Note: An excellent essay. Highly recommended for muslims who suspect that
'something' may be wrong with their situation in Australia...'something' for which the muslims themselves may be responsible.
No religion has a monopoly on violence. Christianity has the Spanish Inquisition and the bloody excesses of the Crusades. The Jews have the Book of Joshua and Baruch Goldstein. More recently, India's Hindus massacred thousands of Muslims in Gujarat province. Over the course of human history, hundreds of millions have died in senseless sectarian massacres, and a thousand more examples might easily be listed.
But it will not do to take the politically correct course and lump all religions in the same basket, at least not insofar as our own era is concerned. Christian civilization underwent a Reformation in the 16th century, embraced the Enlightenment with its intellectual and theological pluralism, separated Church from State and encouraged scholarship and democracy. Judaism has followed a similar process -- as have, more recently, the faiths of the far East. Islam, on the other hand, is still struggling with this transition. And if there is to be peace in the Middle East and an end to terror worldwide, Muslims must accept that their faith is overdue for a doctrinal overhaul.
Muslim history presents plenty of enlightened periods from which modern adherents may take inspiration. In the Middle Ages when much of Christendom was preoccupied with torturing heretics, the Islamic world was, by comparison, a bastion of civilization and tolerance. As historian Bernard Lewis has pointed out, from the 14th to 17th centuries there was "only one civilization that was comparable in the level, quality and variety of achievement [to the Islamic world]; that of course was China." But Chinese culture "remained essentially local, limited to one region ... and race. Islam, in contrast, created a world civilization, polyethnic, multiracial, international."
Christianity still has its fanatical, bigoted elements. But those Christians who advocate the slaughter of non-believers make up an almost imperceptibly tiny fraction of the faithful. Much is made of the intolerant pronouncements of high-profile evangelists. A few deranged anti-abortion snipers aside, however, this is just talk. Even terrorists that claim to be part of the Christian world -- such as Spain's Basque extremists and America's Timothy McVeigh -- typically do not operate under any sort of religious aegis.
By contrast, a large minority of the world's one billion Muslims still adhere to militant interpretations of their faith, including the Wahabi sect of Sunni Islam, centred in and spread by Saudi Arabia. These interpretations all embrace as a central tenet the duty of jihad -- which, despite whitewashing efforts in the West, continues to mean what it has meant since the 7th century: the slaughter or forced conversion of non-Muslim "infidels." With few exceptions -- such as old-school Palestinian terrorists who cling to Marxist rhetoric -- Muslim terrorist groups all explicitly take Islam as their inspiration. Osama bin Laden is a hero to hundreds of millions of Muslims, and al-Qaeda continues to receive financing from a wide array of Muslim charities. Christians kill. Jews kill. Hindus kill.
But no other faith group on the planet has embraced random slaughter in anything approaching the manner of radicalized Muslims.
The mainstream Arabic media is shot through with the most extreme sort of hatred. Many televised sermons emphasize passages from the Koran that condone violence, such as that which exhorts Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them." Also widely cited is a Hadith -- a pronouncement ascribed to Mohammed -- that states: "The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslims will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' " As groups such as Palestinian Media Watch and Middle East Media Research Institute have detailed, the problem is especially acute in the Palestinian media, which teaches teenagers that 72 virgins await in paradise should they "martyr" themselves.
Look through the Bible and you can find the equivalent fire and brimstone. But to contemporary Jewish and Christian clerics, well-steeped in the pluralistic principles of modern liberal democracy, these passages serve more as embarrassment than inspiration. Certainly, they are not the stuff of prime time television.
In many parts if the Muslim world, the level of intellectual discourse approximates that of medieval Europe. A prominent professor at a Riyadh university, funded by the Saudi government, asserts the truth of what Jewish organization refer to as the "blood libel" -- the hideous myth that rabbis the world over kill Christian and Muslim babies each year so their blood may be used to make the triangular pastries favoured during the Jewish holiday of Purim. Western academics may espouse a lot of rubbish, but nothing so outlandish, hateful, racist and grotesque as this -- and certainly not with state subsidy.
Muslim advocacy organizations in the West, including Canada's own Canadian Islamic Congress, typically reject the claim that there is a problem with contemporary Islam, preferring to lay the world's problems at the feet of Israel and U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, any critical scrutiny of their religion is decried as "bigotry" -- a label that will, no doubt, be hurled at this modest essay. But it is evident these commentators are putting pride of faith above truth. The celebrations in the Islamic world on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and the continued glorification of the "Magnificent 19" that performed the attack; the religious radicalization of governments in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and parts of Pakistan; the wholesale support for Islamic jihadis by the governments of Syria and Iran; the spread of Islamist propaganda through mosques and Muslim organizations; and the spewing of vehement anti-Semitism in Islamic community newsletters, textbooks and media: These are symptoms of a civilization in crisis, not inventions of a bigoted media.
Thankfully, there is scant evidence that Canada's Muslim community has been radicalized, except in small pockets. But even so, it is disturbing that many North American Muslim groups act as a sort of counter-counter-terrorism lobby -- rejecting, by reflex, any effort to catch terror suspects or shut charities linked to terrorism. Many Muslims come to this debate honestly, and we understand their exasperation with security practices that often seem, from their perspective, like exercises in crude profiling. But some Muslim groups go further -- rejecting as a matter of principle the use of the word "terrorist" to describe Islamist slaughter in such places as Israel, India and Chechnya. In its most virulent mode, the counter-counter-terrorism campaign is a disturbing mixture of the Western concept of political correctness with the Islamist conceit that bloody jihad is always righteous.
There is some positive pressure coming from Muslims in the West and in the Islamic world. Irshad Manji, a Toronto journalist, calls on Muslims to purge their faith of radicals and zealots in her new book The Trouble With Islam, recently excerpted in the National Post. Thomas Friedman, a highly respected columnist with The New York Times who has travelled extensively in the Middle East, reports he has recently encountered prominent young Muslim leaders anxious to sever the bonds between their nations' absolutist rulers and religious hierarchies. And in a recent column on the subject, National Post contributor Daniel Pipes has identified a variety of Muslim intellectuals seeking to reform their religion -- including Abdelwahab Meddeb of the Sorbonne, Akbar Ahmed of American University and Salim Mansur of the University of Western Ontario.
These are encouraging signs. But until a Muslim majority worldwide rebels against the manner in which their ancient faith has been hijacked by extremists, good intentions will lead nowhere. What is needed is nothing less than a Muslim Reformation.
Comment: Will the Australian 'Mohammad' Luther please stand up.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
I Encourage These Young Men.
Note: These young men are good fellows. They deserve encouragement, and I hope that the NSW Police take them on.
It's the very thin, blue Islamic line
April 30, 2006
YOUNG Muslims want to become police officers but feel there is no point joining an organisation that doesn't want them, community leaders say.
The Sun-Herald has been told that as few as 24 of NSW's 15,000 officers are practising Muslims. And with relations between Sydney's Lebanese Muslims and NSW Police at a record low, numbers are unlikely to rise.
Islamic Friendship Association spokesman Keysar Trad said accusations Muslims would rather harbour criminals than co-operate with police, such as in the Cronulla riots investigation, were damaging.
Federation of Australian Muslim Students and Youth president Chaaban Omran agreed that many well-educated Muslims wanted to join but felt under siege.
"Whichever way you look, their credibility is being tarnished and attacked," he said. "It's not that they don't want to [join] but it's hard when their identity is in question."
Australian Islamic Mission president Zachariah Matthews said the decision by NSW Police to create the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad was an insult.
"At a time when Muslim youth is already undergoing a crisis of identity, ethnic labels are unhelpful, divisive and reinforce stereotypes," he said.
Mohamed Alhalaby, 19, of Villawood, and Imad El Masri, 19, of Cabramatta West, are bucking the trend; they have applied to join the service.
"If I am accepted I will be able not only to bridge the gap but to improve the lines of communication between ethnic Australians and the police and ensure that there is greater respect for the police," Mr Alhalaby said.
Mr El Masri, who is working as a plumber and studying engineering, said: "A lot of young people carry on like idiots when they see police and don't realise they have a job to do."
Mr El Masri and Mr Alhalaby believe recent police comments directed at the community had only fuelled the problem rather entice Australian Lebanese Muslims to help deal with the law breakers.
Comment: The reason for the establishment of 'Middle East Organised Crime Squad'is that there is much crime in NSW committed by arabs from the middle east; and not just muslims. Plenty of Christian arabs are up to their necks in the drug rackets and other serious crimes.
The NSW police should actively try and recruit Arab speaking officers, otherwise this new Crime Squad will not be very effective.
Pressure needs to be maintained on the muslims in NSW to integrate and conform. clearly it is working.
It's the very thin, blue Islamic line
April 30, 2006
YOUNG Muslims want to become police officers but feel there is no point joining an organisation that doesn't want them, community leaders say.
The Sun-Herald has been told that as few as 24 of NSW's 15,000 officers are practising Muslims. And with relations between Sydney's Lebanese Muslims and NSW Police at a record low, numbers are unlikely to rise.
Islamic Friendship Association spokesman Keysar Trad said accusations Muslims would rather harbour criminals than co-operate with police, such as in the Cronulla riots investigation, were damaging.
Federation of Australian Muslim Students and Youth president Chaaban Omran agreed that many well-educated Muslims wanted to join but felt under siege.
"Whichever way you look, their credibility is being tarnished and attacked," he said. "It's not that they don't want to [join] but it's hard when their identity is in question."
Australian Islamic Mission president Zachariah Matthews said the decision by NSW Police to create the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad was an insult.
"At a time when Muslim youth is already undergoing a crisis of identity, ethnic labels are unhelpful, divisive and reinforce stereotypes," he said.
Mohamed Alhalaby, 19, of Villawood, and Imad El Masri, 19, of Cabramatta West, are bucking the trend; they have applied to join the service.
"If I am accepted I will be able not only to bridge the gap but to improve the lines of communication between ethnic Australians and the police and ensure that there is greater respect for the police," Mr Alhalaby said.
Mr El Masri, who is working as a plumber and studying engineering, said: "A lot of young people carry on like idiots when they see police and don't realise they have a job to do."
Mr El Masri and Mr Alhalaby believe recent police comments directed at the community had only fuelled the problem rather entice Australian Lebanese Muslims to help deal with the law breakers.
Comment: The reason for the establishment of 'Middle East Organised Crime Squad'is that there is much crime in NSW committed by arabs from the middle east; and not just muslims. Plenty of Christian arabs are up to their necks in the drug rackets and other serious crimes.
The NSW police should actively try and recruit Arab speaking officers, otherwise this new Crime Squad will not be very effective.
Pressure needs to be maintained on the muslims in NSW to integrate and conform. clearly it is working.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
French Muslims More Modern Than Backward Australian Muslims
Note: This is all good news about the rising tide of revulsion among modern muslims at the backwardness they encounter in normative Islam. Muslims in Australia should join this tide of revulsion.
Make sure you read the little tale about Salman Rushdie at the end of this posting.
April 28, 2006 No.271
"Manifesto of Liberties"- A Muslim Association for Freedom in the Arab World
By: By Nathalie Szerman*
The Manifeste des Libertés (Manifesto of Liberties) is a Paris-based association dedicated to promoting freedom in the Arab world. Its website, www.manifeste.org, features a great number of articles by reformist and secular Muslims, among them Salman Rushdie and prominent French-speaking Arab intellectuals. The association also organizes conferences and meetings, posts petitions, and addresses open letters to French governmental agencies.
The association's founding document is a "manifesto" signed by over 1800 "women and men of Muslim culture," "believers, agnostics, or atheists" who "firmly condemn misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism" perpetuated in the name of Islam.(The signatures can be viewed at http://www.manifeste.org/signatures.php3?id_article=1.) The manifesto was published by France's leading leftist daily Liberation on February 16, 2004.
The following is an overview of the Manifeste des Libertés website. It is followed by the association's English translation of the manifesto, at http://www.manifeste.org/article.php3?id_article=18 , and by a summary of some of the association's activities.
The Manifeste Des Libertés Website
The site www.manifeste.org contains a large number of opinion articles and interviews, a special section dedicated to "Censorship in the Name of Islam," and information on political and cultural activities.
