kill a bunch of kids (Especially as you’ve indicated the only thing stopping you from killing is the law)-prove to me that you aren’t going to.

      G) I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation as to why the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them done unto you”) which appears 5 times in the Quran, means something entirely different as the Golden Rule that was spoken by Jesus. Go.

      H) “I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.”-still waiting on this

      I) Are you actually telling us you think the child migrants were better cared for in Australia, where they were raped by priests, belieiving, incorrectly, that their parents were dead, rather than with their mother’s in England?

      J) Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

      K) What is your more dispassionate source for your interpretation of the Stolen Generation?

      L) Finally, after days of being asked, you answer you have met a real Muslim. Why so hesitant? Why avoid the question for DAYS? I know you read it, because you responded in non-direct ways (“Ask someone from Egypt if they’re met a Muslim)-so why wait so long to answer?

      M) So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

      N) What were the other effects of your fear of Islam?

      O) So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

      P) Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

      Q) Why, is Muslims were always going to kill non-Muslims, did they not wipe out the non-believers in their Golden Age?

      R) I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

      S) What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

      T) Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

      U) And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

      V) What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

      W) So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

      X) And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

      Y) And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

      Z) how is Khomeini and better a source on Islam than Phelps is for Christianity?

      AA) what percentage would you say, of Muslims in Australia would support Khomeini, considering, as I’ve said, virutally all of the Msulims in Australia either have never ever followed his beliefs, or fled the country to escape persecution from him.

      And we haven’t even jumped in your beliefs that Obama wasn’t born in the US because he has a digital certificate…but we need to save something for later.

      By the way, don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to ask for sources in a long article where your only reference is a youtube video?And whenever you acxtually receive a source you disagree with you say it’;s not true because it doesn’t say what you want it to say? Whereas, a drunk slurring in the streets would be accepted as a credible source by you if he was saying something you agreed with. Funny that, isn’t it?

    • “The fatwa does not contain the capitalised words. mindmadeup imagined them into the fatwa.”

      You’re really struggling now, aren’t you Otto? You’ve got to be so super picky, so you can ignore the statement or the argument based on the tiniest detail.

      The words are capitalised for emphasis. Please tell me you knew that, otherwise I think we need to get you a carer to protect you from this harsh, alien world in which you live. The words themselves are an interpretation of the fatwa. Yeah I know, terrible, people interpreting religious texts. Didn’t MMU know you’re the only person allowed to interpret Islamic texts? And on what right are you the noly person allowed to give the accurate interpretation of Islamic texts, again? I’m eager to find out how you got that right, rather than thousands of other scholars of Islam around the world.

      “REPLY: The suggestion regarding jihad (as distinct from “killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children”) is in the word “duties”, to one who knows what a Muslim’s duties are.”

      Ah, so the proof is in the reading, but only if you truly understand Islam would you see it? Everyone else won’t see that, but see a vague statement that doesn’t call for violence, but you, with your amazing ability to interpret Islam in the one and only one way that Islam can be interpreted (Which is why Shia and Sunni Muslims agree on EVERYTHING), can see it. Right?

      By the way Otto, I’ve got some clothes you can buy from me. To everyone else, they’re invisible, but to the truly smart, and tyruly wise people they are the most beautiful clothes in all creation. Interested?

      ” Qaradawi regards jihad as one of the duties. ”

      Cool, and Qaradawi is the leader of all Muslims, right? Everyone in all of Islam agrees with everything he says, right?

      Except they don’t. Muslims don’t like his permission to consume tiny bitys of alcohol in energy drinks, And 2500 Muslims from 23 countries, all academics who have studied the text have all condemned him.

      Source: http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=53683&d=30&m=10&y=2004http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=15874

      No, wait, they’re all part of the conspiracy right. Even when a Muslim objects to another Muslim, that means they still agree, right?

      In which case we go back to the question of proof. If all Muslims agree with the worst fundmanetalists, even when they publically denounce them, then I say that you support Ander Behring Breivik, even if you publically denounce him (Which you haven’t actually done yet, I might add). So again, prove to us all that you won’t go out and kill a bunch of kids and support Breivik in doing so.

    • “mindmadeup wrote: Oh but Otto, I DID post that Fatwa in that length you eluded to, but you chose to ignore it.
      REPLY: At what date and time?”

      I’ve eluded to it many times. If you CLICK the link, you will find my comment, that you’ve largely ignored. Inside my comment, you will find the fatwa that I’m speaking about, and you will read that initially I posted the fatwa (Translated summary from Arabic) in its full length.

      https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/more-on-niqab-folkes-and-friends-%e2%80%8eits-a-front-sic-to-a-civilised-country-like-australia/#comment-25172

      “mindmadeup wrote that according to the fatwa: If a Muslim fears his religion is under threat, or feels that he/she is restricted from participating in it, the instruction is to ‘COME BACK’ (to a Muslim country presumably) AND NOT TO BOMB THAT COUNTRY OR KILL THE NON-MUSLIMS.
      REPLY: The fatwa does not contain the capitalised words. mindmadeup imagined them into the fatwa.”

      Excuse me? YOU are the one who imagined the idea of killing and bombing and attributed it to the word ‘duties’. Here it is again:

      “Migration to non-Muslim countries is permissible, whether for the need of scientific research or commercial and cultural aims, or security purposes. But the settlement should be bound with some conditions, such as to enable the person from carrying out religious duties, and the immigrant must be free from religious persecution. If one fears for his religion, he should come back. (Yusuf al-Qaradawi)”

      “If one fears for his religion, he should come back.”

      “mindmadeup wrote: Where in here does it suggest that Muslims should go on killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children etc etc., (you know, all the perpetuated myths that fuckers like you like to push)?
      REPLY: The suggestion regarding jihad (as distinct from “killing sprees, bombing, murdering raping, rooting children”) is in the word “duties”, …

      The ‘suggestion’. If you knew anything about Islam, you would know that the most important duty for a Muslim person is to call people to Allah. Other duties are spoken about by Islamic leaders. And then of course there are the ‘duties’ that most Muslims would know as the Five Pillars of Islam: Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad; Establishment of the daily prayers; Concern for and almsgiving to the needy; Self-purification through fasting; and The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able. You are ignoring all of these things and making an ASSUMPTION, a ‘suggestion’ that when Qaradawi speaks about duties, he speaks about killing and bombing non-Muslims. He has asserted on many occasions that he opposes such actions. In fact, the only time he speaks about supporting killing non-Muslims is when he speaks about defending against those who attack first. He opposes the killing of civilians outright.

      …to one who knows what a Muslim’s duties are. Qaradawi regards jihad as one of the duties. Watch the video starting at 422 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqeraQvO-w#t=422s

      Yes, I watched that. You have provided a video that has quite clearly been cut and edited. Despite the editing that has taken place in this video you’ve provided, there were no parts that ‘suggest’ that Qaradawi is ordering anyone to kill anyone. What a lousy piece of evidence you supply. It has all the biased ‘evidence’ of a shonky Today Tonight piece.

      …INTERVIEWER: How do the Americans want to change our identity and turn our life inside out?
      QARADAWI: “They want us to teach the religion without jihad. they want us to omit the raids from the prophet’s biography, to omit the islamic conquests from history, to omit jihad from religious jurisprudence, to omit Khaled Ibn Al-Walid, Saladin, Qutuz, Muhammad the conqueror.””

      Aaaaaaannnnnnddddd….??? So fucking what? Are you high? Where does he say in that quote that the duty of Muslims is to kill and bomb non-Muslims? You do realise that the idea of JIHAD is open to interpretation as the meaning that we know is a TRANSLATION, right? A believer’s internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible… Internal struggle? Perhaps the ‘duty’ of a Muslim? The struggle to build a good Muslim society… The ‘duty’ of a Muslim? Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary… To DEFEND against those who attack Islam? Are not those the very things each religion would hold as its main duties to its followers?

      If you want to interpret things that are UNSAID and decide that it means that all Muslims must be killing non-believers, then it’s time for you to address the 0.001% of global Muslims who have proven that they will. Because you say that Muslims will only attack WHEN IT’S TIME (safeguarding yourself from ever being proven incorrect), yet how appropriate is the time now? Muslims are attacked and denounced and demonised all over the world by people like YOU. People who ignore the fact that there are BILLIONS of Muslims who are peaceful and do not want violence or war in the world.

      “mindmadeup wrote: Fatwas are generally part of longer published texts that contain many scholarly rulings on Islam – in fact one of the ones I quoted (and I’ve got a shitload more for you if you want to continue to play this game
      REPLY: Go ahead! But only with references.”

      Excuse me? Are you the world’s biggest hypocrite? What references have you provided so far except things that have been said and written by people who are completely pitted against Islam? At least I have quoted incredibly influential and powerful Islamic leaders and scholars. You know, the kind of people MUSLIMS LISTEN TO.
      I am happy to post more – as soon as you address what I have supplied you with so far – which you HAVE NOT.

      “mindmadeup wrote: You focused on a positive fatwa, a fatwa where there is undeniable mountains of evidence suggesting that Muslims are abiding by it.
      REPLY: (1) Is mindmadeup suggesting that my position is that Muslims normally defy fatwas? It isn’t

      No I am not. I am suggesting that the large majority of Muslims follow such fatwas and the fatwas I have so far quoted preach tolerance and harmony.

      (2) mindmadeup’s post seems to assume that the Qaradawi fatwa forbade violent jihad. It did not.

      Qaradawi has said many times that he opposes the killing of non-Muslims. He has said that he opposes suicide bombs. He has said that he opposes the use of WMDs and nuclear weapons. (Your video had a heavily edited excerpt of him saying that it was acceptable to have such weapons in order to strike fear into those who want to attack, but not to use them). He has said that the only time it is acceptable to kill people is when they violently attack Muslims. He speaks of the civilians in Iraq – is the killer only the person who presses the trigger in the tank? Or is it the people riding in the tank, and the people who service the tank? I don’t agree with any killing, but I can see his point.