The "Censorship in the Name of Islam" section features the following comment about the Danish cartoons: "The modern history of censorship in the name of Islam is marked by murders, attacks, and a ban on free thinking. This is the result of both the [policy of the Arab] states and the Islamist movements…"
On February 24, 2006, the association organized a public discussion on the theme of "Censorship in the Name of Islam"; the event was attended by 600 people. Questions raised were: "What makes fanaticism possible?" "What enabled the birth of political Islam?" and "How can one avoid a 'victimization' approach to the situation?" Commenting on the Danish cartoons scandal, Raja Ben Slama, [1] a reformist academic and author from Tunisia, declared: "Far from putting the unbelieving West in opposition to Islam... the Danish cartoons affair put Muslims in opposition to themselves." Publisher Tewfik Allal declared that it was urgent to set up a Muslim political secular community "to counter the Umma - the community of believers." [2]
Among the website's many articles by Arab reformists are "Manifesto for a European Islam," by French Muslim philosopher and reformist Abdennour Bidar; "Islamism is Against Women All Over the World," by Mimouna Hadjam, president of the AFRICA association against racism; and many articles dealing with the November-December 2005 civil unrest in France.
Also on the site are the following articles by Salman Rushdie: "Modernizing Islam - a Challenge for the Diaspora," "The Right Time for an Islamic Reformation," and "The Europeans Must Ask for the Lifting of Charges against Turkish Author Orhan Pamuk." [3]
The site also features an article by renowned Syrian poet Adonis, titled "The Islamic Veil is a Veil on Life," and a long piece titled "The Second Independence: Towards an Initiative for Political Reform in the Arab World" that sets out the recommendations of the First Civil Forum, which took place at the same time as the Beirut Arab summit, in March 2004. [4]
The Manifesto
"We are women and men of Muslim culture. Some of us are believers, others are agnostics or atheists. We all condemn firmly the declarations and acts of misogyny, homophobia, and Antisemitism that we have heard and witnessed for a while now here in France and that are carried out in the name of Islam. These three characteristics typify the political Islamism that has been forceful for so long in several of our countries of origin. We fought against them there, and we are committed to fighting against them again - here.
"Gender Equality: A Prerequisite for Democracy. We are firmly committed to equal rights for both sexes. We fight the oppression of women who are subjected to Personal Status Laws, like those in Algeria (recent progress in Morocco highlights how far Algeria lags behind), and sometimes even in France via bilateral agreements. [see document footnote] We believe that democracy cannot exist without these equal rights. Accordingly, we unambiguously offer our support for the '20 ans, barakat!' (20 years is enough!) campaign of the Algerian women’s associations, demanding the definitive abolition of the two-decades-old family code.
"It is also for this reason that we oppose wearing the Islamic head scarf, even if among us there are differing opinions about the law banning it from schools in France. In various countries, we have seen violence or even death inflicted on female friends or family members because they refused to wear the scarf. Even if the current enthusiasm for the head scarf [among some Muslims] in France was stimulated by discrimination suffered by immigrant children, this cannot be considered the real cause of the desire to wear it; nor can memories of a North African lifestyle explain it. Behind this so-called 'choice' demanded by a certain number of girls is the promotion of a political Islamic society based on a militant ideology which aims to promote actively values to which we do not subscribe.
"Stopping Homophobia: For Islamic fundamentalists (as for all machos and fundamentalists), 'being a man' means having power over women, including sexual power. In their eyes, any man who favors equality of the sexes is potentially subhuman, or 'queer.' This way of thinking has proliferated since the rise of political Islamism. Its ferocity is equaled only by its hypocrisy. One of the organizers of the demonstration on Saturday, January 17, 2004, in favor of the head scarf declared that 'it is scandalous that those who claim to be shocked by the head scarf are not shocked by homosexuality.' Undoubtedly he thinks that a virtuous society hides women behind head scarves or puts homosexuals behind bars, something we have already seen happen in Egypt. We shudder at what the triumph of these attitudes implies for 'shameless' persons in society-like women who fail to wear the head scarf or homosexuals or non-believers.
"In contrast, we believe that recognition of the existence of homosexuality, and the freedom for homosexuals to live their own lives as they wish, represent undeniable progress. As long as an individual-heterosexual or homosexual-does not break the laws protecting minors, each person’s sexual choices are his or her own business and do not concern the state in any way.
"Fighting Antisemitism: Finally, we condemn firmly the Antisemitic statements made recently in speeches in the name of Islam. Just like 'shameless' women and homosexuals, Jews have become the target: 'They have everything and we have nothing,' was something that we heard in the demonstration on January 17. We see the use of the Israel-Palestine conflict by fundamentalist movements as a means of promoting the most disturbing forms of Antisemitism. Despite our opposition to the current policies of the Israeli government, we refuse to feed primitive images of the 'Jew.' A real, historical conflict between two peoples should not be exploited. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, a right recognized by the PLO congress in Algiers in 1988 and the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut in 2002. At the same time, we are committed to the Palestinian people and in support of their right to found a state and to be liberated from occupation.
"Living Secularism: Islam has not received sufficient recognition in France. There is a lack of places to pray. There are not enough chaplaincies or enough cemeteries. We are aware that young French people, the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants, are still held back socially and suffer discrimination. All monitoring bodies recognize this. Consequently, 'French-style' secularism has lost a great deal of value in the eyes of these young people. Two possibilities lie before them. They can rediscover the strength of a real, living secularism; that is, political action on behalf of their rights and to demand the social gains fought for by their fathers and mothers-who belonged to social classes, cultures, peoples, and nations before they belonged to Islam. Or they can see themselves in an imaginary, virtual 'umma' [Islamic community - Eds.] that no longer corresponds to reality, and then masquerade in republican or 'tiers-mondistes' (third-worldist) rags. This only ends up securing unequal, repressive, and intolerant societies. This latter path cannot be ours.
[Footnote] France has bilateral agreements with Algeria, which allow the application of Algeria’s "Family Code" to emigrants in France. It particularly affects issues of divorce and discriminates against women. -Eds.
"To sign the manifesto, and for contact details and information: manifeste@manifeste.org.
"1849 people have signed the manifesto."
Manifeste des Libertés Reacts to Attack on Rushdie on France 2 TV
On October 22, 2005, on Thierry Ardisson's very popular program "Tout le Monde en Parle" (France 2 TV), Salman Rushdie was attacked by prominent French actor Sami Naceri. Naceri, a self-professed Islamist, accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. He added that if an imam were to ask him to kill Rushdie, he would put a bullet in his head. He then pointed an imaginary gun at Rushdie's head. Rushdie took off his microphone and left, saying that this was the last time that he would appear on a French program. [5] None of this was aired; Ardisson edited out the disturbing scene.
The Manifesto of Liberties association was the only organization to act following these events. The association penned an open letter to French Supreme Audio-Visual Council (CSA) head Dominique Baudis asking him to take action. [6]
Comment: Why doesn't the bribe giving, body losing, sorry excuse for a government in Canberra organise an information source for the muslim communities in Australia? The sort of good news in this posting is vitally necessary to strengthen the morale of those muslims in Australia who want to live in AD2006 and not in AD632.
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Make sure you read the little tale about Salman Rushdie at the end of this posting.
April 28, 2006 No.271
"Manifesto of Liberties"- A Muslim Association for Freedom in the Arab World
By: By Nathalie Szerman*
The Manifeste des Libertés (Manifesto of Liberties) is a Paris-based association dedicated to promoting freedom in the Arab world. Its website, www.manifeste.org, features a great number of articles by reformist and secular Muslims, among them Salman Rushdie and prominent French-speaking Arab intellectuals. The association also organizes conferences and meetings, posts petitions, and addresses open letters to French governmental agencies.
The association's founding document is a "manifesto" signed by over 1800 "women and men of Muslim culture," "believers, agnostics, or atheists" who "firmly condemn misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism" perpetuated in the name of Islam.(The signatures can be viewed at http://www.manifeste.org/signatures.php3?id_article=1.) The manifesto was published by France's leading leftist daily Liberation on February 16, 2004.
The following is an overview of the Manifeste des Libertés website. It is followed by the association's English translation of the manifesto, at http://www.manifeste.org/article.php3?id_article=18 , and by a summary of some of the association's activities.
The Manifeste Des Libertés Website
The site www.manifeste.org contains a large number of opinion articles and interviews, a special section dedicated to "Censorship in the Name of Islam," and information on political and cultural activities.
The "Censorship in the Name of Islam" section features the following comment about the Danish cartoons: "The modern history of censorship in the name of Islam is marked by murders, attacks, and a ban on free thinking. This is the result of both the [policy of the Arab] states and the Islamist movements…"
On February 24, 2006, the association organized a public discussion on the theme of "Censorship in the Name of Islam"; the event was attended by 600 people. Questions raised were: "What makes fanaticism possible?" "What enabled the birth of political Islam?" and "How can one avoid a 'victimization' approach to the situation?" Commenting on the Danish cartoons scandal, Raja Ben Slama, [1] a reformist academic and author from Tunisia, declared: "Far from putting the unbelieving West in opposition to Islam... the Danish cartoons affair put Muslims in opposition to themselves." Publisher Tewfik Allal declared that it was urgent to set up a Muslim political secular community "to counter the Umma - the community of believers." [2]
Among the website's many articles by Arab reformists are "Manifesto for a European Islam," by French Muslim philosopher and reformist Abdennour Bidar; "Islamism is Against Women All Over the World," by Mimouna Hadjam, president of the AFRICA association against racism; and many articles dealing with the November-December 2005 civil unrest in France.
Also on the site are the following articles by Salman Rushdie: "Modernizing Islam - a Challenge for the Diaspora," "The Right Time for an Islamic Reformation," and "The Europeans Must Ask for the Lifting of Charges against Turkish Author Orhan Pamuk." [3]
The site also features an article by renowned Syrian poet Adonis, titled "The Islamic Veil is a Veil on Life," and a long piece titled "The Second Independence: Towards an Initiative for Political Reform in the Arab World" that sets out the recommendations of the First Civil Forum, which took place at the same time as the Beirut Arab summit, in March 2004. [4]
The Manifesto
"We are women and men of Muslim culture. Some of us are believers, others are agnostics or atheists. We all condemn firmly the declarations and acts of misogyny, homophobia, and Antisemitism that we have heard and witnessed for a while now here in France and that are carried out in the name of Islam. These three characteristics typify the political Islamism that has been forceful for so long in several of our countries of origin. We fought against them there, and we are committed to fighting against them again - here.
"Gender Equality: A Prerequisite for Democracy. We are firmly committed to equal rights for both sexes. We fight the oppression of women who are subjected to Personal Status Laws, like those in Algeria (recent progress in Morocco highlights how far Algeria lags behind), and sometimes even in France via bilateral agreements. [see document footnote] We believe that democracy cannot exist without these equal rights. Accordingly, we unambiguously offer our support for the '20 ans, barakat!' (20 years is enough!) campaign of the Algerian women’s associations, demanding the definitive abolition of the two-decades-old family code.
"It is also for this reason that we oppose wearing the Islamic head scarf, even if among us there are differing opinions about the law banning it from schools in France. In various countries, we have seen violence or even death inflicted on female friends or family members because they refused to wear the scarf. Even if the current enthusiasm for the head scarf [among some Muslims] in France was stimulated by discrimination suffered by immigrant children, this cannot be considered the real cause of the desire to wear it; nor can memories of a North African lifestyle explain it. Behind this so-called 'choice' demanded by a certain number of girls is the promotion of a political Islamic society based on a militant ideology which aims to promote actively values to which we do not subscribe.
"Stopping Homophobia: For Islamic fundamentalists (as for all machos and fundamentalists), 'being a man' means having power over women, including sexual power. In their eyes, any man who favors equality of the sexes is potentially subhuman, or 'queer.' This way of thinking has proliferated since the rise of political Islamism. Its ferocity is equaled only by its hypocrisy. One of the organizers of the demonstration on Saturday, January 17, 2004, in favor of the head scarf declared that 'it is scandalous that those who claim to be shocked by the head scarf are not shocked by homosexuality.' Undoubtedly he thinks that a virtuous society hides women behind head scarves or puts homosexuals behind bars, something we have already seen happen in Egypt. We shudder at what the triumph of these attitudes implies for 'shameless' persons in society-like women who fail to wear the head scarf or homosexuals or non-believers.
"In contrast, we believe that recognition of the existence of homosexuality, and the freedom for homosexuals to live their own lives as they wish, represent undeniable progress. As long as an individual-heterosexual or homosexual-does not break the laws protecting minors, each person’s sexual choices are his or her own business and do not concern the state in any way.
"Fighting Antisemitism: Finally, we condemn firmly the Antisemitic statements made recently in speeches in the name of Islam. Just like 'shameless' women and homosexuals, Jews have become the target: 'They have everything and we have nothing,' was something that we heard in the demonstration on January 17. We see the use of the Israel-Palestine conflict by fundamentalist movements as a means of promoting the most disturbing forms of Antisemitism. Despite our opposition to the current policies of the Israeli government, we refuse to feed primitive images of the 'Jew.' A real, historical conflict between two peoples should not be exploited. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, a right recognized by the PLO congress in Algiers in 1988 and the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut in 2002. At the same time, we are committed to the Palestinian people and in support of their right to found a state and to be liberated from occupation.
"Living Secularism: Islam has not received sufficient recognition in France. There is a lack of places to pray. There are not enough chaplaincies or enough cemeteries. We are aware that young French people, the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants, are still held back socially and suffer discrimination. All monitoring bodies recognize this. Consequently, 'French-style' secularism has lost a great deal of value in the eyes of these young people. Two possibilities lie before them. They can rediscover the strength of a real, living secularism; that is, political action on behalf of their rights and to demand the social gains fought for by their fathers and mothers-who belonged to social classes, cultures, peoples, and nations before they belonged to Islam. Or they can see themselves in an imaginary, virtual 'umma' [Islamic community - Eds.] that no longer corresponds to reality, and then masquerade in republican or 'tiers-mondistes' (third-worldist) rags. This only ends up securing unequal, repressive, and intolerant societies. This latter path cannot be ours.
[Footnote] France has bilateral agreements with Algeria, which allow the application of Algeria’s "Family Code" to emigrants in France. It particularly affects issues of divorce and discriminates against women. -Eds.
"To sign the manifesto, and for contact details and information: manifeste@manifeste.org.
"1849 people have signed the manifesto."
Manifeste des Libertés Reacts to Attack on Rushdie on France 2 TV
On October 22, 2005, on Thierry Ardisson's very popular program "Tout le Monde en Parle" (France 2 TV), Salman Rushdie was attacked by prominent French actor Sami Naceri. Naceri, a self-professed Islamist, accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. He added that if an imam were to ask him to kill Rushdie, he would put a bullet in his head. He then pointed an imaginary gun at Rushdie's head. Rushdie took off his microphone and left, saying that this was the last time that he would appear on a French program. [5] None of this was aired; Ardisson edited out the disturbing scene.
The Manifesto of Liberties association was the only organization to act following these events. The association penned an open letter to French Supreme Audio-Visual Council (CSA) head Dominique Baudis asking him to take action. [6]
Comment: Why doesn't the bribe giving, body losing, sorry excuse for a government in Canberra organise an information source for the muslim communities in Australia? The sort of good news in this posting is vitally necessary to strengthen the morale of those muslims in Australia who want to live in AD2006 and not in AD632.
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Moroccan Islam More Modern Than Backward Australian Islam.
Note: Clearly the Government of Morocco is determined to succeed in making their beautiful country a modern nation. Backward muslims in Australia, please note.
Morocco gets first women preachers
Friday 28 April 2006, 11:50 Makka Time, 8:50 GMT
The idea took off after the May, 2003 attacks in Casablanca.
Morocco has just graduated its first team of women preachers to be deployed as a vanguard in its fight against any slide towards Islamic extremism.
"This is a rare experiment in the Muslim world," proudly stated Muhammad Mahfudh, director of the centre attached to the Islamic affairs ministry that trained this first class of 50 women.
Ministry spokesman Hamid Rono said it was the "first (of its kind) in the Islamic world".
This pioneer group of Murshidat, or guides, who finished a 12-month course in early April, were trained to "accompany and orient" Muslim faithful, notably in prisons, hospitals and schools, said Mahfudh.
They will earn a salary of 5,000 dirhams ($560) a month.
Samira Marzouk, in her 30s like most of the others, exclaims how "proud" she is to be part of this first group.
She sees their mission as one to "fill in the gaps that prevent a solid framework for religion".
"We are going to teach a tolerant Islam by focussing on the underprivileged classes."
"The Morshidat will be in charge of leading religious discussions, give lessons in Islam, give moral support to people in difficulty and guide the faithful towards a tolerant Islam"
They will notably work with women and children in poor ghettoes seen as fertile ground for extremist recruiters.
The idea of the Murshidat, spearheaded by King Mohammed VI and the government, took off after Islamic extremist attacks in the Casablanca on May 16, 2003 claimed 45 lives and left dozens of others wounded.
The King who had already started reshaping religious structures to rein in any extremist drift in his North African country, which borders Algeria where violence between government forces and armed Islamic extremists has caused more than 150,000 deaths since 1992.
New urgency
But the synchronised suicide bomb attacks that struck Jewish and foreign targets gave new urgency to the initiative.
More than 2,000 people were arrested in vast police sweeps after the May bombings as the king pledged that the attacks would be the last to rock Morocco.
Investigators concluded that those behind the incident had indeed sought recruits in the teeming slums around Casablanca, the kingdom's biggest city.
Marzuk, with a diploma in Arab literature who said she knew the Quran by heart, was quick to specify she was "not going to take the place of an imam".
"The imamate in Islam is restricted solely to men who are apt at leading prayers, notably those on Friday," she said.
Tolerant Islam
"The Morshidat will be in charge of leading religious discussions, give lessons in Islam, give moral support to people in difficulty and guide the faithful towards a tolerant Islam," she added.
Another graduate, Laila Faris, a lively young woman who holds a degree in Islamic studies, said she saw the Murshidat's role as promoting "the true face of Islam".
"We will help attenuate any drift towards Islamic extremism," she said, stressing that "an overall approach is needed to dealing with radical Islam".
During the year-long course, the curriculum ranged from Islamic studies to psychology, sociology, computer skills, economy, law and business management.
"We will help attenuate any drift towards Islamic extremism... an overall approach is needed to dealing with radical Islam"
Sports was the only subject dropped from the women preachers' training because the schedule was just too tight," regretted Mahfudh, who hopes to include it for the second batch of Murshidat trainees, whose applications are now being accepted.
For the Islamic affairs minister, Ahmed Taoufiq, the Murshidat will also "instruct women on their basis religious duties".
He said religious radicalism was not part of Morocco's culture "but you can never prevent evil one hundred percent".
Divided
Morocco's Islamic fundamentalists are divided over the initiative.
For one, Islamist deputy Mustafa Ramid with the Islamist Justice and Development party (PJD), the main opposition group with 43 seats in the 325-member parliament, the Murshidat is a "positive" development.
"I see nothing more to say about this initiative because in Islam, men and women are equal," he said, pointing to Egypt which has "eminent women scholars of Islam".
But the head of the youth group in Morocco's most radical Islamic fundamentalist association, Al-Adl Wal-Ihssane (Justice and Welfare), forecast it would have no effect on the ground.
"The power behind this initiative is the same as the one that commits acts contrary to Islam, notably degrading moral values," said Hasan Bennajih, whose group is part of an Islamist movement that preaches non-violence and is unrecognized by authorities, but still influential.
"This initiative, then, will only have a limited impact on the population," said Hasan Bennajih.
Comment: Here is the way forward for muslims in Australia.
Morocco gets first women preachers
Friday 28 April 2006, 11:50 Makka Time, 8:50 GMT
The idea took off after the May, 2003 attacks in Casablanca.
Morocco has just graduated its first team of women preachers to be deployed as a vanguard in its fight against any slide towards Islamic extremism.
"This is a rare experiment in the Muslim world," proudly stated Muhammad Mahfudh, director of the centre attached to the Islamic affairs ministry that trained this first class of 50 women.
Ministry spokesman Hamid Rono said it was the "first (of its kind) in the Islamic world".
This pioneer group of Murshidat, or guides, who finished a 12-month course in early April, were trained to "accompany and orient" Muslim faithful, notably in prisons, hospitals and schools, said Mahfudh.
They will earn a salary of 5,000 dirhams ($560) a month.
Samira Marzouk, in her 30s like most of the others, exclaims how "proud" she is to be part of this first group.
She sees their mission as one to "fill in the gaps that prevent a solid framework for religion".
"We are going to teach a tolerant Islam by focussing on the underprivileged classes."
"The Morshidat will be in charge of leading religious discussions, give lessons in Islam, give moral support to people in difficulty and guide the faithful towards a tolerant Islam"
They will notably work with women and children in poor ghettoes seen as fertile ground for extremist recruiters.
The idea of the Murshidat, spearheaded by King Mohammed VI and the government, took off after Islamic extremist attacks in the Casablanca on May 16, 2003 claimed 45 lives and left dozens of others wounded.
The King who had already started reshaping religious structures to rein in any extremist drift in his North African country, which borders Algeria where violence between government forces and armed Islamic extremists has caused more than 150,000 deaths since 1992.
New urgency
But the synchronised suicide bomb attacks that struck Jewish and foreign targets gave new urgency to the initiative.
More than 2,000 people were arrested in vast police sweeps after the May bombings as the king pledged that the attacks would be the last to rock Morocco.
Investigators concluded that those behind the incident had indeed sought recruits in the teeming slums around Casablanca, the kingdom's biggest city.
Marzuk, with a diploma in Arab literature who said she knew the Quran by heart, was quick to specify she was "not going to take the place of an imam".
"The imamate in Islam is restricted solely to men who are apt at leading prayers, notably those on Friday," she said.
Tolerant Islam
"The Morshidat will be in charge of leading religious discussions, give lessons in Islam, give moral support to people in difficulty and guide the faithful towards a tolerant Islam," she added.
Another graduate, Laila Faris, a lively young woman who holds a degree in Islamic studies, said she saw the Murshidat's role as promoting "the true face of Islam".
"We will help attenuate any drift towards Islamic extremism," she said, stressing that "an overall approach is needed to dealing with radical Islam".
During the year-long course, the curriculum ranged from Islamic studies to psychology, sociology, computer skills, economy, law and business management.
"We will help attenuate any drift towards Islamic extremism... an overall approach is needed to dealing with radical Islam"
Sports was the only subject dropped from the women preachers' training because the schedule was just too tight," regretted Mahfudh, who hopes to include it for the second batch of Murshidat trainees, whose applications are now being accepted.
For the Islamic affairs minister, Ahmed Taoufiq, the Murshidat will also "instruct women on their basis religious duties".
He said religious radicalism was not part of Morocco's culture "but you can never prevent evil one hundred percent".
Divided
Morocco's Islamic fundamentalists are divided over the initiative.
For one, Islamist deputy Mustafa Ramid with the Islamist Justice and Development party (PJD), the main opposition group with 43 seats in the 325-member parliament, the Murshidat is a "positive" development.
"I see nothing more to say about this initiative because in Islam, men and women are equal," he said, pointing to Egypt which has "eminent women scholars of Islam".
But the head of the youth group in Morocco's most radical Islamic fundamentalist association, Al-Adl Wal-Ihssane (Justice and Welfare), forecast it would have no effect on the ground.
"The power behind this initiative is the same as the one that commits acts contrary to Islam, notably degrading moral values," said Hasan Bennajih, whose group is part of an Islamist movement that preaches non-violence and is unrecognized by authorities, but still influential.
"This initiative, then, will only have a limited impact on the population," said Hasan Bennajih.
Comment: Here is the way forward for muslims in Australia.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Muslim Leaders In Australia Are In It For The Money
Inside the AFIC: Where does the revenue come from?
Amir Butler, co-convenor of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN), writes:
I was recently sent a copy of the now infamous Worrells report into the management of the Australian Federation of Islamic Council's (AFIC) financial affairs. Worrells are forensic accountants who were called in by the committee to investigate the financial and accounting practices of the organisation. You can download the report from here.