      (3) the fatwa has a luvey-duvey feel to it, which should disappear upon more careful reading. Does it say Muslims can settle in non-Muslim countries just because they want a better life for themselves and their children? No! It allows it for only 4 purposes. Most do not come for scientific research or business purposes. That leaves “cultural” and “security” purposes. What might they be?

      Man you are the king of assumptions. Careful reading? Did you read 600 pages of Arabic? Or did you read what was presented? Business purposes? Living in a country where there are good jobs and living arrangements would be considered ‘business purposes’. Cultural reasons could include moving with family OR moving to a country where there are no religious conflicts – ie. a secular society. Sound like a place you know? And finally – ‘security purposes’. Are you aware of the conflict taking place in many places around the world? Fleeing war/persecution/oppression would be considered seeking security. Yes? No?

      (4) apart from the duty to flee to an Islamic country, the fatwa assigns only two duties to Muslims – (i) build up Islamic communities in the host countries (ii) invite non-Muslims to join those communities. In other words, islamise the host countries.”

      Sorry, where does it say ‘force non-Muslims to become Muslims’? Muslims are permitted to build Mosques here. Muslims are permitted to invite non-Muslims to learn more about Islam. Non-Muslims are clever enough to choose their own religions (generally), and Muslims are clever enough to understand that a person who has been forced to convert to a religion is not really at one with that religion.

      I know you’re scared that Australia will become the next Mecca. I know you choose to overlook the fact that in 200+ years, we still don’t have a Muslim population that exceeds 3%, nor do we have a migration intake from any Islamic countries (well not inside the top 15 contributing countries anyway).

      I address each and every thing you say. The least you could do is reciprocate. I’m not going to pronounce you the ‘winner’ of this ‘debate’, and vice versa. But let’s just hope you’re taking in some of what I’m saying. Because the person that holds on to an opinion despite mounting evidence to its contrary is a bigot. I have acknowledged that there are Islamic fuckheads in the world, and I’ve acknowledged that there have been something like 19,000 Islamic terrorist attacks. This is a statistic given in isolation of terrorist attacks committed by non-Muslims, but the point is that THIS ONLY REPRESENTS 0.001% of the global Islamic population. Where the fuck are these other suicide-bombing fanatics and when are they going to strike? We are sitting at the peak of Islamic-ridicule and denouncement – worldwide.

  28. mindmadeup April 12, 2012 8:34 pm “quoted” several fatwas saying Christians could build churches in Muslim lands

    — “Islamic law allows Copts to build churches in Islamic countries, Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomma said in a statement on Wednesday.”

    — “Grand Mufti Nasr Fareed Wassel issued a religious edict in 1999 that permitted church building in Islamic countries”

    REPLY:
    (1) mindmadeup gave no source
    (2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmCTsfHipKw

    • Wait, you’re using the 700 club as a source? The same station lead by the guy who gave a date for the end of the world 3 times? And (surprisingly) got it wrong 3 times?

      Once again, Otto, you show that any source that disagrees with you will be dismissed as taqqiya, or designed for westerners, but any source that agrees with you, even if it’s a crazy guy who has literally stated “It’s the end of the world” on three different times-that’s legitimate, right?

      And I’ll repeat some questions you ignored, Otto. Which is it today? You want to explain how you can be right in your belief that all Muslims are going to kill us all, when your own sources show that not to be the case? Or is today the day you attempt to show to us all why we shouldn’t say treat you as a possible future killer of children?

      • Otto, I respond to every little thing you say. Why is it you cannot afford me the same courtesy? Is it because you’re scouring YouTube for videos by biased lunatic anti-Islamists and simply don’t have the time or conviction to follow through with this discussion?

      • mindmadeup April 17, 2012 8:37 am wrote: Otto, I respond to every little thing you say. Why is it you cannot afford me the same courtesy?

        REPLY: (1) Because I have other things to do. When I get time I will respond to more of your points (2) You have been anything but courteous.

        • So just so we’re clear here, Otto, you have time to comment a LOT on this site, but never enough time to reply? And you’ve hardly been winning the courtesy contests yourself, have you?

          And do we have a set time frame for when you will eventually respond to any of the questions you’ve ignored?

          I have a theory-you will never respond to all the questions you’ve ignored or skipped. Like your theory that all Muslims are just about to kill everyone-except it can be proven wrong! Ain’t that great?

        • It seems you have time to

          a) post reams of your own subjective bullshit;
          b select very small, specific parts of my arguments to respond to.

          The courtesy I extend to you isn’t in the way I speak with you. It’s in the way that I address everything you talk to me about rather than cherry picking things in my comfort zone as you do. This is a courtesy that in no way have you reciprocated. For that you lose credibility whether you’re winning this discussion or not.

  29. When i lived in Australia i met Nick Folkes, he seemed like a nice guy and committed to his cause. Now before you all start shouting right wing Nazi (1) i am an always have been a socialist including being a paid up member of the Socialist Labour League which became the Workers Revoluntionary Party, my family have been involved in the Labour Party since before i was born (I’m now 55), I am NOT right wing, I just see the threat of radical Islam and for the love of God can’t understand why others can’t.

    • 1. But you are a supporter of the EDL. That speaks volumes.

      2. Folkes is not a “nice guy”. He is on record vilifying Filipinos, Aboriginal people and Africans amongst others so he is an out-there racist, without even getting started on his Islamophobia.

      3. Racists are NOT “nice guys”.

      • But only when it’s to the letter. I’ve seen plenty of heated arguments between Nick and someone else who hates Muslims, just because they disagree on whether Indians are good people, or even whether Australia needs to allow mroe white immigrants.

    • Gary, if you’ll allow me to summarise your post:

      1. You are indignant that opponents of multiculturalism may be labeled as right wing Nazis.
      2. You label all Muslims as extremists.

  30. After listening to countless debates between Islamic apologists and critics of Islam it would sometimes make me laugh if I weren’t so infuriated by muslims responses to this criticism. Mindmadeup You are a brain dead arrogant fool. One thing that astonishes me on this subject is that so many people have no idea that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile. If everyone knew the facts there would be no way any reasonable and sane westerner would see this man as anything more than the piece of garbage he was.

    Child brides are being married off to old men every day in the Islamic world let’s have a look why.
    Muhammad and Aisha.
    Using the muslims own Quran, Hadiths and Surahs the Islamic source materials state that Aisha was 9 when they consummated their marriage.
    This is undeniable fact but just for the hell of it here is just a few quotes.
    From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234
    “Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”
    Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
    “Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: “I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).””
    From the hadith of Muslim, volume 2, #3309
    Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine….
    From the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, #2116
    “Aisha said, “The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old.” (The narrator Sulaiman said: “Or six years.”). “He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.”
    From “The History of Tabari”, volume 9, page 131
    “Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me”…(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died.
    From the Encyclopedia of Islam, under “Aisha”:
    “Some time after the death of Khadija, Khawla suggested to Muhammad that he should marry either Aisha, the 6 year old daughter of his chief follower, or Sawda Zama, a widow of about 30, who had gone as a Muslim to Abyssinia and whose husband had died there. Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. It had already been agreed that Aisha should marry Djubayr Mutim, whose father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common consent, however, this agreement was set aside, and Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha… The marriage was not consummated until some months after the Hidjra, (in April 623, 624). Aisha went to live in an apartment in Muhammad’s house, later the mosque of Median. She cannot have been more than ten years old at the time and took her toys to her new home.”

    SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE OF AISHA’S AGE
    These references are just a smidgen of the absolutely overwhelming evidence that Aisha was 9 when her marriage was consummated. Over and over again the great Islamic scholars state that Aisha was 9 when her marriage was consummated. No serious Muslim scholar doubts this. Generally it is only embarrassed Muslims living in the West who challenge her age and their ridiculous claims are so easily rebuked that normally they will try and justify it with the most typical claim being that ‘times were different back then’.
    Funny enough, this is actually true. Times were different and Mo was not the first person to have a child bride and he was not doing anything illegal at the time. What I have trouble understanding is that this was not considered immoral 1400 years ago but we have evolved today and the fact of the matter is we know for a fact that it definitely is evil and wrong.
    99% of muslims living in the western western world believe child marriage to be wrong but not in Islamic majority countries. All over the Islamic world children are being married off to dirty, disgusting old pedophiles every single day. They are having their genitals mutilated so that, heaven forbid they cannot actually enjoy sex.
    Mo was supposedly a perfect example to mankind and his character cannot be criticized in the muslim world, sometimes punishable by death. I challenge muslims living in the western world to ask yourself this question, if this sick twisted fuck was a messenger of God, wouldn’t you expect him to know that pedophilia was wrong? I believe he loved the power he had created for himself under the disguise of a ‘new religion’ and he used it to satisfy his own sexual deviancy by taking 13 wives for himself but making it illegal for other muslim men to marry any more than four. HYPOCRITE.
    Recently I listened to a debate between Robert Spencer and SOME CUNT and I felt like reaching through the computer screen and kicking seven shades of shit out of SOME CUNT. This man was considered to be the top Islamic scholar in America and he spent five minutes brushing these claims off like they were pointless. He even went as far as to say that, “ we don’t even know for sure how old Aisha really was”. Naturally Robert Spencer shot him down in flames by stating that, “it is an insult to suggest that the people back then did not know how old they were, they knew the change of the seasons”
    Isn’t it funny how they know the exact date of Mo’s birthday and death but when this criticism comes up the birthday of one of his most important and influential wives all of a sudden becomes an enigma.