AFIC purport to be the "leaders" or "representatives" of the Australian Muslim community. Whilst they have been fairly successful in convincing government of this ridiculous assertion, it is obvious to anyone that has spent time working with the fractured and fragmented Muslim community of this country that this is simply not true. Few, if any, Muslims would consider these people to be their leaders and, despite any claims to the contrary, ordinary Muslims have absolutely no mechanism whatsoever for either being elected to the board of AFIC or influencing its decisions. Instead, AFIC remains protected from reform by a convoluted set of rules and policies which ensure only those people already part of the "system" can ever assume leadership of the organisation.
Anyway, the report contains a few things which will interest Australian Muslims.
Firstly, it will undoubtedly surprise the Australian Muslim community to learn that, according to the report, 13.5% of AFIC's revenue is derived from interest. Of course, Islam's prohibition of interest (what is known in Arabic as riba) is well known. If the report raises good questions about AFIC's financial management, then surely it also raises equally important questions about whether AFIC's operations are compliant with the religion they claim to represent. 13.5% is not an insignificant percentage: at least one out of every ten dollars that AFIC earns is derived from interest.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that 66% of AFIC's revenue is received from the Malek Fahd School in Sydney. This amounts to approximately $900,000. As the auditor rightly notes, Malek Fahd School itself owes $7.9 million in interest-based loans, and it is possible that the money being drawn by AFIC from the school might affect both the school's ability to maintain its infrastructure and its ability to repay this very substantial debt. In terms of value to the Muslim community, I think it is fair to say that this $900,000 would achieve far more good if it was spent on the education of Muslim children rather than being used to fund an organisation such as AFIC.
Comment: Most of the money coming into sunni muslim groups in Australia comes from Wahhabi Fascists in Saudi Arabia, who are the financiers of al Qaeda. Stop them.
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Amir Butler, co-convenor of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN), writes:
I was recently sent a copy of the now infamous Worrells report into the management of the Australian Federation of Islamic Council's (AFIC) financial affairs. Worrells are forensic accountants who were called in by the committee to investigate the financial and accounting practices of the organisation. You can download the report from here.
AFIC purport to be the "leaders" or "representatives" of the Australian Muslim community. Whilst they have been fairly successful in convincing government of this ridiculous assertion, it is obvious to anyone that has spent time working with the fractured and fragmented Muslim community of this country that this is simply not true. Few, if any, Muslims would consider these people to be their leaders and, despite any claims to the contrary, ordinary Muslims have absolutely no mechanism whatsoever for either being elected to the board of AFIC or influencing its decisions. Instead, AFIC remains protected from reform by a convoluted set of rules and policies which ensure only those people already part of the "system" can ever assume leadership of the organisation.
Anyway, the report contains a few things which will interest Australian Muslims.
Firstly, it will undoubtedly surprise the Australian Muslim community to learn that, according to the report, 13.5% of AFIC's revenue is derived from interest. Of course, Islam's prohibition of interest (what is known in Arabic as riba) is well known. If the report raises good questions about AFIC's financial management, then surely it also raises equally important questions about whether AFIC's operations are compliant with the religion they claim to represent. 13.5% is not an insignificant percentage: at least one out of every ten dollars that AFIC earns is derived from interest.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that 66% of AFIC's revenue is received from the Malek Fahd School in Sydney. This amounts to approximately $900,000. As the auditor rightly notes, Malek Fahd School itself owes $7.9 million in interest-based loans, and it is possible that the money being drawn by AFIC from the school might affect both the school's ability to maintain its infrastructure and its ability to repay this very substantial debt. In terms of value to the Muslim community, I think it is fair to say that this $900,000 would achieve far more good if it was spent on the education of Muslim children rather than being used to fund an organisation such as AFIC.
Comment: Most of the money coming into sunni muslim groups in Australia comes from Wahhabi Fascists in Saudi Arabia, who are the financiers of al Qaeda. Stop them.
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
So, You Think Religious Muslims Are Not A Problem.
Note: This article tells its sad story with the background noise being 'useful idiots' (Vladimir Lenin's phrase)in the West, and in Australia still proclaiming that the religion of Islam is not a problem.
'It's all a beat up'!!
Read.
April 28, 2006 No.1150
Arab Intellectual on the Worsening Situation of Christians in the Muslim World
Arab intellectual of Palestinian origin George Kattan discusses the discrimination against Christians in the Arab countries today, describing their deteriorating status and diminishing numbers in comparison with previous eras in the region's history. He warns that the Christian population of the region may vanish as Christians emigrate to the West rather than tolerate the backwardness and tyranny of their home countries. Further, he calls upon the Christian communities to stay put and fight for democracy and human rights in their own countries. [1]
The following are excerpts from the article:
The Spread of the Islamic Movement and Extremist Salafi Views Led to Copts' Removal From Prominent Positions in Egypt
"Christians played a key role during the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods by [facilitating] mutual enrichment between the civilizations and introducing the thought and science of the [ancient] civilizations into the Arab world.
"During the [Arab] Renaissance, many Christians played a prominent role in introducing concepts from the Enlightenment [into the Arab world], reexamining the Arabic language, highlighting the uniqueness of Arab culture, challenging Ottoman backwardness and tyranny, and calling for the establishment of a modern state based on national, rather than religious, affiliation...
"Their unique participation [in public life] reached its peak in the 'liberal period,' during the second half of the previous century, when there were prominent [Christian] philosophers, intellectuals, ministers, parliament members and party members.
"With the ascent of the semi-secular military regimes, with their pan-Arab and socialist slogans - especially in Egypt, Iraq and Syria - there was a decrease in the participation of Christians in the political arena. Though these regimes did not persecute the Christians, their absolute tyranny was the main reason for the advent of extremist fundamentalist Islamism, which calls for [the establishment of] an Islamic state that would discriminate against religious minorities, marginalize them and encourage them to emigrate...
"The spreading of the Islamic movement and extremist Salafi views throughout Egyptian society led to the removal of Copts from the Parliament, municipalities, labor unions and [other] prominent positions, and limitations began to be imposed on the building and renovation of churches. Some [churches] were [even] attacked and burned down, and Christians were accused of heresy...
"It should also be noted that the curricula [in Egyptian schools] ignored the 600 years of Coptic history in Egypt. [Furthermore], the former supreme leader of the Egyptian [Muslim] Brotherhood called to ban [Christians] from the army and from the bureaucracy, to apply to them the Islamic law concerning dhimmis [Christians and Jews living under Islamic rule], and thus to reinstate the jizya [poll tax], turning [the Christians] into second-rate citizens."
"Are We Moving Towards Exclusively Muslim Societies?"
"During its last years in power, Saddam's regime in Iraq gave the Salafi movements freedom of action, and after its fall [these movements] led the terrorist activity along with the remnants of the old regime... Among their most conspicuous actions was the bombing of six churches on a single Sunday, resulting in massive Christian emigration. Since the Gulf War, at least a third of Iraq's Christian population has emigrated [to other countries]...
"In the West Bank and Gaza, armed Islamic movements regard Palestine as a Muslim waqf [religious endowment], and call to defend the places holy to the Muslims while disregarding places holy to the Christians... The few Christian women living in Gaza have to wear a veil out of fear of the extremists. A few weeks ago, the last shop selling wines in Gaza was bombed, even though it belonged to international organizations...
"The Christians of Saudi Arabia were rooted out centuries ago. The hundreds of thousands of Christians who now work in Saudi Arabia, arriving from the neighboring countries or from far-away lands, are not allowed to build churches there. [Moreover], they risk beatings, imprisonment, and deportation, [even] if they hold their ceremonies in secret, in their own homes. At the same time, the Saudi regime uses its oil profits to build grandiose mosques all over 'heretical' Europe.
"The Christians in Lebanon have diminished from 50% before the civil war to 35% today. Christians comprise 3.5 million out of the 5 million Lebanese emigrants living in the West...
"While in ancient times, discrimination, marginalization, accusations of heresy, and persecution drove many [Christians] to convert to Islam, today they are driven to emigrate, as long as the gates remain open. This may cause Christianity to decline in its original home in the East...
"Are we moving towards exclusively Muslim societies? Will this deterioration stop here, or will it lead, after the Eastern countries are emptied of Christians, to [a state] of sectarian purity in each country? Are there solutions that will allow coexistence without the majority hating [the minorities] that differ in their religion and ethnicity? Will we progress towards integrated humanist and democratic societies that accept political, religious, and ethnic pluralism, or slide back into the darkness of old concepts out of religious, nationalist and pan-Arab narcissism?..."
"The Fundamentalists Have Defined Their Adversaries: Modern Society, Women, and Non-Muslims"
"The pan-Arab solution is no longer feasible now that the pan-Arab movements have embraced Islamism, and most of them agree that the term 'Arab' is synonymous with 'Muslim.' This excludes Christians almost completely from the dominant Islamic Arabism - to the point where, in some countries, Christian teachers have been banned from teaching Arabic, since it is the language of the Koran...
"The Christians have no political plan to [establish] a local or regional entity. The renewal of their cultural and humanist role depends on the completion of the [cultural] renaissance... which will ensure [people's] freedom to build places of worship, hold religious ceremonies, engage in peaceful religious preaching, change their religion without coercion, interpret their religious texts without accusing others of religious or sectarian heresy... [and will also allow us to] end the discrimination in the constitutions which turns the presidency into a Muslim monopoly... and the Islamic Shari'a into the basis for legislation...
"The [only] option left to the Christians is to stay put and promote [the development of] modern democratic states that guarantee human rights by [guaranteeing] full and equal citizenship to all sectors of society, and [by establishing] national unity which accepts social diversity and turns it into a factor that enriches the shared [social] fabric... In [this] interim stage, there may be liberal democratic Christian parties that will prevent religion from interfering with state affairs, and will protect freedom of worship and religious education [based on] tolerance for others...
"The fundamentalists have defined their adversaries: modern society, women, and non-Muslims. Therefore, the coalition opposing them may include secular democratic political forces, women's empowerment organizations, minorities, and global human rights organizations which promote freedoms and fight discrimination against minorities."
Comment: The West is primarily to blame for this situation. It has allowed this situation to congeal. Now it is sticking in our throat.
Every muslim country is utterly dependent on the West; the West as buyer of their oil and gas; the West to provide the international banking and communication systems that make any commerce possible; the West that provides the advanced industrial equipment that they need. The West has absolute leverage with every muslim country.
There is nothing to prevent the West organising themselves into a uniform front for the purpose of obliging muslim countries to modernise their Constitutions and social orders. No modernization...No dealings with the West.
Only a fool would think that any muslim country can institute any form of even vaguely sensible modernization. The time has come to use blunt pressure. No war is needed. The pressure of economic exclusion is enough to make them buckle.
Part of this pressure would have to be to require that Christians and other religious minorities in muslim countries had a certain number of important and powerful positions in each country. The aim is to modernize and free the poor downtrodden muslim masses from the vicious 'religious' establishment that keeps them ignorant and poor. Their poverty is a danger to the West, as well as being immoral in its own existence.
This necessary program in the West can only be lead by the USA. Thus it will not happen until the current moron who is President of the USA is succeeded by a person who can see the problem and the solution.
'It's all a beat up'!!
Read.
April 28, 2006 No.1150
Arab Intellectual on the Worsening Situation of Christians in the Muslim World
Arab intellectual of Palestinian origin George Kattan discusses the discrimination against Christians in the Arab countries today, describing their deteriorating status and diminishing numbers in comparison with previous eras in the region's history. He warns that the Christian population of the region may vanish as Christians emigrate to the West rather than tolerate the backwardness and tyranny of their home countries. Further, he calls upon the Christian communities to stay put and fight for democracy and human rights in their own countries. [1]
The following are excerpts from the article:
The Spread of the Islamic Movement and Extremist Salafi Views Led to Copts' Removal From Prominent Positions in Egypt
"Christians played a key role during the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods by [facilitating] mutual enrichment between the civilizations and introducing the thought and science of the [ancient] civilizations into the Arab world.
"During the [Arab] Renaissance, many Christians played a prominent role in introducing concepts from the Enlightenment [into the Arab world], reexamining the Arabic language, highlighting the uniqueness of Arab culture, challenging Ottoman backwardness and tyranny, and calling for the establishment of a modern state based on national, rather than religious, affiliation...
"Their unique participation [in public life] reached its peak in the 'liberal period,' during the second half of the previous century, when there were prominent [Christian] philosophers, intellectuals, ministers, parliament members and party members.
"With the ascent of the semi-secular military regimes, with their pan-Arab and socialist slogans - especially in Egypt, Iraq and Syria - there was a decrease in the participation of Christians in the political arena. Though these regimes did not persecute the Christians, their absolute tyranny was the main reason for the advent of extremist fundamentalist Islamism, which calls for [the establishment of] an Islamic state that would discriminate against religious minorities, marginalize them and encourage them to emigrate...
"The spreading of the Islamic movement and extremist Salafi views throughout Egyptian society led to the removal of Copts from the Parliament, municipalities, labor unions and [other] prominent positions, and limitations began to be imposed on the building and renovation of churches. Some [churches] were [even] attacked and burned down, and Christians were accused of heresy...
"It should also be noted that the curricula [in Egyptian schools] ignored the 600 years of Coptic history in Egypt. [Furthermore], the former supreme leader of the Egyptian [Muslim] Brotherhood called to ban [Christians] from the army and from the bureaucracy, to apply to them the Islamic law concerning dhimmis [Christians and Jews living under Islamic rule], and thus to reinstate the jizya [poll tax], turning [the Christians] into second-rate citizens."
"Are We Moving Towards Exclusively Muslim Societies?"
"During its last years in power, Saddam's regime in Iraq gave the Salafi movements freedom of action, and after its fall [these movements] led the terrorist activity along with the remnants of the old regime... Among their most conspicuous actions was the bombing of six churches on a single Sunday, resulting in massive Christian emigration. Since the Gulf War, at least a third of Iraq's Christian population has emigrated [to other countries]...
"In the West Bank and Gaza, armed Islamic movements regard Palestine as a Muslim waqf [religious endowment], and call to defend the places holy to the Muslims while disregarding places holy to the Christians... The few Christian women living in Gaza have to wear a veil out of fear of the extremists. A few weeks ago, the last shop selling wines in Gaza was bombed, even though it belonged to international organizations...
"The Christians of Saudi Arabia were rooted out centuries ago. The hundreds of thousands of Christians who now work in Saudi Arabia, arriving from the neighboring countries or from far-away lands, are not allowed to build churches there. [Moreover], they risk beatings, imprisonment, and deportation, [even] if they hold their ceremonies in secret, in their own homes. At the same time, the Saudi regime uses its oil profits to build grandiose mosques all over 'heretical' Europe.
"The Christians in Lebanon have diminished from 50% before the civil war to 35% today. Christians comprise 3.5 million out of the 5 million Lebanese emigrants living in the West...
"While in ancient times, discrimination, marginalization, accusations of heresy, and persecution drove many [Christians] to convert to Islam, today they are driven to emigrate, as long as the gates remain open. This may cause Christianity to decline in its original home in the East...
"Are we moving towards exclusively Muslim societies? Will this deterioration stop here, or will it lead, after the Eastern countries are emptied of Christians, to [a state] of sectarian purity in each country? Are there solutions that will allow coexistence without the majority hating [the minorities] that differ in their religion and ethnicity? Will we progress towards integrated humanist and democratic societies that accept political, religious, and ethnic pluralism, or slide back into the darkness of old concepts out of religious, nationalist and pan-Arab narcissism?..."
"The Fundamentalists Have Defined Their Adversaries: Modern Society, Women, and Non-Muslims"
"The pan-Arab solution is no longer feasible now that the pan-Arab movements have embraced Islamism, and most of them agree that the term 'Arab' is synonymous with 'Muslim.' This excludes Christians almost completely from the dominant Islamic Arabism - to the point where, in some countries, Christian teachers have been banned from teaching Arabic, since it is the language of the Koran...
"The Christians have no political plan to [establish] a local or regional entity. The renewal of their cultural and humanist role depends on the completion of the [cultural] renaissance... which will ensure [people's] freedom to build places of worship, hold religious ceremonies, engage in peaceful religious preaching, change their religion without coercion, interpret their religious texts without accusing others of religious or sectarian heresy... [and will also allow us to] end the discrimination in the constitutions which turns the presidency into a Muslim monopoly... and the Islamic Shari'a into the basis for legislation...
"The [only] option left to the Christians is to stay put and promote [the development of] modern democratic states that guarantee human rights by [guaranteeing] full and equal citizenship to all sectors of society, and [by establishing] national unity which accepts social diversity and turns it into a factor that enriches the shared [social] fabric... In [this] interim stage, there may be liberal democratic Christian parties that will prevent religion from interfering with state affairs, and will protect freedom of worship and religious education [based on] tolerance for others...
"The fundamentalists have defined their adversaries: modern society, women, and non-Muslims. Therefore, the coalition opposing them may include secular democratic political forces, women's empowerment organizations, minorities, and global human rights organizations which promote freedoms and fight discrimination against minorities."
Comment: The West is primarily to blame for this situation. It has allowed this situation to congeal. Now it is sticking in our throat.
Every muslim country is utterly dependent on the West; the West as buyer of their oil and gas; the West to provide the international banking and communication systems that make any commerce possible; the West that provides the advanced industrial equipment that they need. The West has absolute leverage with every muslim country.
There is nothing to prevent the West organising themselves into a uniform front for the purpose of obliging muslim countries to modernise their Constitutions and social orders. No modernization...No dealings with the West.
Only a fool would think that any muslim country can institute any form of even vaguely sensible modernization. The time has come to use blunt pressure. No war is needed. The pressure of economic exclusion is enough to make them buckle.
Part of this pressure would have to be to require that Christians and other religious minorities in muslim countries had a certain number of important and powerful positions in each country. The aim is to modernize and free the poor downtrodden muslim masses from the vicious 'religious' establishment that keeps them ignorant and poor. Their poverty is a danger to the West, as well as being immoral in its own existence.
This necessary program in the West can only be lead by the USA. Thus it will not happen until the current moron who is President of the USA is succeeded by a person who can see the problem and the solution.
Does Australia Really Need More Religious Muslims?
Note: Three stories below are from the wires and show the reality of Islam when it is able to play itself out on the public stage. In Australia, at the moment, Islam cannot do these sort of things. The best way to keep Australia free from these situations is to stop all further religious muslim migration and visits. Secular muslims are not a problem.
Story 1.
Indonesia: Government wants non-Muslims tried by Islamic court
This will, of course, lead to a systematic denial of equality of rights to non-Muslims if Sharia is fully implemented. "Indonesia: Government Wants Non-Muslims Tried By Acheh Islamic Court," from AKI, with thanks to Nicolei:
Banda Aceh, 26 April (AKI/Jakarta Post) - The Indonesian government has insisted that Muslims and non-Muslims alike in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam district of Muslim-devout Aceh province should be tried by a planned Islamic Court. Non-Muslims accused of committing crimes such as theft and adultery, would be tried under the Sharia inspired bylaws, state secretary Yusril Ihza Mahendra told the special committee deliberating a crucial bill on Aceh's future administration.
Mahendra, responding to the proposals of several legislators who wanted non-Muslims to be given the freedom to choose under which law they would be tried, said it would only create legal uncertainty.
"Should such freedom be given, non-Muslims will certainly choose to be tried under the Criminal Code, because it carries more lenient punishment," Yusril told the hearing, held to discuss the authority of the planned Islamic Court, also known as Mahkamah Sharia.
Yusril said that in the case of adultery, non-Muslims who committed adultery with Muslims would undoubtedly opt for trial by Indonesia's penal code, because it was more lenient than stoning or other forms of corporal punishment stipulated under Islamic Law.
Story 2.
Christians on the West Bank face more fire bomb attacks
Islamic Tolerance Alert from Ekklesia, with thanks to Cornelius:
A Roman Catholic parish school and a Protestant Bible-study centre in the West Bank have been fire-bombed twice since the Islamist Hamas movement won a legislative election in January 2006, according to Christian clerics in the region.
According to the Presbyterian Church USA News Service, a priest at the Roman Catholic Al-Ahliyya College in the West Bank city of Ramallah says that several fire-bombs were thrown into a school sports room in early March 2006, causing serious damage and destroying equipment stored there.
About a month earlier, said the same priest, several petrol bombs were thrown into an Al-Ahliyya classroom.
In other recent incidents, a Protestant Bible-study centre in the town of Bir-Zeit near Ramallah was attacked, and phrases from the Qur’an were daubed on its doors. Windows in a Lutheran church in Ramallah were also shattered by unknown assailants.
Story 3.
Muslims who skip Friday prayers can be punished
A There-Is-No-Compulsion-In-Religion Update from Malaysia. From The Star, with thanks to Nicolei:
KOTA BARU: Skipping Friday prayers is a major sin for Muslims and it is punishable under the state’s Syariah laws, said Kelantan Bar Committee chairman Datuk Wan Harun Shukri Noordin.
Therefore, Muslims in the state must remember that Friday prayers are compulsory, otherwise they can be jailed or fined by the religious authorities, he said yesterday.
He was commenting on a recent case in which a Muslim man was fined by the Syariah Court here for not attending the weekly prayers.
Comment: Although Australia is a multicultural country and has benefitted greatly fom migration and will continue to do so, the religious muslims do not 'play the game'. They are not entitled to the benefits of multiculturalism because they do not accept the principles of multiculturalism.
Hard decisions often have to be made. This is one of them.
Ban religious muslim migration and visits to Australia. Future generations of Australians will thank us for this foresight.
Story 1.
Indonesia: Government wants non-Muslims tried by Islamic court
This will, of course, lead to a systematic denial of equality of rights to non-Muslims if Sharia is fully implemented. "Indonesia: Government Wants Non-Muslims Tried By Acheh Islamic Court," from AKI, with thanks to Nicolei:
Banda Aceh, 26 April (AKI/Jakarta Post) - The Indonesian government has insisted that Muslims and non-Muslims alike in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam district of Muslim-devout Aceh province should be tried by a planned Islamic Court. Non-Muslims accused of committing crimes such as theft and adultery, would be tried under the Sharia inspired bylaws, state secretary Yusril Ihza Mahendra told the special committee deliberating a crucial bill on Aceh's future administration.
Mahendra, responding to the proposals of several legislators who wanted non-Muslims to be given the freedom to choose under which law they would be tried, said it would only create legal uncertainty.
"Should such freedom be given, non-Muslims will certainly choose to be tried under the Criminal Code, because it carries more lenient punishment," Yusril told the hearing, held to discuss the authority of the planned Islamic Court, also known as Mahkamah Sharia.
Yusril said that in the case of adultery, non-Muslims who committed adultery with Muslims would undoubtedly opt for trial by Indonesia's penal code, because it was more lenient than stoning or other forms of corporal punishment stipulated under Islamic Law.
Story 2.
Christians on the West Bank face more fire bomb attacks
Islamic Tolerance Alert from Ekklesia, with thanks to Cornelius:
A Roman Catholic parish school and a Protestant Bible-study centre in the West Bank have been fire-bombed twice since the Islamist Hamas movement won a legislative election in January 2006, according to Christian clerics in the region.
According to the Presbyterian Church USA News Service, a priest at the Roman Catholic Al-Ahliyya College in the West Bank city of Ramallah says that several fire-bombs were thrown into a school sports room in early March 2006, causing serious damage and destroying equipment stored there.
About a month earlier, said the same priest, several petrol bombs were thrown into an Al-Ahliyya classroom.
In other recent incidents, a Protestant Bible-study centre in the town of Bir-Zeit near Ramallah was attacked, and phrases from the Qur’an were daubed on its doors. Windows in a Lutheran church in Ramallah were also shattered by unknown assailants.
Story 3.
Muslims who skip Friday prayers can be punished
A There-Is-No-Compulsion-In-Religion Update from Malaysia. From The Star, with thanks to Nicolei:
KOTA BARU: Skipping Friday prayers is a major sin for Muslims and it is punishable under the state’s Syariah laws, said Kelantan Bar Committee chairman Datuk Wan Harun Shukri Noordin.
Therefore, Muslims in the state must remember that Friday prayers are compulsory, otherwise they can be jailed or fined by the religious authorities, he said yesterday.
He was commenting on a recent case in which a Muslim man was fined by the Syariah Court here for not attending the weekly prayers.