    • Was that fun? Did you enjoy that little rant? Was there good opportunity to put into practice your Google and copy-paste skills?

      Let’s assume you are right about this.

      What evidence do you have that Mohammed’s pedophile behaviour has influenced Muslims globally to become pedophiles?

      None.

      Name one thing Muslims and Christians share? Their level effort pointing fingers elsewhere whenever pedophilia comes up. Catholic priests are an obvious and easy target, but when my 16-year-old daughter raised $26,000 in her high school to combat North America’s growing child-sex-slavery trade, her grandmother complained that she wasn’t doing enough about misogyny and abuse in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Although she wasn’t very clear how Marley would get there. My pen on the other hand? We’ll see.
      Another similarity? Neither Muslims nor Christians blame Christianity for the problem, but the same can’t be said for Islam. You’ve got to give pedophiles their props though. Most sane people consider them something beyond abhorrent, and yet on this issue they have convinced even Christian leaders to climb into bed with them, and with some Sunni and Shiite scholars to boot. And it’s time to pull the sheets back and see what’s really going on for the sake of women and children everywhere.
      There are really only three reasons to insist — as so many do — that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.
      There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim. Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Malik bin Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah — The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed — 12 years before her marriage — and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.
      Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed.
      Finally, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, dead for more than 700 years, recorded in the biographical section of Miskat al-Masabih that Asma, her elder sister of 10 years, died at the age of 100, 72 years after Aisha’s wedding. This makes Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage at least 14, and at the time of her marriage’s consummation almost 20.
      Although those dates make it obvious that Aisha’s child-marriage couldn’t have taken place, according to Arab tribal traditions of the time it could have, and apparently it can still happen in Arabia today. A case that recently raged through the international press and Saudi courts — of an 8-year-old girl who had been married by her father to a 47 year-old “friend” to settle Dad’s debts — shows how little things there have changed. However, that’s despite Islam, not because of it.
      Prior to Muhammad in Arabia, it is common knowledge that females were considered property, and that female infants were often discarded like refuse when born. However, one of Islam’s primary revelations was that men and women had equal status before God, with different though equal rights and obligations. Another was God’s condemnation of Arab female sacrifice, proclaiming that girl-children were just as valuable as boy-children to God and to humankind.
      Obviously, those ignorant tribal prejudices and practices persist. However the most important reason Aisha’s child-marriage couldn’t have happened is this: Muhammad couldn’t do anything any more than any other Muslim can. Muhammad was the finest example of true Islamic living there could ever be, and having marital relations with a woman of less than the “age of majority” — an age that varies from culture to culture but presupposes the ability to become pregnant, have children and make decisions for those children as an adult — was, is and always will be completely contrary to the example set by our Prophet, and the message of Islam’s Holy Quran.
      The Quran is clear that a divorced woman cannot marry another man until she completes a period of waiting to confirm she isn’t already pregnant, and such an impediment would be unnecessary were pregnancy not possible. However, the roots of Islamic pedophilia lie in exactly what the verse (At-Talaq — “The Divorce” 65:4) about that waiting period says. Yousuf Ali’s English translation is a pretty good approximation:

      Waalla-ee ya-isna mina almaheedi min nisa-ikum ini irtabtum fa’iddatuhunna thalathatu ashhurin waalla-ee lam yahidna waolatu al-ahmali ajaluhunna an yada’ana hamlahunna waman yattaqi Allaha yaj’al lahu min amrihi yusran.

      Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
      Now, I’ve discussed the verse with progressive Islamic scholars and learned that “Lam Yahidna” negates menstruation in the past tense and the jussive mode and means “did not menstruate,” with the expectation that the woman should be menstruating, since that natural cycle is part of her normal state.
      Then again, I know that there are Islamic scholars from Arabia and Pakistan — another place with long traditions of both child-marriage and misogyny — and Islamophobes from around the world who interpret it as if it says “has not menstruated yet,” with the jussive mode implying the girl is impatient to begin, ensuring that it seems to perpetuate the pre-Islamic practice of having sex with pre-pubescent girls.
      Between those two incredibly divergent positions, how does one choose?
      When Muslims face difficult questions, we have the Sunnah, an Arabic word meaning “the acts of Muhammad,” to guide us, and that’s why Aisha’s age is such an issue. But the thing is, whether Aisha was still a child when her marriage was consummated has never been a question: all scholars agree that occurred after Aisha’s menarche. Islamophobes inevitably claim otherwise, but they do so based on a completely fictitious interpretation of events.
      And that means the problem that we should be addressing is the root one, that of men devaluing and disenfranchising girls and women: Husbands and fathers treating girls as property and forcing them to marry against their will.
      And in that, the condemnation of the Quran and Sunnah are very clear: The Quran states a woman’s consent is essential, and the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha’s betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha’s enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!
      Those guides unequivocally confirm that men and woman have equal status before God, equal though different rights when wed, and that a woman cannot be given in marriage without her express approval. Absent that, the Sunnah also records that Muhammad dissolved marriages on the woman’s testimony alone. That is what Muslims should be proclaiming, rather than the purported right of Muslim men to marry underage brides.
      The cause of the confusion is simple. Imam Bukhari, compiler of the famous Hadith collection (Hadith in this context meaning stories about Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari included one recalling that Aisha said she was 6 when betrothed and 9 when she was wed. However, Bukhari included another recording that Aisha was a young girl and remembered when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed — 9 years before her wedding — as well. Obviously, both Hadiths can’t be true, and that’s the problem with relying too much on Hadiths, and too little on the Quran and common sense.
      Even if you believe — as I do — that the Quran is a divinely protected book, the same cannot be said about all Hadiths. In fact, there is even an Ayah in the Quran that warns about the dangers of thinking otherwise. Luqman 31:6 cautions:

      Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadithi liyudilla aaan sabeeli Allahi bighayri aailmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan ola-ika lahum aaathabun muheenun.

      But there are, among men, those who purchase idle Hadiths, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.
      While there are Muslim scholars who claim that Luqman 6 is actually a warning about musical performers like Madonna, there are others who respond that unless those performers are Muslim nothing they do throws ridicule on any path but their own. And personally, I think the Ayah is instead a frank and literal warning about the dangers of trafficking in false and idle Hadiths, just like it says.
      I also can’t think of a better set of examples of what it’s talking about than the damage that’s been done by confusion over Aisha’s age of consummation.
      I have read a great deal of speculation about why Hadiths that make Aisha seem immature might be wrong. Most of them came out of what is now Iraq, through one specific source named Hisham ibn Urwah. And it’s worth noting that his student Muslim — who collated the Hadiths of Sahih Muslim — specifically chose not to include any from his respected teacher after Hisham went to Iraq. Some say it’s because Hisham’s memory became spotty, others say it was because Iraq was a political hotbed of “anti-Aisha” feeling and some evil men fabricated Hadiths in Hisham’s name.
      But none of the speculation matters. The only thing you need to realize is that both the tales Bukhari included can’t both be true. That fact, put together with the Quran’s warning, means that Hadiths can’t be as authoritative to Muslims as the Holy Quran and the Sunnah are.
      I’ve been told otherwise by many good Muslims, and I know there are even places in the world where you can spark a riot by saying otherwise, but I think that’s part of what Luqman warns us about. I love Hadiths for the illuminating light they can shine on the interpretation of a difficult passage, or on my own attempts navigating a difficult juncture in my life, but I’ve also participated in Islamic dinner events that have fallen apart discussing the Hadith condemning Muslims who smell their food before they eat it.
      Now, the role, authority and validity of individual Hadiths is not an issue that is going to be put to rest by someone like me; there is an entire scholarly science devoted to it. And personally, I think that debate and discussion, both between scholars and “grass-roots” Muslims, is useful and instructive whether the Hadiths being discussed are actually “true” or not, as long as that discussion is respectful of both our religion of Islam and our fellow participants.
      But while we’re on the subject of how Muslims settle Islamic controversies, there’s an important question that begs asking. I actually understand the Islamophobic focus on false and embarrassing Islamic interpretations: they’re just trying to score points the best way they know how, with tools we Muslims have given them. But all these facts I’ve shared are just common knowledge that’s easily verifiable and my conclusions little more than simple common sense.
      If Muslim scholars are so concerned that Muslim practices follow Islam’s revelation and Muhammad’s memory, and if they truly want to defend Islam and our Prophet, then what have they been doing for the last thousand years?
      No question men (and women) can be pigs when it comes to sex and gender issues — when I’m asked to explain why we can’t eat pork I generally explain the problem might be cannibalism — but religion is supposed to help us combat those dark urges not pander to them.
      And while we’re on the subject of marriage, the Quran doesn’t condone wife-beating either. In pre-Islamic Arabia, men did not need permission to beat their wives. And although the Arabic root Dzaraba does mean “beat” it also means “heal.” Dzaraba denotes action for a higher purpose, such as “striking (or minting) a coin,” or “striking out on a new path.” Coupled with the Quran’s warning to husbands that God is watching everything we do, and a reminder that we must serve our marriage rather than ourselves, particularly after proclaiming married men to be tasked as providers and protectors rather than rulers all in the same passage, in Muhammad’s day Islam actually took that permission away, despite misogynist Muslim and Islamophobic claims to the contrary.
      With all the suffering in Somalia, so much of it caused by misapplied and misinterpreted misreadings of Islam, why are Somalia’s scholars focusing on sexualizing hand-holding?
      How is it that Saudi Arabia still allows child marriage when they’ve known Aisha’s real age all along (the biographies I reference are written in Arabic, for Heaven’s sake!), or that Pakistan’s rape laws cleave to British colonial precedent?
      In Pakistan, a woman can be punished for being raped if the rapist denies her claims. But when Muhammad was faced with a woman who told him she’d been raped, he had the man in question executed on the testimony of the woman, whom he pronounced blameless, alone.
      The simple truth is that all our Muslim scholars since Islam began have been human, limited by the human ability to pander, avoid conflict by bowing to popular opinion, or make mistakes. And when scholars fail their sacred trust, to transmit Islam with fidelity, they lose their right to any authority, Islamic or otherwise, and frankly, it’s up to the rest of us to do a better job of keeping them honest.
      Because if any of us care about things like “truth” and “fidelity” as much as so many of us claim, “Too busy to check the facts out for myself” just doesn’t seem like much of an excuse.
      What’s my bottom line? The age Aisha attained before she married the Prophet is one issue we have to put to rest — for the sake of children everywhere. There is absolutely no question that Aisha was an adult when she consummated her marriage with Muhammad of her own free will, and she lived out her life in the earliest days of Islam the un-harassed and proudly participatory equal of everyone, just like every other man, woman or child under God.

    • One thing that astonishes me on this subject is that so many people have no idea that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile.

      Cut and pasted from a hate site.

      And do you know Jesus was gay? After all he hung out with 12 blokes.

      Your “argument” is as specious as that old joke.

      Child brides are being married off to old men every day in the Islamic world

      WRONG! Check out the age for marriage in the vast majority of Muslim countries. Most girls are not allowed to marry until they are 16 – which was the case for everyone in Australia until recently.

      Child brides are being married off to old men every day in the Islamic world let’s have a look why.
      Muhammad and Aisha.
      Using the muslims own Quran, Hadiths and Surahs the Islamic source materials state that Aisha was 9 when they consummated their marriage.
      This is undeniable fact but just for the..

      Quote truncated in our comment because we are not going to support your hate propaganda.

      1. Historical verification required (not cherry-picked hadiths) most apocryphal, many of spurious origin.

      2. “Robert Spencer” Muslim hater and a descendant of Armenians whose relatives were massacred by the Turks, hence cannot be called an objective source.

      3. “Robert Spencer” has the same credibility (nil) as do Holocaust deniers David Irving and Frederick Toben. And fewer university qualifications. And spurious and shunned by legitimate scholars as they are, they do use their real names.

      4. Who is “Mo”. One of the Three Stooges?

      5. Now some lessons in historical records for a xenophobic ignoramus like you. People didn’t keep records as they do now, most people were illiterate anyway, the only record verging on factual from all your guff is that the Prophet most likely had a wife called Aisha or Ayesha.

      6. Do you know that someone called Brutus slayed two giants and founded Britain? A fanciful myth not supported by evidence but widely believed by Britons in medieval times. Just like your self-indulgent “paedophile” accusations.

      Now we sit back and watch our people tear you to pieces.

      Read this while you await your demise.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html

  31. “What evidence do you have that Mohammed’s pedophile behaviour has influenced Muslims globally to become pedophiles?” Are you for real? Do you read anything that the opposing debaters write? I have just provided a mountain of evidence that shows Mohammed himself was a pedo and I could provide a lot more but we all know you wont listen. Child marriage is rampant in Islamic countries. One of the very few cases where this actually made the news was a case last year in Iran where a 13 year old girl was stoned to death after she was raped for adultery. The fact that she had already been married for several years seemed to slip every ones mind. Would you like me to provide case after case of proven child marriages under Islamic law so you can then just brush that away too? I only read the first few sentences of your argument because it is obvious by the 60 pages of debating you’ve done with others that you simply don’t listen. You put your viewpoint forward in great detail but don’t pay any attention to opposing views other than looking for ways to twist, exploit and brush aside what other people are saying to you. A typical muslim apologist technique i.e Admit nothing, Deny everything and make counter accusations. All the best.

    • There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

      Even if there were 1 million Muslims blokes marrying children, that would still represent 0.06% of the entire Muslim population.

      Do you understand this?

      And this blog discusses Islam in Australia, where there have been a grand total of ZERO child marriages as it is illegal here. And the close-to 400,000 Muslims in Australia haven’t disagreed or mounted oppositional action or even just gone ahead with it.

      But go ahead, keep hiding under your bed from the big bad Muzzrats.

      • Your assumption is that we condone things like child-marriage, female genital mutilation (which originated in Africa, by the way), terrorism etc etc.

        The point you miss is that on a global scale these things are not-representational of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

    • ” I have just provided a mountain of evidence that shows Mohammed himself was a pedo and I could provide a lot more but we all know you wont listen. ”

      A mountain, eh? A mountain showing Muslims worldwide are all becoming paedophiles because Mohammad was (According to you) a paedophile.

      “I only read the first few sentences of your argument because it is obvious by the 60 pages of debating you’ve done with others that you simply don’t listen. ”

      So, you’re angry people won’t listen to you, and you know they haven’t listened to you, because you read two or three sentences of the long, detailed response to your post? Right? Hell, why read anything to tis end-you get the jist in the first few sentences, that’s all you need. I imagine you dropped the Bible early on, thinking it was just soem crappy text book about Light.

      For a guy who complains about people not listening, you’ve done a good job at ignoring everything that the admins stated. They’ve presented arguments too, backed up by evidence as well. Why no response to the following snippets:

      “The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Malik bin Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah — The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed — 12 years before her marriage — and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.”

      “Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed.”

      “Finally, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, dead for more than 700 years, recorded in the biographical section of Miskat al-Masabih that Asma, her elder sister of 10 years, died at the age of 100, 72 years after Aisha’s wedding. This makes Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage at least 14, and at the time of her marriage’s consummation almost 20.”

      They all seem pretty convincing to me. And you didn’t even read them, did you? Then you have the nerve to be a total hypocrite and say “No one read anything I wrote because you don’t agree with me”, while you won’t even pause to even consider reading an argument, well thought out and researched, because it might make you doubt your prior held belief.

      I could go on about how angry I am at you for denying a detailed response to your entirely copy and pasted message, while stating that no one is reading your comment because they don’t fall down on their hands and knees and agree with you….

      But why put more effort in this than you did. So I’m just going to copy and paste your response, and adjust it to reflect you:

      “I only read the first few sentences of your argument because it is obvious by the style of debating you’ve done with others that you simply don’t listen. You put your viewpoint forward in great detail but don’t pay any attention to opposing views other than looking for ways to twist, exploit and brush aside what other people are saying to you. A typical racist apologist technique i.e Admit nothing, Deny everything and make counter accusations. All the best.”

      Wow-I only had to change two lines to make it fit you! Isn’t that amazing?

      • You/we are wasting your time JM. He will no-doubt be back on Facebook bleating about how he ‘destroyed’ us over here.

        He most likely won’t be back. He’s had his little self-proclaimed copy-paste ‘victory’. No doubt the tissue box is getting a workout as we speak.

    • Do you read anything that the opposing debaters write?

      I assume by “opposing debaters” you mean the cut-and-paste hate promoter sites you favour. There was similar propaganda circulating extensively about Jews. In fact there still is. It has the same credibility as does your rubbish.

      …a mountain of evidence

      Sources? More like a mountain of bullshit.

      …a case last year in Iran

      We can cite all sorts of lurid tabloid stories which prove nothing except that in every society and culture there are misogynist patriarchal arseholes who treat women and girls like garbage. In fact we have a mountain of such evidence in this country alone.

      http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1/201204/programs/DO1024V001D2012-04-05T203337.htm

      Now off you trot.

  32. Actually the copy/paste crap that you seem so against is from my own book which I am writing but the references are straight from the Quran, Hadiths and Suras which according to muslims is the most accurate book ever written. You can sit there and provide examples of Mohammed’s biography which insinuate that Aisha was not a child but my proof comes straight from the Quran. Not some dickhead who lived and died 120 years after Mohammed. I will agree with JM that he says your arguments are well thought out and researched. My point is that you won’t acknowledge opposing views as correct as they don’t suit your agenda (as your name says minds made up). The reason I only read the first fews sentences is because I spent an hour reading through the whole thread where other people were arguing with him. I will admit that the majority of muslims are peaceful people. (I have muslim friends whom I love dearly) but most muslims are like most Christians, Bhuddists, Hindus in the west. What I mean is they don’t get to wrapped up in their religion. The point I am making is if they did follow their religion 100% they would not be peaceful. There is no way you can misinterpret the 109 direct orders in the Quran to kill, persecute, subdue and wage war against non-believers. I wont bother copy/pasting as I’m sure you’ve seen them all before and you will say that these “terrorists” misinterpret the passages and bla bla bla. What I will ask is this, why don’t you hear of Bhuddists or Christians beheading, suicide bombing, honour killing, etc ON A DAILY BASIS? I don’t ever remember seeing a video of a Christian reading from the bible or shouting “allah akbar (God is great)” before beheading someone. Now back to Aisha’s age of course his points seem pretty convincing to you because as with him you won’t acknowledge the truth. How do you explain the quotes I provided? Are they all crap? Or did I make them up? Like I said no self respecting muslim scholar would dare deny that she was a child when the marriage was consumated. You people although highly strung seem decent in the fact that you very clearly oppose what we hate i.e child marriage,murder etc. and you are all for tolerance of other cultures etc. But this tolerance is a two way street to test this how about you get your wives, daughters, mothers etc dress them in a swimsuit, give them a can of beer and a ham sandwhich and get them to walk through Lakemba during Ramadan and see if they can get all the way through without being spat on or bashed let’s see if Islam is as tolerant to our way of life here. Or better still try and build a church in Saudi Arabia. One very good point mindmadeup has bought up which I don’t think has been addressed is the fact that there are 400,000 muslims in Australia and not one terrorist act. Well there has been google the holsworthy plot. But your right this is only one of the top of my head and this was opposed by the majority of Aussie muslims. Good I hope it stays this way. A well known Scholar by the name of Chuck Missler has gone into significant detail about why this is the case. Basically it has to do with the percentage of muslims living in a country. Under 5% (Australia) you will not get much trouble from muslims they will cry racism every chance they get and claim victim status but still they will not cause to much shit. In between 5-20% you will get sporadic riots, bombings murders etc (Europe). As the percentages get higher you get more and more shit to the point of state sanctioned genocide like Iraq, Afganistan etc.