Comment: Although Australia is a multicultural country and has benefitted greatly fom migration and will continue to do so, the religious muslims do not 'play the game'. They are not entitled to the benefits of multiculturalism because they do not accept the principles of multiculturalism.
Hard decisions often have to be made. This is one of them.
Ban religious muslim migration and visits to Australia. Future generations of Australians will thank us for this foresight.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Some Thoughts For Non Thinking Muslims
Note: This is from America. It should help some thinking among muslims.
The appearance yesterday of another tape of Usama bin Laden should make us rethink, for a moment, our stance on theology.
You probably remember it was always considered an easy “A” — a GPA booster par excellence. We knew there was no fudging in chemistry class; the table of elements loomed large. Accounting I, II, and III fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle — miss a lesson or two and things just wouldn’t add up. History class had a little more wiggle room, but the best professors always asked for short answers — dates, names, and places — just to make sure.
But “theology?” The study of God? We doubted any professor could tell us for sure when we got it wrong. Yes, an easy “A!”
And yet some people still fail. When Usama calls all Muslims to go to Sudan and fight United Nations’ peacekeepers, as he did yesterday, he has failed. When he points his finger at the West and calls for indiscriminate violence, he has failed. When he promises heavenly rewards for the killing of the innocent, he has failed.
And sadly, Islam is failing with him.
The problem? Believe it or not, it’s a theological one.
To study God, we must first distinguish him from other beings. Animals may be smart, but they do not reason. They may be affectionate, but they do not love. Human beings reason and love, but they do both poorly. God does both perfectly. That’s what makes him God. He is perfect.
Muslim leaders like bin Laden have attached imperfect qualities to God. By doing so, they and their followers have become incapable of differentiating his perfection from man’s own misery. Their object of worship is not the perfect being that calls us to become more like our creator, but a grandiose image of their self-serving ego that values vice, not virtue.
Religion has a way of turning theology inside out. History is full of bad Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Muslims, Hindus, and Evangelicals. Religion turns bad when we get in the way of God, when we attribute to him and his will our own good and bad wishes. Getting in the way of God is bad theology and it’s dangerous.
What’s even more dangerous is a religion that refuses to correct itself when some of its members error. Islam as a religion is failing alongside its most outspoken spokesmen, because nobody from within dares to wrestle with the idea of bad theology.
The Muslim tradition leaves no room for interpretation or theological development. The Koran is what it is. Those who dare to interpret are considered untrue Muslims, or Westerners in disguise. This tradition of cemented theology can almost work if all play by the rules. But they don’t. The radical imams of the ilk of bin Laden have a monopoly on theological interpretation. And their grip is tightening, on Islam and on the world.
Theological problems don’t vanish with good public relations, political dialogue, or military force. They are resolved with good theology. Healthy Muslim clerics, who love God and love their religion, have a choice to make — either remain quiet and prepare to witness a clash of civilizations of epic proportion, or be willing to wrestle with the bad theology of their boisterous spokesmen. Can you provide to your fellow Muslims a convincing interpretation of a peaceful and loving Koran? We hope you can.
Comment: Muslims in Australia really need to tackle the issue of the seperation of religion and civic life. The traditional muslim approach just will not work in Australia.
A good place to start would be to try and analyse exactly what 'relgion' actually is. Is any muslim in Australia able to do this?
The appearance yesterday of another tape of Usama bin Laden should make us rethink, for a moment, our stance on theology.
You probably remember it was always considered an easy “A” — a GPA booster par excellence. We knew there was no fudging in chemistry class; the table of elements loomed large. Accounting I, II, and III fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle — miss a lesson or two and things just wouldn’t add up. History class had a little more wiggle room, but the best professors always asked for short answers — dates, names, and places — just to make sure.
But “theology?” The study of God? We doubted any professor could tell us for sure when we got it wrong. Yes, an easy “A!”
And yet some people still fail. When Usama calls all Muslims to go to Sudan and fight United Nations’ peacekeepers, as he did yesterday, he has failed. When he points his finger at the West and calls for indiscriminate violence, he has failed. When he promises heavenly rewards for the killing of the innocent, he has failed.
And sadly, Islam is failing with him.
The problem? Believe it or not, it’s a theological one.
To study God, we must first distinguish him from other beings. Animals may be smart, but they do not reason. They may be affectionate, but they do not love. Human beings reason and love, but they do both poorly. God does both perfectly. That’s what makes him God. He is perfect.
Muslim leaders like bin Laden have attached imperfect qualities to God. By doing so, they and their followers have become incapable of differentiating his perfection from man’s own misery. Their object of worship is not the perfect being that calls us to become more like our creator, but a grandiose image of their self-serving ego that values vice, not virtue.
Religion has a way of turning theology inside out. History is full of bad Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Muslims, Hindus, and Evangelicals. Religion turns bad when we get in the way of God, when we attribute to him and his will our own good and bad wishes. Getting in the way of God is bad theology and it’s dangerous.
What’s even more dangerous is a religion that refuses to correct itself when some of its members error. Islam as a religion is failing alongside its most outspoken spokesmen, because nobody from within dares to wrestle with the idea of bad theology.
The Muslim tradition leaves no room for interpretation or theological development. The Koran is what it is. Those who dare to interpret are considered untrue Muslims, or Westerners in disguise. This tradition of cemented theology can almost work if all play by the rules. But they don’t. The radical imams of the ilk of bin Laden have a monopoly on theological interpretation. And their grip is tightening, on Islam and on the world.
Theological problems don’t vanish with good public relations, political dialogue, or military force. They are resolved with good theology. Healthy Muslim clerics, who love God and love their religion, have a choice to make — either remain quiet and prepare to witness a clash of civilizations of epic proportion, or be willing to wrestle with the bad theology of their boisterous spokesmen. Can you provide to your fellow Muslims a convincing interpretation of a peaceful and loving Koran? We hope you can.
Comment: Muslims in Australia really need to tackle the issue of the seperation of religion and civic life. The traditional muslim approach just will not work in Australia.
A good place to start would be to try and analyse exactly what 'relgion' actually is. Is any muslim in Australia able to do this?
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Muslims In Dar al Islam Note The Misbehaviour Of Muslims In Australia.
Note: The foolish and backward behaviour of many muslims in Asutralia is now causing comment in arab countries. If they can see the problems, why can't Australian authorities do more than just talk?
John Howard is mentioned in this article. As usual Howard is making the most basic mistake. Can you pick it?
April 19, 2006 No.1142
Reformist Columnist: "Muslims Living Abroad Cannot... Impose Their Values – Just as We Do Not Permit Christians Living Among Us to Impose Theirs"
In his column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, reformist writer Yousef Ibrahim calls upon Muslim immigrants to recognize the secularism of their non-Muslim host countries and not to try to impose their Islamic values on the secular majority. [1]
The following are excerpts from his column:
"When Foreigners Come to Islamic Countries… We Insist That They Respect Our Traditions"
"Something important happened recently in Australia that made us ask ourselves, Who are we and what is our attitude towards others?
"When foreigners come to Islamic countries to work, live, or visit, we insist that they respect our Islamic and Arab traditions. We also expect foreign workers in our countries to respect the customs of our religion, and sometimes we even go overboard and demand that their wives cover their heads with a veil, and demand that they not eat in public during the days of Ramadan, and refrain from eating pork, drinking wine, and the like… In all the Islamic countries, anyone accused of harming the sensibilities of the native residents is punished, deported, or imprisoned…"
"Must the Muslim Be Entitled to Have More Than One Wife in America, Russia, Europe, or China?"
"The Muslims have every right to impose Islamic values on their peoples and in their lands, as long as they constitute the majority. The problem is, what happens when the Muslims are not the majority, as in America, Europe, Australia, and some countries in Asia[?]… Can Muslims who immigrate abroad insist on applying the laws of Islamic shari'a to themselves and to others even where it is clear that they are a minority? Can they challenge the secular cultures common in the Western societies [with demands], or resist the will of these societies to separate religion and state?…
"In a secular country, do Muslims have the right to build mosques, teach the Koran, or support the [Islamic] religious schools? Must the Muslim be entitled to have more than one wife in America, Russia, Europe, or China? Can they impose Koranic punishments in these [countries]?…
"In principle, this entire matter begins and ends with our views towards others, with the question of whether we think that others have rights or not, and with the question of whether Islam is a religion capable of coexisting in a secular society without being condescending towards others - particularly with regard to the civil laws in the Western democracies."
"It is Imperative That Our Muslim Brothers Living Abroad Share the Values of Those who Prefer Secularism"
"This brings us back to Australia. Last week, Australia's Conservative Prime Minister John Howard summoned to his office a large group of Muslim clerics from the Muslim community living in the continent, and presented them with an ultimatum. He said that Australia, which is fundamentally a land of immigrants, demands of everyone who resides in it… 'full allegiance' to the secular Australian constitution and not to any other law common in the countries whence the immigrants came...
"Just in case the words of the prime minister were not sufficiently clear, Treasurer Peter Costello added that the Muslim clerics must adhere to the secular laws, and that if they do not do so, they must leave Australia…
"The issue of 'live and let live' has turned into an existential issue [for Muslims living in non-Muslim countries]. In accordance with the current democratic values and with other values, the non-Muslim majority lives in systems based on separation of religion and state… Since it is not reasonable [to assume] that the situation will change… it is imperative that our Muslim brothers living abroad share the values of those who prefer secularism.
"Muslims living abroad cannot assume that they can impose their values - just as we do not permit Christians living among us to impose their values upon us…"
Comment: The mistake made by Howard is to talk with the imams. These dogs and snakes are the cause of the problems, not the solution.Squeeze them out from australia and only talk to those muslims who were born here and who are genuinely trying to be Australian.
Howard is too dumb to understand the need for cleverness in dealing with these dogs and snakes.
Is anyone actually awake in Canberra?
John Howard is mentioned in this article. As usual Howard is making the most basic mistake. Can you pick it?
April 19, 2006 No.1142
Reformist Columnist: "Muslims Living Abroad Cannot... Impose Their Values – Just as We Do Not Permit Christians Living Among Us to Impose Theirs"
In his column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, reformist writer Yousef Ibrahim calls upon Muslim immigrants to recognize the secularism of their non-Muslim host countries and not to try to impose their Islamic values on the secular majority. [1]
The following are excerpts from his column:
"When Foreigners Come to Islamic Countries… We Insist That They Respect Our Traditions"
"Something important happened recently in Australia that made us ask ourselves, Who are we and what is our attitude towards others?
"When foreigners come to Islamic countries to work, live, or visit, we insist that they respect our Islamic and Arab traditions. We also expect foreign workers in our countries to respect the customs of our religion, and sometimes we even go overboard and demand that their wives cover their heads with a veil, and demand that they not eat in public during the days of Ramadan, and refrain from eating pork, drinking wine, and the like… In all the Islamic countries, anyone accused of harming the sensibilities of the native residents is punished, deported, or imprisoned…"
"Must the Muslim Be Entitled to Have More Than One Wife in America, Russia, Europe, or China?"
"The Muslims have every right to impose Islamic values on their peoples and in their lands, as long as they constitute the majority. The problem is, what happens when the Muslims are not the majority, as in America, Europe, Australia, and some countries in Asia[?]… Can Muslims who immigrate abroad insist on applying the laws of Islamic shari'a to themselves and to others even where it is clear that they are a minority? Can they challenge the secular cultures common in the Western societies [with demands], or resist the will of these societies to separate religion and state?…
"In a secular country, do Muslims have the right to build mosques, teach the Koran, or support the [Islamic] religious schools? Must the Muslim be entitled to have more than one wife in America, Russia, Europe, or China? Can they impose Koranic punishments in these [countries]?…
"In principle, this entire matter begins and ends with our views towards others, with the question of whether we think that others have rights or not, and with the question of whether Islam is a religion capable of coexisting in a secular society without being condescending towards others - particularly with regard to the civil laws in the Western democracies."
"It is Imperative That Our Muslim Brothers Living Abroad Share the Values of Those who Prefer Secularism"
"This brings us back to Australia. Last week, Australia's Conservative Prime Minister John Howard summoned to his office a large group of Muslim clerics from the Muslim community living in the continent, and presented them with an ultimatum. He said that Australia, which is fundamentally a land of immigrants, demands of everyone who resides in it… 'full allegiance' to the secular Australian constitution and not to any other law common in the countries whence the immigrants came...