    • My point is that you won’t acknowledge opposing views as correct as they don’t suit your agenda

      We don’t acknowledge your views because they are bullcrap.

      The point I am making is if they did follow their religion 100% they would not be peaceful.

      They probably are following their religion 100%. Thing is, there are a small number of dickheads, psychos and other low-life in every religion. We don’t make your bigoted mistake and attribute the actions of a part to a whole.

      However, racists and bigots are all dickheads, psychos and other low-life by definition.

      NOW do you get it?

      Please don’t bother coming here until you learn to use statistics correctly. You will be outclassed at every turn by far more able and knowledgeable people.

      And for the sake of the environment please do not write a book, which will be most certainly pulped. Leave the trees alone.

    • “but the references are straight from the Quran, Hadiths and Suras which according to muslims is the most accurate book ever written.”

      Except yuor sources were all from the Hadith, which all Muslims agree are not as reliable as the Quran, often passing as oral history for over a century until they are written down. That’s not to say they’re all completely false, but oral histories make mistakes (The Torah was passed down orally for centuries, for instance, and that is why there’s two different Torahs in the Jewish bible).
      If you mentioned a single source from the quran stating the marriage was consumated when Aisha was 9, please, reveal it.

      “You can sit there and provide examples of Mohammed’s biography which insinuate that Aisha was not a child but my proof comes straight from the Quran. Not some dickhead who lived and died 120 years after Mohammed. ”

      Oh, I can’t wait to read your book. What’s it going to be called “Why Islam is evil and you’re a dickhead for not knowing that”
      You’ve called an Islamic biographer, who you know nothing about, a dickhead because he said something that doesn’t supprot your arguments.

      Or, as you said it yourself:
      “My point is that you won’t acknowledge opposing views as correct as they don’t suit your agenda (as your name says minds made up).”

      How are you acknowledging opposing views when you call a person who presented the oppoasing view, who has been long since dead, a dickhead because he said the wrong thing?

      So, as you said to yourself, you’re being dismissive of anything that doesn’t agree with your worldview, even while hyopcritically accusing others of doing the same.

      Also, how do you account for the two other arguments mentioned by MMU to challenge your claim that Aisha was 9 when the marriage was consumated?

      ” The reason I only read the first fews sentences is because I spent an hour reading through the whole thread where other people were arguing with him.”

      Oh, okay then, you ran out of time to respond to a well researched, and highly detailed comment. That’s fair enough-we all have things to do.

      But instead of waiting until you did have time to read the comment and respond to it, you decided instead to respond with the two sentences you currently had and judge the whole comment on the basis of those two lines. Right? If you don’t have time to hear the argument, argue against it on what you think it might be, right?

      Here’s some advice that mgiht get your book published: Saying “I ran out of time to read that” is not a suitable excuse for any glaring error that is revealed.

      “I will admit that the majority of muslims are peaceful people. (I have muslim friends whom I love dearly) but most muslims are like most Christians, Bhuddists, Hindus in the west. ”

      Really? do you really have Muslim friends you love dearly? Have you told them you think their religion is hard wired to turn them into Paedophiles? Or do you keep that to your self?

      So, you’re a good friend, who says things about their belief system when they’re not listening. That doesn’t sound like a good friend to me.

      “The point I am making is if they did follow their religion 100% they would not be peaceful. ”

      Have you asked the Muslim friends if they think they’re a true, good Muslim? Did they say “Actually, I’m barely a Muslim at all” – a statement that you think would apply to a majority of Muslims? Or are you actually trying to tell us that the majority of the world’s Muslims, and as you said, it’s a majority, are not actually Muslims at all, but are mistaken?

      Go on, tell your friends that based on your study on any Islamic source that you think you understandf after 2-3 sentences, you don’t think they’re Muslims at all, and that thye don’t really know their own religion. Tell me when you’ve done that.

      “There is no way you can misinterpret the 109 direct orders in the Quran to kill, persecute, subdue and wage war against non-believers. ”

      So what’s your explanation for the majority of Muslims who are peaceful (and as we agreed, the vast majority are peaceful)? Are most of the Muslims in the world, usually the better educated ones, knowing less about their own religion than you? Are the majority of the world’s Muslims not understanding the religion they’ve followed their entire lives? As I’ve said previously, are you telling us that the majority of the world’s Muslims aren’t actually Muslims (Because all true Muslims are evil), but are instead a religion that is similar to Islam but not the same thing?

      “What I will ask is this, why don’t you hear of Bhuddists or Christians beheading, suicide bombing, honour killing, etc ON A DAILY BASIS?”

      Point 1-You hear about it on a daily basis because you WANT to hear about it on a daily basis, whereas you don’t want to ehar abotu any attacks undertaken by Christians. I know atheists and homosexuals who have a negative view of Christianity becuase they think Christians are killing people on a DIALY basis-again because they keep an eye out for these crimes.

      Point 2-Muslims are perform terrorist actions and honour killings, and general violence on a DAILY BASIS, huh? Well, we’re 17 days into April-find me a terrorist aciton for every single one of the last 17 days, accompanied by a trustworthy link.

      ” I don’t ever remember seeing a video of a Christian reading from the bible or shouting “allah akbar (God is great)” before beheading someone.”

      No, but homosexuals being killed in America, or racist lynching or murders of black or dark skinned people tend to happen more with Christians. Noticed that?

      ” Now back to Aisha’s age of course his points seem pretty convincing to you because as with him you won’t acknowledge the truth.”

      Ah, so we have one objective truth, right? One absolutely 100% accurate view of history-not perspectives or any crap like that.
      Your book is becoming less a well researched text, and more a book of faith: “You won’t accept the truth of my book because you deny the Truth which lies inside”

      By the way, the reasons the age discussion seemed pretty convicning is that the Admin linked up Aisha’s age with the eventsi n her life she was involved in. None of which you’ve been able to challenge.

      ” How do you explain the quotes I provided? Are they all crap? Or did I make them up? ”

      No, they’re nto all crap. But they are an oral history. A long and detailed oral history that has passed from person to person for over 100 years before being written down.
      Do me a favour. Read to a friend your original post about Aisha. Read it to them entirely. They are not allowed to take notes, they can only listen. Then get them to tell it to antoher friend, and so on and so on and so on, for about 10-20 people. Ask for the twentieth person to get back to you when they’ve heard.

      do you think you’ll hear the passage change? Of course you will! Now imagien that, but with thousands of people over a hundred years. Things will change, right?

      Or, are you stating, as religious scholars are stating, that unlike any text in history, a piece of oral history will remain exactly as it was itnended to be read, despite transmission. Why, for that to happen, you’d need divine intervention, right? The human mind couldn’t just manage it on its own!

      So, in other word Mr “Anti-Islam” you’ve presented us a scenario where either the hadith are not the exact text, but have changed over time, or they are the direct words of God. Nice little foxhole you’ve dug for yourself there.

      “I said no self respecting muslim scholar would dare deny that she was a child when the marriage was consumated. ”

      Well, except for Muhammad’s biographer, obviously.
      And have you looked for any Islamic scholar to challenge your view? No, of course you didn’t. You don’t listen to opposing views, you just yell at people for not accepting your views without question.

      “But this tolerance is a two way street to test this how about you get your wives, daughters, mothers etc dress them in a swimsuit, give them a can of beer and a ham sandwhich and get them to walk through Lakemba during Ramadan”

      Wait, so as part of our culture we’re meant to wear swimsuits through the streets? Well, I mustn’t be Australian then, because on a hot day I wear shorts and a t-shirt-not my boardies. Even worse, if I’m goign to work, I wear a suit-not going bear chested, with zinc all over my nose. Shame on me.

      “Well there has been google the holsworthy plot. ”

      So, on average, who has killed more people: The Islamic community of Australia, or Martin Bryant?

      “A well known Scholar by the name of Chuck Missler”

      Well known scholar? He’s a priest, not a scholar. and moreover, he’s a Christian zionist (Meaning he wants Jews to return to Israel, so Jesus can come and take all the christians away, leaving the Jews to be killed by the Anti-christ-what a lovely belief system!), and plagiarist (Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/news/vw-4952_1_authors-hal-lindsey-and-chuck-missler), and a deniar of evolution (source: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/67355-peanut-butter-disproves-evolution).

      but no, I’m sure in this text he has used considerable research abilities that he failed to use elsewhere.

      ” has gone into significant detail about why this is the case. Basically it has to do with the percentage of muslims living in a country. Under 5% (Australia) you will not get much trouble from muslims they will cry racism every chance they get and claim victim status but still they will not cause to much shit. In between 5-20% you will get sporadic riots, bombings murders etc (Europe)”

      Really? What an interestign theory. Did you tell your many Muslim friends you think they cry racism at every chance they get and claim victim status? Did you tell your friends that you love them, but think they’re whiners? Or again, are you such a good friend that you say terrible things about them but only behind their backs?

      Anyway, how do you think it works? As you’ve said, most Muslims are fine. So what happens to turn Muslims into “I like Australia, and love living here, and I’m going about my business” to “Kill the Infidel!”
      Is it antyhing in particular do you think, or is it just a case of a Msulim saying “Well, I just got the census results. Better get to work on murdering people in the name of my religion now!”

      Surely you’d see a rapid increase of crime by Muslims in the name of their religion when census results came out, then. Unless you’re saying Muslims have a hive mind and implicitly know what percentage they are in the coutnry at any one time.

      By the way, have you told your Muslim friends, who you love dearly, that you think that if enough people following thier own belief system turned up in Australia, they’d all turn out to be terrorists? Did you ask your friends about that?

      Y’know, I have some doubts that your “Muslim friends” actualyl exist, if this is the way you think of them.

    • “…the references are straight from the Quran, Hadiths and Suras which according to muslims is the most accurate book ever written.”

      1. Hadiths don’t usually come from the Quran, they are generally reports that are either accepted or rejected by Islamic leaders and they directly reference the acts and sayings of Mohammed. There have been Hadiths provided for you that reject some of the hadiths you provided here.
      2. Quran ‘and’ Suras…? Suras are chapters and verses from the Quran. They aren’t two different things.

      “..I will admit that the majority of muslims are peaceful people. (I have muslim friends whom I love dearly) but most muslims are like most Christians, Bhuddists, Hindus in the west.”

      This sentence doesn’t make sense, as you’ve used an incorrect conjunction. But assuming you’re saying that the majority of Muslims are peaceful because they live in Western societies, that’s untrue as most Muslims do not live in Western countries:

      Muslims

      You cannot suggest that Muslims are only peaceful because they live ‘like’ non-Muslims ‘in the west’.

      “The point I am making is if they did follow their religion 100% they would not be peaceful.”

      At least we can agree on something – people cherry pick what they believe is valuable within their religion. Fundamentalist, radical Muslims CHOOSE to ignore the sections of the Quran and Fatwas that call for peace, non-violence and conciliation with Muslims and non-Muslims, in the same way that critics of Islam do. It is a biased, blinded view of a religion. It is a view that carries hypocrisy as both the Old and New Testaments detail war and violence, as well as rape and plunder.

      “I wont bother copy/pasting as I’m sure you’ve seen them all before and you will say that these “terrorists” misinterpret the passages and bla bla bla.”

      Much of the war and violence passages within the Quran respond directly to threat to their societies and their religion. Many many Muslims around the world who are peaceful would most likely support violent opposition to violent antagonism.

      “What I will ask is this, why don’t you hear of Bhuddists or Christians beheading, suicide bombing, honour killing, etc ON A DAILY BASIS?”

      1. I don’t hear of these things happening ON A DAILY BASIS in Australia, nor do I see them happening ON A DAILY BASIS when I watch the news on the ABC, or on SBS – news channels that report on WORLD issues, and not just random incidents of state-related crime.
      2. Buddhists and Christians aren’t being persecuted in the same way that Muslims are. Agree? Disagree?
      3. Googling things and looking up videos on YouTube doesn’t constitute these things happening ON A DAILY BASIS.

      “I don’t ever remember seeing a video of a Christian reading from the bible or shouting “allah akbar (God is great)” before beheading someone.”

      Please see ‘Death Penalty states in the United States of America:

      .

      Is the USA considered to be a Christian nation or an Islamic nation? Either way you answer, it’s debatable.

      “How do you explain the quotes I provided? Are they all crap? Or did I make them up? Like I said no self respecting muslim scholar would dare deny that she was a child when the marriage was consumated.”

      You have been provided quotes that have equal weighting that she may well have been older than you’re suggesting. In Australia, you must be 16 to have sex, but many people have sex prior to this age. Marriage is legal in some parts of the world at 16, and we are talking about Mohammed’s actions – which were reportedly back in 630 CE. It is a completely understandable idea that a woman is ready for sex and procreation (marriage) once she has reached or passed puberty (between 10-15 on average)- IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS AGO when that was sole purpose. Pedophilia is also considered to be a mental state of mind that sees an adult attracted to children and NOT to people their own age. Mohammed certainly enjoyed the company of women his own age as well.

      “You people although highly strung seem decent in the fact that you very clearly oppose what we hate i.e child marriage,murder etc. and you are all for tolerance of other cultures etc. But this tolerance is a two way street to test this how about you get your wives, daughters, mothers etc dress them in a swimsuit, give them a can of beer and a ham sandwhich and get them to walk through Lakemba during Ramadan and see if they can get all the way through without being spat on or bashed let’s see if Islam is as tolerant to our way of life here.”

      Fuck you arsehole. You’re operating on hearsay – the fact that some women have been verbally abused while in the south-western suburbs of Sydney. If a woman was spat on or bashed in Lakemba, Auburn, Bankstown or Punchbowl where the Muslims population is higher, IT WOULD BE ON THE NEWS TONIGHT. No question about it. I’m confident I won’t turn the news on tonight and see that. And I’m confident that those instances are incredibly rare as I personally have spent a great deal of time in those suburbs and have NEVER seen it happen.

      “Or better still try and build a church in Saudi Arabia.”

      http://islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/grand-mufti-ali-gomma-islam-allows-church-building-islamic-countries

      “A well known Scholar by the name of Chuck Missler has gone into significant detail about why this is the case. Basically it has to do with the percentage of muslims living in a country. Under 5% (Australia) you will not get much trouble from muslims they will cry racism every chance they get and claim victim status but still they will not cause to much shit. In between 5-20% you will get sporadic riots, bombings murders etc (Europe). As the percentages get higher you get more and more shit to the point of state sanctioned genocide like Iraq, Afganistan etc.”

      Chuck Missler eh? http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/67355-peanut-butter-disproves-evolution

      LOL

    • …to test this how about you get your wives, daughters, mothers etc dress them in a swimsuit, give them a can of beer and a ham sandwhich and get them to walk through Lakemba during Ramadan and see if they can get all the way through without being spat on or bashed

      Only a misogynist would think of that ridiculous scenario. Interesting you have such a high opinion of women that you’d resort to using them as performing stunt animals.

  33. Ahh so the strawman argument begins. Paying out on peoples grammar, spelling etc is a just another way people like you try to divert the topic. p.s it’s a blog thread who gives a fuck about grammar and as for the book that’s why they invented editors.

  34. It’s called Go Fuck Yourself. Do you really think I’m going to create bad publicity for my sales by alerting left wing bleeding hearts especially the kind that would subscribe to a bullshit website like this? I love the way up the top of this site under the heading it speaks of aussie freedom of speech and the people that abuse it. That’s right isn’t it! Freedom of speech is ok unless your telling the truth about Islam. Well Islam is the most racist, fascist ideology on the planet. Over 270 million death in 1400 years all in the name of Allah. I wonder why you don’t condemn the so called “freedom of speech abuses” that come out of Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlons mouth, or the hundreds of other muslims in this country that openly support sharia law or death to apostates, homo-sexuals, whippings for drinking etc. You people really are a joke but fortunately you are the minority in this country and the rest of the majority are slowly but surely waking up to the truth about Islam and all your lies, deceit, sugar coating, taqiyya and bullshit will not be able to silence the majority.

    • “It’s called Go Fuck Yourself.”

      I’m not surprised!

      “Do you really think I’m going to create bad publicity for my sales by alerting left wing bleeding hearts especially the kind that would subscribe to a bullshit website like this?”

      How exactly would we create negative sales? We could not buy it, but we’re not going to buy it anyway. We could tell bookstores not to stock it, but there’s not a lot of bookstores left, and I doubt its in stores. Oh, maybe we could tell potential buyers that it’s written by a guy who patently doesn’t know a lot about Islam, and ignores any comment that disagrees with him….but the people who are even vaguely likely to read that book wouldn’t mind that all (A little hint on the book buying public when it comes to texts on religion. People either know enough to not buy your book without anyone having to tell them, or are already sipping your kool aid, so won’t be convinced by facts or anything silly like that. The majority that remain-don’t want to buy a book on Islam as they’re far too busy reading Twilight or the Hunger Games or something by Dan Brown).

      The book doesn’t exist, does it? Or it’s self published.

      “Freedom of speech is ok unless your telling the truth about Islam.”

      How exactly is anyone supressing your right to free speech? You have brought up a complaint here about Islam, people disagreed with you, but they listened to you. You, in turn, did not listen to them, and said they were repressing you because they didn’t agree with you. At which point are you being arrested or locked up for stating your belief?

      Or are you saying that a right to free speech does not include a right to question your speech?

      “Over 270 million death in 1400 years all in the name of Allah.”

      Source please!

      ” I wonder why you don’t condemn the so called “freedom of speech abuses” that come out of Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlons mouth,”

      This website did condemn Siddiq-conlon, the crazy guy that’s not supported by the Muslims at all (Look at the poor showing at his talks, if you don’t believe me). They had a page all on his stupid comments.

      ” or the hundreds of other muslims in this country that openly support sharia law”

      Hundreds. Really? Hundreds? Have you met any of them?
      And I thought the majority of Muslims were fine. What about your Muslim friends who you love dearly, yet think they’ll all be killers if they have a few more Muslim neighbours?

      “You people really are a joke but fortunately you are the minority in this country and the rest of the majority are slowly but surely waking up to the truth about Islam”

      On what basis do you state that the majority of Australians agree with your viewpoint? Please explain in your answer why, if the majority of Australians don’t like Muslims, all anti-Islamic parties have absolutely hailed to even get 1% of the vote in every election they turn up in. Also explain, if the majority of Australians are against Islam, why your book is not the top of the sales charts. And I know it isn’t, because I would have heard about it, if it was.

      ” and all your lies, deceit, sugar coating, taqiyya and bullshit will not be able to silence the majority.”