"Just in case the words of the prime minister were not sufficiently clear, Treasurer Peter Costello added that the Muslim clerics must adhere to the secular laws, and that if they do not do so, they must leave Australia…
"The issue of 'live and let live' has turned into an existential issue [for Muslims living in non-Muslim countries]. In accordance with the current democratic values and with other values, the non-Muslim majority lives in systems based on separation of religion and state… Since it is not reasonable [to assume] that the situation will change… it is imperative that our Muslim brothers living abroad share the values of those who prefer secularism.
"Muslims living abroad cannot assume that they can impose their values - just as we do not permit Christians living among us to impose their values upon us…"
Comment: The mistake made by Howard is to talk with the imams. These dogs and snakes are the cause of the problems, not the solution.Squeeze them out from australia and only talk to those muslims who were born here and who are genuinely trying to be Australian.
Howard is too dumb to understand the need for cleverness in dealing with these dogs and snakes.
Is anyone actually awake in Canberra?
Monday, April 24, 2006
'Muslim Women Are Not Just Collections Of Private Parts'
Note: No one says these sensible words better than an intelligent muslim. Read.
April 24, 2006 No.1144
Yemeni Reformist Writer Urges Muslim Women to Take Off the Veil
Reformist Yemeni columnist Dr. Elham Mane'a, who writes regularly for the reformist website www.metransparent.com , espouses improvement of women's status, freedom of thought, a rationalist approach to the religious sources, and the right of humans, as rational beings, to decide their own futures. In a recent article, Mane'a urged Muslim women to exercise free thought and to decide for themselves whether to wear the veil.
The following are excerpts from the article:(1)
Take Off the Veil, Sister
"I call on you, my Muslim sister, to take off the veil. This is an honest call... Its intention is not to defile you, nor to encourage you to [moral] lassitude. I call on you to exercise [free] thought and to use your own mind.
"You and your mind are sufficient. There is no need to search in books and in history, and there is no need to consult the opinions of the commentators... I request that you listen to my words and judge them without suspecting my intentions. After that, you are free. Free to choose [for yourself], to [shape] your own fate, and to do as you wish. You are your own master. You alone. No one but you has custody over you. After [you consider my words], don the veil or take it off – I will respect your decision. Ultimately, the decision must be yours...
"The wearing of the hijab in the Islamic world actually began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which made the veil obligatory for women – after the clerics succeeded in turning the tables on the middle class and the leftist groups, who paid with their blood to end the rule of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Since this revolution was the first true awakening in the region, it was considered by many to be an example worthy of imitation – both [the revolution itself] and the garb that the women began to wear...
"Another well-known factor is the increase in oil [sales], which enabled Saudi Arabia and wealthy Saudis to provide financial aid for the dissemination of Wahhabi Islamic religious propaganda, and to set up a gigantic media network which emphasized daily that the veil was obligatory. This religious Islamic propaganda meshed with the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the [thinking] of the Arab and Islamic parties that grew out of it. As a result, a new and strange kind of thinking spread through Muslim society, changing many [previous] behaviors and perceptions."
The Veil is a Political Issue
"The veil is, therefore, a political issue. In two countries [Iran and Saudi Arabia], the political elite rules in the name of religion, and strives to propagate its own model [of Islam] – while at the same time [using religion] to guarantee the legitimacy [of its rule]. Both these countries imposed the wearing of the veil on women, presenting it as a sign of piety, whether the women wanted to [wear it] or not.
"[It is should be noted that] the sole aim of Muslim Brotherhood's way of thinking is to take political power. However, since [this movement] uses religion as its justification, it also has to provide an example of [proper] 'Islamic behavior'..., and '[Islamic] dress' is a central part of this.
"The veil, then, is a political issue... yet the arguments and the methods used to convince women that there is an obligation [to wear the veil] have taken three forms... The first argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she covers up her feminine curves and protects men from licentiousness. The second argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she helps to establish a good society. The third argument claims that it is, in essence, a religious [duty].
"The first argument is based on the assumption that the Arab man is a lecherous animal that cannot control its urges, and therefore, one must be on guard against it. [The Arab man's] thoughts are controlled by sex, and therefore he cannot be relied on, and the woman's [seductive] parts must be covered in order to protect him from the devil inside him. This premise is unfair to the Arab man, whom we know as a brother, as a father, as a husband, and as a human being. He is capable of treating a woman as a human being, and not as a commodity to be used for pleasure. He is capable of controlling his urges – even though they exist and he is aware of their existence – just as a woman is capable of doing so..."
A Woman Can Elicit a Man's Respect by Her Behavior, Not by Covering Up
"This first argument also includes a humiliating premise about women, since it portrays the woman as nothing more than a sex tool – not as a human being but as [a collection of] private parts. She isn't [considered] a noble or thinking being, but rather a being whose every body part arouses urges, and which consists entirely of sexual parts – [including] her voice, her hair, and her body... This argument disregards the fact that a woman can cause a man, and anyone [else] around her, to respect her through her behavior and her attitude towards others, and not by covering her head and her body..."
The Religious Argument for Wearing the Veil is the Weakest of Them All
"The second argument is based the premise that there is a connection between wearing the veil and the establishment of a good society. According to this logic, a good society is one in which no intimate relations take place out of wedlock. However, this premise is at best mistaken, since, as a matter of fact, the societies that mandate the wearing of the veil and insist on segregation of the sexes are not those in which sex out of wedlock is least common. On the contrary, the forced segregation [of the sexes] has led to homosexual relations, as indicated by studies which show that the wearing of the veil in Arab and Islamic societies has not prevented some of the girls from having [sexual] relations out of wedlock. After that, they usually have surgery to reconstruct the hymen.
"The third argument rests on the premise that [Islam] has a firm position on the issue of the veil, while the fact is that there are many [different] religious texts on the subject. This abundance [of religious texts] has always existed. You, [the Muslim woman,] can read the texts for yourself, and need no intermediary. [When you read them] you will see that not only is there an abundance of texts, but that they also have numerous interpretations....
"As a matter of fact, the third argument, which claims that it is religion that imposes wearing the veil on women, is the weakest argument, since we never heard it before the late 1970s, and we didn't see it implemented until the orthodox interpretation of Islam became the most prevalent interpretation in the Arab and Muslim world.
"This is the rationale upon which I base my call to you. I implore you to consider my words and my request. I am not calling on you to stop praying, fasting, or believing in Allah. I call on you to take off the veil... I will respect your decision, whatever it may be. But ultimately, be yourself – a woman, and not [a collection of] private parts."
Endnote:
(1) www.metransparent.com , April 4, 2006.
Comment: Some major newspaper in Sydney could give a lot of help to the muslim communities in Australia by having this writer as a weekly commentator and 'giver of advice' to the muslims in Australia.
April 24, 2006 No.1144
Yemeni Reformist Writer Urges Muslim Women to Take Off the Veil
Reformist Yemeni columnist Dr. Elham Mane'a, who writes regularly for the reformist website www.metransparent.com , espouses improvement of women's status, freedom of thought, a rationalist approach to the religious sources, and the right of humans, as rational beings, to decide their own futures. In a recent article, Mane'a urged Muslim women to exercise free thought and to decide for themselves whether to wear the veil.
The following are excerpts from the article:(1)
Take Off the Veil, Sister
"I call on you, my Muslim sister, to take off the veil. This is an honest call... Its intention is not to defile you, nor to encourage you to [moral] lassitude. I call on you to exercise [free] thought and to use your own mind.
"You and your mind are sufficient. There is no need to search in books and in history, and there is no need to consult the opinions of the commentators... I request that you listen to my words and judge them without suspecting my intentions. After that, you are free. Free to choose [for yourself], to [shape] your own fate, and to do as you wish. You are your own master. You alone. No one but you has custody over you. After [you consider my words], don the veil or take it off – I will respect your decision. Ultimately, the decision must be yours...
"The wearing of the hijab in the Islamic world actually began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which made the veil obligatory for women – after the clerics succeeded in turning the tables on the middle class and the leftist groups, who paid with their blood to end the rule of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Since this revolution was the first true awakening in the region, it was considered by many to be an example worthy of imitation – both [the revolution itself] and the garb that the women began to wear...
"Another well-known factor is the increase in oil [sales], which enabled Saudi Arabia and wealthy Saudis to provide financial aid for the dissemination of Wahhabi Islamic religious propaganda, and to set up a gigantic media network which emphasized daily that the veil was obligatory. This religious Islamic propaganda meshed with the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the [thinking] of the Arab and Islamic parties that grew out of it. As a result, a new and strange kind of thinking spread through Muslim society, changing many [previous] behaviors and perceptions."
The Veil is a Political Issue
"The veil is, therefore, a political issue. In two countries [Iran and Saudi Arabia], the political elite rules in the name of religion, and strives to propagate its own model [of Islam] – while at the same time [using religion] to guarantee the legitimacy [of its rule]. Both these countries imposed the wearing of the veil on women, presenting it as a sign of piety, whether the women wanted to [wear it] or not.
"[It is should be noted that] the sole aim of Muslim Brotherhood's way of thinking is to take political power. However, since [this movement] uses religion as its justification, it also has to provide an example of [proper] 'Islamic behavior'..., and '[Islamic] dress' is a central part of this.
"The veil, then, is a political issue... yet the arguments and the methods used to convince women that there is an obligation [to wear the veil] have taken three forms... The first argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she covers up her feminine curves and protects men from licentiousness. The second argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she helps to establish a good society. The third argument claims that it is, in essence, a religious [duty].
"The first argument is based on the assumption that the Arab man is a lecherous animal that cannot control its urges, and therefore, one must be on guard against it. [The Arab man's] thoughts are controlled by sex, and therefore he cannot be relied on, and the woman's [seductive] parts must be covered in order to protect him from the devil inside him. This premise is unfair to the Arab man, whom we know as a brother, as a father, as a husband, and as a human being. He is capable of treating a woman as a human being, and not as a commodity to be used for pleasure. He is capable of controlling his urges – even though they exist and he is aware of their existence – just as a woman is capable of doing so..."
A Woman Can Elicit a Man's Respect by Her Behavior, Not by Covering Up
"This first argument also includes a humiliating premise about women, since it portrays the woman as nothing more than a sex tool – not as a human being but as [a collection of] private parts. She isn't [considered] a noble or thinking being, but rather a being whose every body part arouses urges, and which consists entirely of sexual parts – [including] her voice, her hair, and her body... This argument disregards the fact that a woman can cause a man, and anyone [else] around her, to respect her through her behavior and her attitude towards others, and not by covering her head and her body..."
The Religious Argument for Wearing the Veil is the Weakest of Them All
"The second argument is based the premise that there is a connection between wearing the veil and the establishment of a good society. According to this logic, a good society is one in which no intimate relations take place out of wedlock. However, this premise is at best mistaken, since, as a matter of fact, the societies that mandate the wearing of the veil and insist on segregation of the sexes are not those in which sex out of wedlock is least common. On the contrary, the forced segregation [of the sexes] has led to homosexual relations, as indicated by studies which show that the wearing of the veil in Arab and Islamic societies has not prevented some of the girls from having [sexual] relations out of wedlock. After that, they usually have surgery to reconstruct the hymen.
"The third argument rests on the premise that [Islam] has a firm position on the issue of the veil, while the fact is that there are many [different] religious texts on the subject. This abundance [of religious texts] has always existed. You, [the Muslim woman,] can read the texts for yourself, and need no intermediary. [When you read them] you will see that not only is there an abundance of texts, but that they also have numerous interpretations....
"As a matter of fact, the third argument, which claims that it is religion that imposes wearing the veil on women, is the weakest argument, since we never heard it before the late 1970s, and we didn't see it implemented until the orthodox interpretation of Islam became the most prevalent interpretation in the Arab and Muslim world.
"This is the rationale upon which I base my call to you. I implore you to consider my words and my request. I am not calling on you to stop praying, fasting, or believing in Allah. I call on you to take off the veil... I will respect your decision, whatever it may be. But ultimately, be yourself – a woman, and not [a collection of] private parts."