      Who here has lied? Who here has expressed deceit? Please present specific examples of people here lying and being deceitful to you.
      And do you actually know what taqqiya means-or are you another guy who heard it from an EDL website and took it to mean “Muslims are allowed to lie about whatever they want”-rather than the standard “Muslims are allowed to say they’re not Muslims if a crazy guy is going to kill them”

    • Otto, just a suggestion: if you spent lest time commenting here, you might have time responding to the MANY questions and comments you have ignored. Why not give that a go?

      By the way, just an idea, if we had a former Catholic, telling us all Catholics should be convinced by, let’s say Anglicans, to convert to Anglicanism, as they think it’s a more positive religion, how do you think the Catholics would handle that? From the Pope himself, all the way down to the Catholic families of the inner suburbs? Do you think that would result in Catholics absolutely agreeing with Anglicans, and converting on mass, or would it make normally quite happy and peaceful Catholics to become mistrustful and hatefill of the anglicans they were normally quite pleased with?

      Oh, and if I follow your theory, why would I want Muslims to convert? I mean, you’ve been saying non-stop, that Muslims are just waiting for a chance to kill us all. If someone is about to kill us all-why should they be trusted just because they’ve claimed to convert? Are you telling us that people who have been prepared to kill thousands, which they would have if we follow your theory, they would suddenly never be violent again if they’re converting? That Muslims have no will or belief of their own, just are blank slates whose actions are entirely determined by which ever texts are written on them? Would you be saying the same things about Christians-that they have no will or motivation of their own, and are just entirely lead by religious readings and interpretations (Which, again, according to you, there is only one interpretation for all people)? Or is free will something that only Christians have?

      Also what would stop Muslims from coverting to Christianity to avoid suspicion, and place them in a prime position to attack non-believers? (Again, paranoia-this is where it leads you).

    • And why should anyone need to convert to anything? Hirsi Ali is just fear-mongering. The atheists do no one any favours (particularly the many Australians who have seen religion as a crock of shit) by offering a platform to dodgy polemicists such as she.

      The pathway to any sort of civilised enlightenment does not lie with hitching your wagon to the religiously intolerant serving a far right agenda.

      • Hirsi Ali finds it too much to expect a billion Muslims to suddenly become atheists, but she finds it perfectly workable for all of them to become Catholics!

        Is she INSANE?

        The very idea that a particular group of religious people are, as a whole, more enlightened than another group of religious people is completely ridiculous.

        Hirsi Ali is guilty of collectivism of the worst kind, the kind that has led to the dehumanization and genocide of entire groups of people in history.

        I’ve met many, many Muslims who are far more progressive than most deeply religious Catholics. The fact that they read namaz five times a day does not stop them from staunchly supporting things like gay rights, women’s rights and a generally egalitarian society. Suggesting that they are un-enlightened and would become more benign and tolerant by embracing Christianity is tremendously unjust to them.

        Similarly, there are Catholics who are much more progressive than many atheists.

        Atheism isn’t some kind of be all and end all to enlightenment. Sure, it is the view that is probably the closest to the truth when it comes to god, but that in itself means little in terms of real-life attitudes. There are no pathways from atheism to religious violence, but an extremist fill always find lots of -isms to blame their misfortunes on. Stalin was an atheist with a deep hatred for organized religion but that did not stop him from being an extremist.

        As the Americans would say, Haters gon’ hate.

    • Every time you respond while ignoring the many things you NEED to respond to, it shows you’ve lost your way in this debate.

      In the same way a politician loses face when he can’t answer a question or respond to information posed by an interviewer, your credibility continues to decline.

  35. Ms Hirsi Ali, who has for a decade been accompanied everywhere by bodyguards, provocatively suggested it was too much to expect a billion Muslims to become atheists, so they should convert to the much more benign Christianity ”as a halfway house on the path to enlightenment”.

    With all due respect, she does sound like she’s a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

    • Of course Islam like all other religions have terrible things in it, when these religions are based on some thousands of years old books made up by desert dwelling illiterate people.
      What do you expect??? If a legal system is based on such an out dated book it is going to be an abhorrent one. Most religious ideologies are craptastic shite!

      Probably more reasons for us to help people escape these regimes governed by laws made based on crappy old books.
      I think my parents generation took it on the Jewish religion, now after 9/11 the focus has shifted to Islam. Nothing new, nothing different. Same shit, different label.

      Why are we worried about what goes on in Egypt under sharia law??? We have our own legal systems to worry about. I doubt anyone would argue that (may be some nutt jobs) Islam is a very nice religion, it is very much as bad as Christianity & Judaism. (I don’t know much about Judaism)
      Yes Sharia professes slavery, so does the Bible… I don’t have slaves… 😐

      Isn’t this more reason for us non Muslims to be nice & go out our way to help out indoctrinated Muslims.
      Last week at a uni party I met a guy from Iran, guess how we got started talking???

      Sharing a lemon for our tequila shots!….last thing I expected to be doing in my life time was tequila shots with an Iranian.
      Just that isolated anecdotal incident shows that this hatred towards anyone that happened to be born in to what is identified as Muslim is just complete bollocks.

      Next week when I am back at uni I am gonna make this guy my best mate 🙂

    • Otto, if you have so much time to review blogs, why do you never have enough time to answer questions? You said you’re going to get around to them, but every time you come here, you just post a link, and run away.

      Here we go again:
      A) How exactly are either of these theories falsifiable:
      1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

      2) The other theory is that Muslims are not and cannot be peaceful. How exactly does a Muslim disprove that? If they are peaceful, you’l just say they’re biding their time to attack. If they say you’ll never attack, you’ll just say it’s taqqiya (Your misinterpretation of which I notice you do not acknowledge). So how does a Muslim prove that they are peaceful to you?

      B) You don’t care about Muslims committing or not committing crimes-that’s irrelevant to you. Their crime is being Muslim. So they can never ever be allowed fair judgement because of it. Even if they spend the rest of their lives helping and supporting others, you could never even accept the possibilities that they are a better person than the worst serial killers currently in our prison, because they are Muslim.

      Am I right? How far off am I?

      C) So, when you ask for Muslims to prove they’ll will never be murderous, their only option is to kill themselves? Really-that should be interesting-shall we apply it for any other groups that we deem “may” possibly know someone or share a common characteristic with someone who may or may not be a murderer?

      D) So, you’re telling me that if Australia suddenly made it legal to kill certain people, you’d probably kill someone in your life? Because, as you said, you’re more like to do something that is sanctioned than is prohibited.
      I don’t know about you, but I have a moral code that extends beyond what is legal. And I’m a bit worried that it’s only the law that’s holding you back from being a murderer.

      E) Okay, so surely we need to charge all Christians as well, as Christianity has a 1400+ year history of bloody repression, holy wars, and genocide to go by.
      No, of course, I forgot-anyone who kills anyone in the name of Christianity is a bad Christian. Whereas any Muslim who kills anyone is a good Muslim. You’ve yet to tell us why you, and you alone are allowed to judge all Christians and Muslims are being good followers of their religion.

      F) Try again. I am concerned you are going to kill a bunch of kids (Especially as you’ve indicated the only thing stopping you from killing is the law)-prove to me that you aren’t going to.

      G) I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation as to why the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them done unto you”) which appears 5 times in the Quran, means something entirely different as the Golden Rule that was spoken by Jesus. Go.

      H) “I’ll address the lovey-dovey quotes from the Quran in a separate post.”-still waiting on this

      I) Are you actually telling us you think the child migrants were better cared for in Australia, where they were raped by priests, belieiving, incorrectly, that their parents were dead, rather than with their mother’s in England?

      J) Show us examples of the Quranic statement which directly states Mohammad had sex with a child. Then show us examples of an increase in paedophilia in Australia due to muslims.

      K) What is your more dispassionate source for your interpretation of the Stolen Generation?

      L) Finally, after days of being asked, you answer you have met a real Muslim. Why so hesitant? Why avoid the question for DAYS? I know you read it, because you responded in non-direct ways (“Ask someone from Egypt if they’re met a Muslim)-so why wait so long to answer?

      M) So all Muslims follow every word of the Quran? Proof please! Please demonstrate how Muslims in Australia are putting in place the worst parts of the Quran-with specific examples, and quotes with sura number.

      N) What were the other effects of your fear of Islam?

      O) So, if there were no Muslims in Australia, you’d be giving out your address to random people, strangers, over the internet? Or would you be doing the exact same thing you’re doign now, giving out your address to trusted friends and family, and people who need to know, but without the excuse of “The Muslims might get it!”

      P) Okay, so let’s say we do nothing. When will you say “I was wrong”-after 10 years, 20 years, or on your death bed? Because a theory that can be falsified “If nothing happens ever for the rest of eternity” is still a falsifiable theory.

      Q) Why, is Muslims were always going to kill non-Muslims, did they not wipe out the non-believers in their Golden Age?

      R) I’m offerring you a chance to win $100. All you have to do is prove that in the US there were more cases of Muslims killing their own family members over the last 20 years than non-Muslims killing their family members. Don’t worry-I won’t even need your address-I’m happy to use paypal.

      S) What doctrine is that, which allows a Muslim to kill a member of his own family? You’ll surely have the Quranic source for it, right?

      T) Are you saying that Non-muslims killing their family members is less of a problem than Honour Killings for some reason. Or is it, like many crazy anti-Islam people, you don’t hate the crime, you just hate Muslims committing crimes?

      U) And how exactly do you “make” people read the New Testament? Something like “A Clockwork Orange”? Moreover, what does that mean for the atheist, and otherwise Non-Christian population of Australia? How can you have a true secular and free-religious country when a population are being forced to become Christians?

      V) What punishments will you have for people who refuse to read the New Testament? Jail time, fine, heavin forbid the death penalty?

      W) So you want school curricula which tries to convert people to Christianity? Again, how does that work in a secular society? Would it be a special class that Muslims will be forced to take, while all other children are out of the room (Which, as you know from history-always works well!), or would all children be in there, but non-Christans would have to cover their ears? Or are you going to convert them too?

      X) And who decides what is the “true” history of Islam? Do we trust people with years of study of Islam, with degrees or who have written peer reviewed books on the subject? Or would we just have history decided by you, or someone who says what you want to hear?

      Y) And what source do you have that if Muslims don’t see signs of their religion, they’ll forget it altogether?

      Z) how is Khomeini and better a source on Islam than Phelps is for Christianity?

      AA) what percentage would you say, of Muslims in Australia would support Khomeini, considering, as I’ve said, virutally all of the Msulims in Australia either have never ever followed his beliefs, or fled the country to escape persecution from him.

      BB) Oh, and if I follow your theory, why would I want Muslims to convert? I mean, you’ve been saying non-stop, that Muslims are just waiting for a chance to kill us all. If someone is about to kill us all-why should they be trusted just because they’ve claimed to convert? Are you telling us that people who have been prepared to kill thousands, which they would have if we follow your theory, they would suddenly never be violent again if they’re converting? That Muslims have no will or belief of their own, just are blank slates whose actions are entirely determined by which ever texts are written on them? Would you be saying the same things about Christians-that they have no will or motivation of their own, and are just entirely lead by religious readings and interpretations (Which, again, according to you, there is only one interpretation for all people)? Or is free will something that only Christians have?

      CC) Also what would stop Muslims from coverting to Christianity to avoid suspicion, and place them in a prime position to attack non-believers? (Again, paranoia-this is where it leads you).

      DD) Cool, and Qaradawi is the leader of all Muslims, right? Everyone in all of Islam agrees with everything he says, right?

      Except they don’t. Muslims don’t like his permission to consume tiny bitys of alcohol in energy drinks, And 2500 Muslims from 23 countries, all academics who have studied the text have all condemned him.

      Any response to any of these questions yet?

      EE) You do accept, though, that the Muslims see the God of Abraham and Jesus as the same as Allah, right?

      FF) How can all Muslims can be killers, when your own sources state that over 80% of Muslims in America oppose suicide bombings in all and every instance?

      GG) how do you get to judge what is an what isn’t an Islamic source? You’ve said one interpretation of one text that is not the Quran and is only supported by at best 35% of Muslims is an Islamic text, now you’re saying another source is not. On what basis do you have the right to say what is and isn’t Islamic?

      HH) And again, I ask, what woudl a Muslim have to do to convince you he isn’t going to hurt you? And what could you do to prove to us that you aren’t going to kill a bunch of children?

      II) But you can trust everything an ex-Muslim says about Islam, right? I ask again, would you take the word of an ex-Catholic when judging Catholocism, over a current Catholic, an ex-Mormon, ex-Jew, ex-Christian, etc-or do you only judge Muslims this way? If not, why not? After all, if former members of a religion are so reliable, why not use former members of all religions to judge the religion as a whole?

      JJ) “So, in other words, and we’re going around in circles again-there is no way your theory that “Muslims are invading Australia” can ever be disproven, right? Even if nothing happens until the day you die, you’ll still maintain that Muslims are going to try and kill you/force you to follow their religion, right? ”

      KK) “if Muslims are allowed to lie to further reach a goal, why can’t they be lying when they tell you they’re no longer Muslims? ”

      LL) “What if the ex-Muslims are encouraging you to go out and commit acts of terror against Muslims, and those who support them, to reduce any threat Islam is perceived as having? ”

      MM) “So you’re saying the Inquisition didn’t try to convert everyone, because they didn’t try to convert Christians into being Christians? ”

    • Also, Otto, you should really read your sources before you post them. They might not support what you think they should support:
      For instance, this article disguishes between Islamists and Muslims going about their daily lives in this one paragraph:

      “The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order tor transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future – but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.”

      So, most Muslims are fine then. Yet another source you bring out saying it’s not all Muslims, or even most muslims trying to destablisie our society, only a minority.

      So surely, considering YOUR OWN sources, and this is a fairly anti-Islamic source at that, states that the majority of Muslims do not want to change the country, are you now going to say either:

      A) The New English Review is an operating arm of the vast Islamic techinque of taqqiya (Which again, does not mean what you have thought it to mean).
      or
      B) Your previous assertion that all Muslims are just waiting for a moment to kill us all was wrong.

      Which is it? Your sources challenge your own beliefs so one of them has to go. Which is wrong-your source or your belief?

    • No, I’ll leave it.

      And enjoy laughing about the fact that you couldn’t respond to anything I said before you disappeared with your tail between your legs.

      Keep up the awesome Google spam darling.

      • Ah MMU, we can’t expect Otto to answer our questions, or respond to our points. He’s far too busy finding sources for us showing that the majority of the Muslims in most western countries are peaceful and abhor violence.

        I’m not going to condemn him for that. I mean, it’s so nice for one of the bogots to come here, bring out their speil, and than prove themselves wrong for us. I mean, some might be annoyed that they’re taking away the role of the admin and commentators such as myself, but I;m generally pretty lazy, so when someone like Otto comes to proves himself wrong, providing sources which actually state his beliefs are false, I’m happier to have the load off.

    • Why bother when the list of contributors immediately makes it suspect. They include “Hugh Fitzgerald” who is actually “Robert Spencer” (how does he keep up with all his aliases?) and “Ibn Warraq” who may or may not have been a Muslim (no one knows for sure) as well as Christofascist Rebecca Bynum.

      Why would we wish to embrace a bunch of extremists like that?

  36. JM April 28, 2012 6:50 pm, in an attempt to goad me into replying wrote: Otto, if you have so much time to review blogs, why do you never have enough time to answer questions? You said you’re going to get around to them, but every time you come here, you just post a link, and run away.

    REPLY: I had better things to do. Now I’ll start addressing your points, but not all in one go.

    JM April 28, 2012 6:50 pm wrote: A) How exactly are either of these theories falsifiable: 1) You’ve said that your belief Muslims are going to take over the world if not stopped can be proven if we do nothing, and nothing happens. But you haven’t created a time frame for it, have you? So even until the day you die you could still say “They’re going to attack any day now”-so how is that falsifiable.

    REPLY: (1) That’s not quite what I said (2) Why does it have to be verifiable? (3) You obviously hold the opposite theory. Why don’t you hold yourself to your own standards? How is your theory falsifiable?

    • You’ve been unable to address the many fatwas, hadiths and Quran quotes I supplied you with.

      That was the last we saw of you. And don’t pretend it’s because you’re ‘too busy’. When you assumed you were on top of this discussion, you were posting here like it was going out of fashion. You’re still a troll – you just frequent Facebook instead.

      Typical really. You choose a side of the fence and refuse to acknowledge anything that might chip away at your assumptions.

      • You haven’t addressed a single thing I said in my post of April 29, 2012 10:57 am. I’m not prepared to proceed on anything other than a one by one basis. It’s too much of an investment of time considering the fact that everything I post is liable to be censored. So: answer the questions!

        • I thought you were talking to JM there.

          I’ve decided that you’re unable to address my points and will be even more prepared next time a big-mouthed fuckwit like you rocks up here.

    • Otto-I didn’t see your comment. I will now gladly reply:

      “REPLY: I had better things to do. ”

      But you had time to frequerntly post youtbue links here. So posting stuff from youtube takes supremacy over respondign to questions asked repeatedly?

      “(1) That’s not quite what I said ”

      Then what did you say?

      “(2) Why does it have to be verifiable?”

      Because otherwise, you hold an entire communtiy of 1 billion people all guitly of a crime, and will not allow any possibiltiy for them to prove themselves innocent. Are you really saying this is right? That you want a world where groups of people you don’t like are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, which you won’t let them be able to do?
      In which case, I return to a previosu question where you must prove that you aren’t going to go kill some kids.

      ” (3) You obviously hold the opposite theory. Why don’t you hold yourself to your own standards? How is your theory falsifiable?”

      If the Muslim population en mass , from the eldest adult, to the tiniest child, from complete strangers, to my closest work colleagues and friends, rises up to attack, and overthrow the Australian government and forcibly convert all its people to Islam, then I will say “Otto-you are right, I will now join with you”

      So there is a clear set of circumstances which if it were to occur, would result in me admitting I am wrong. However, for you, there is none. Even if every Muslim in Australian lives and dies without harming a single hair on your head, you will still be expecting them to kill you at a moment’s notice, correct?
      Therefore your theory can never be proven false, and therefore is not a scientific theory. If you think this is fair, then my theory that you are going to go kill soem kids is equally fair, and you should be treated as a child murderer, just as you treat Muslims as terrorists. Right?

      “You haven’t addressed a single thing I said in my post of April 29, 2012 10:57 am. I’m not prepared to proceed on anything other than a one by one basis”

      Okay, so you ignore ltierally pages of information for months, and that’s okay because “You were busy”-but the admin ignores one small comment, and suddenly you complain.
      Have you realised yuo are a total hypocrit?

      “It’s too much of an investment of time considering the fact that everything I post is liable to be censored. So: answer the questions!”

      Adn deluded too! Otto, you seem to think anyone wants you to stay. We all know the reason you avoid these questions is because you don’t want to think about the answer, and don’t want your belief of “All Muslims are evil, and ready to kill our children-except the ones who turn to Christians who magically lose their child-killing desires, and ntohing will convince me otherS” to be challenged.

      You’re not posting on here for our benefit, so don’t pretend it’s some great service you’re imparting on others, and that your message of “Those people who are your friends who I don’t know are actually evil” is some great gospel we should all be amazed by.

      Responding to all your questions being asked is not a service you have thanked us for. So why shoudl we be getting down on our hands and knees and thanking you for answering ours?

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s