Endnote:
(1) www.metransparent.com , April 4, 2006.
Comment: Some major newspaper in Sydney could give a lot of help to the muslim communities in Australia by having this writer as a weekly commentator and 'giver of advice' to the muslims in Australia.
A Muslim Woman Is 'Not Just A Collection Of Private Parts'.
Note: This well known muslim writer from Yemen exposes nicely the real politics behind the hijab stunt pulled by so many muslim women; he also demolishes the faux religious arguments for the hijab.
Read it all below.
April 24, 2006 No.1144
Yemeni Reformist Writer Urges Muslim Women to Take Off the Veil
Reformist Yemeni columnist Dr. Elham Mane'a, who writes regularly for the reformist website www.metransparent.com , espouses improvement of women's status, freedom of thought, a rationalist approach to the religious sources, and the right of humans, as rational beings, to decide their own futures. In a recent article, Mane'a urged Muslim women to exercise free thought and to decide for themselves whether to wear the veil.
The following are excerpts from the article:(1)
Take Off the Veil, Sister
"I call on you, my Muslim sister, to take off the veil. This is an honest call... Its intention is not to defile you, nor to encourage you to [moral] lassitude. I call on you to exercise [free] thought and to use your own mind.
"You and your mind are sufficient. There is no need to search in books and in history, and there is no need to consult the opinions of the commentators... I request that you listen to my words and judge them without suspecting my intentions. After that, you are free. Free to choose [for yourself], to [shape] your own fate, and to do as you wish. You are your own master. You alone. No one but you has custody over you. After [you consider my words], don the veil or take it off – I will respect your decision. Ultimately, the decision must be yours...
"The wearing of the hijab in the Islamic world actually began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which made the veil obligatory for women – after the clerics succeeded in turning the tables on the middle class and the leftist groups, who paid with their blood to end the rule of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Since this revolution was the first true awakening in the region, it was considered by many to be an example worthy of imitation – both [the revolution itself] and the garb that the women began to wear...
"Another well-known factor is the increase in oil [sales], which enabled Saudi Arabia and wealthy Saudis to provide financial aid for the dissemination of Wahhabi Islamic religious propaganda, and to set up a gigantic media network which emphasized daily that the veil was obligatory. This religious Islamic propaganda meshed with the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the [thinking] of the Arab and Islamic parties that grew out of it. As a result, a new and strange kind of thinking spread through Muslim society, changing many [previous] behaviors and perceptions."
The Veil is a Political Issue
"The veil is, therefore, a political issue. In two countries [Iran and Saudi Arabia], the political elite rules in the name of religion, and strives to propagate its own model [of Islam] – while at the same time [using religion] to guarantee the legitimacy [of its rule]. Both these countries imposed the wearing of the veil on women, presenting it as a sign of piety, whether the women wanted to [wear it] or not.
"[It is should be noted that] the sole aim of Muslim Brotherhood's way of thinking is to take political power. However, since [this movement] uses religion as its justification, it also has to provide an example of [proper] 'Islamic behavior'..., and '[Islamic] dress' is a central part of this.
"The veil, then, is a political issue... yet the arguments and the methods used to convince women that there is an obligation [to wear the veil] have taken three forms... The first argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she covers up her feminine curves and protects men from licentiousness. The second argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she helps to establish a good society. The third argument claims that it is, in essence, a religious [duty].
"The first argument is based on the assumption that the Arab man is a lecherous animal that cannot control its urges, and therefore, one must be on guard against it. [The Arab man's] thoughts are controlled by sex, and therefore he cannot be relied on, and the woman's [seductive] parts must be covered in order to protect him from the devil inside him. This premise is unfair to the Arab man, whom we know as a brother, as a father, as a husband, and as a human being. He is capable of treating a woman as a human being, and not as a commodity to be used for pleasure. He is capable of controlling his urges – even though they exist and he is aware of their existence – just as a woman is capable of doing so..."
A Woman Can Elicit a Man's Respect by Her Behavior, Not by Covering Up
"This first argument also includes a humiliating premise about women, since it portrays the woman as nothing more than a sex tool – not as a human being but as [a collection of] private parts. She isn't [considered] a noble or thinking being, but rather a being whose every body part arouses urges, and which consists entirely of sexual parts – [including] her voice, her hair, and her body... This argument disregards the fact that a woman can cause a man, and anyone [else] around her, to respect her through her behavior and her attitude towards others, and not by covering her head and her body..."
The Religious Argument for Wearing the Veil is the Weakest of Them All
"The second argument is based the premise that there is a connection between wearing the veil and the establishment of a good society. According to this logic, a good society is one in which no intimate relations take place out of wedlock. However, this premise is at best mistaken, since, as a matter of fact, the societies that mandate the wearing of the veil and insist on segregation of the sexes are not those in which sex out of wedlock is least common. On the contrary, the forced segregation [of the sexes] has led to homosexual relations, as indicated by studies which show that the wearing of the veil in Arab and Islamic societies has not prevented some of the girls from having [sexual] relations out of wedlock. After that, they usually have surgery to reconstruct the hymen.
"The third argument rests on the premise that [Islam] has a firm position on the issue of the veil, while the fact is that there are many [different] religious texts on the subject. This abundance [of religious texts] has always existed. You, [the Muslim woman,] can read the texts for yourself, and need no intermediary. [When you read them] you will see that not only is there an abundance of texts, but that they also have numerous interpretations....
"As a matter of fact, the third argument, which claims that it is religion that imposes wearing the veil on women, is the weakest argument, since we never heard it before the late 1970s, and we didn't see it implemented until the orthodox interpretation of Islam became the most prevalent interpretation in the Arab and Muslim world.
"This is the rationale upon which I base my call to you. I implore you to consider my words and my request. I am not calling on you to stop praying, fasting, or believing in Allah. I call on you to take off the veil... I will respect your decision, whatever it may be. But ultimately, be yourself – a woman, and not [a collection of] private parts."
Endnote:
(1) www.metransparent.com , April 4, 2006.
Comment: Why can't the governments in Australia find out about muslim writers like this man from Yemen? He has more to offer Australia and muslims in Australia, than any of the Australia hating 62 imams who are already here.
The views expressed here are, of course, unavailable to the muslims in Australia. Censorship is the norm in 'muslim Australia'. Is it possible to fight this tyranny of censorship?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Read it all below.
April 24, 2006 No.1144
Yemeni Reformist Writer Urges Muslim Women to Take Off the Veil
Reformist Yemeni columnist Dr. Elham Mane'a, who writes regularly for the reformist website www.metransparent.com , espouses improvement of women's status, freedom of thought, a rationalist approach to the religious sources, and the right of humans, as rational beings, to decide their own futures. In a recent article, Mane'a urged Muslim women to exercise free thought and to decide for themselves whether to wear the veil.
The following are excerpts from the article:(1)
Take Off the Veil, Sister
"I call on you, my Muslim sister, to take off the veil. This is an honest call... Its intention is not to defile you, nor to encourage you to [moral] lassitude. I call on you to exercise [free] thought and to use your own mind.
"You and your mind are sufficient. There is no need to search in books and in history, and there is no need to consult the opinions of the commentators... I request that you listen to my words and judge them without suspecting my intentions. After that, you are free. Free to choose [for yourself], to [shape] your own fate, and to do as you wish. You are your own master. You alone. No one but you has custody over you. After [you consider my words], don the veil or take it off – I will respect your decision. Ultimately, the decision must be yours...
"The wearing of the hijab in the Islamic world actually began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which made the veil obligatory for women – after the clerics succeeded in turning the tables on the middle class and the leftist groups, who paid with their blood to end the rule of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Since this revolution was the first true awakening in the region, it was considered by many to be an example worthy of imitation – both [the revolution itself] and the garb that the women began to wear...
"Another well-known factor is the increase in oil [sales], which enabled Saudi Arabia and wealthy Saudis to provide financial aid for the dissemination of Wahhabi Islamic religious propaganda, and to set up a gigantic media network which emphasized daily that the veil was obligatory. This religious Islamic propaganda meshed with the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the [thinking] of the Arab and Islamic parties that grew out of it. As a result, a new and strange kind of thinking spread through Muslim society, changing many [previous] behaviors and perceptions."
The Veil is a Political Issue
"The veil is, therefore, a political issue. In two countries [Iran and Saudi Arabia], the political elite rules in the name of religion, and strives to propagate its own model [of Islam] – while at the same time [using religion] to guarantee the legitimacy [of its rule]. Both these countries imposed the wearing of the veil on women, presenting it as a sign of piety, whether the women wanted to [wear it] or not.
"[It is should be noted that] the sole aim of Muslim Brotherhood's way of thinking is to take political power. However, since [this movement] uses religion as its justification, it also has to provide an example of [proper] 'Islamic behavior'..., and '[Islamic] dress' is a central part of this.
"The veil, then, is a political issue... yet the arguments and the methods used to convince women that there is an obligation [to wear the veil] have taken three forms... The first argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she covers up her feminine curves and protects men from licentiousness. The second argument claims that when a woman wears the veil, she helps to establish a good society. The third argument claims that it is, in essence, a religious [duty].
"The first argument is based on the assumption that the Arab man is a lecherous animal that cannot control its urges, and therefore, one must be on guard against it. [The Arab man's] thoughts are controlled by sex, and therefore he cannot be relied on, and the woman's [seductive] parts must be covered in order to protect him from the devil inside him. This premise is unfair to the Arab man, whom we know as a brother, as a father, as a husband, and as a human being. He is capable of treating a woman as a human being, and not as a commodity to be used for pleasure. He is capable of controlling his urges – even though they exist and he is aware of their existence – just as a woman is capable of doing so..."
A Woman Can Elicit a Man's Respect by Her Behavior, Not by Covering Up
"This first argument also includes a humiliating premise about women, since it portrays the woman as nothing more than a sex tool – not as a human being but as [a collection of] private parts. She isn't [considered] a noble or thinking being, but rather a being whose every body part arouses urges, and which consists entirely of sexual parts – [including] her voice, her hair, and her body... This argument disregards the fact that a woman can cause a man, and anyone [else] around her, to respect her through her behavior and her attitude towards others, and not by covering her head and her body..."
The Religious Argument for Wearing the Veil is the Weakest of Them All
"The second argument is based the premise that there is a connection between wearing the veil and the establishment of a good society. According to this logic, a good society is one in which no intimate relations take place out of wedlock. However, this premise is at best mistaken, since, as a matter of fact, the societies that mandate the wearing of the veil and insist on segregation of the sexes are not those in which sex out of wedlock is least common. On the contrary, the forced segregation [of the sexes] has led to homosexual relations, as indicated by studies which show that the wearing of the veil in Arab and Islamic societies has not prevented some of the girls from having [sexual] relations out of wedlock. After that, they usually have surgery to reconstruct the hymen.
"The third argument rests on the premise that [Islam] has a firm position on the issue of the veil, while the fact is that there are many [different] religious texts on the subject. This abundance [of religious texts] has always existed. You, [the Muslim woman,] can read the texts for yourself, and need no intermediary. [When you read them] you will see that not only is there an abundance of texts, but that they also have numerous interpretations....
"As a matter of fact, the third argument, which claims that it is religion that imposes wearing the veil on women, is the weakest argument, since we never heard it before the late 1970s, and we didn't see it implemented until the orthodox interpretation of Islam became the most prevalent interpretation in the Arab and Muslim world.
"This is the rationale upon which I base my call to you. I implore you to consider my words and my request. I am not calling on you to stop praying, fasting, or believing in Allah. I call on you to take off the veil... I will respect your decision, whatever it may be. But ultimately, be yourself – a woman, and not [a collection of] private parts."
Endnote:
(1) www.metransparent.com , April 4, 2006.
Comment: Why can't the governments in Australia find out about muslim writers like this man from Yemen? He has more to offer Australia and muslims in Australia, than any of the Australia hating 62 imams who are already here.
The views expressed here are, of course, unavailable to the muslims in Australia. Censorship is the norm in 'muslim Australia'. Is it possible to fight this tyranny of censorship?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Sunday, April 23, 2006
A Scene Coming To Sydney?
The story below is current. This is a distinct possibility when one considers the activities of muslim agitators who are loose in Sydney now.
I have included here in this post the 'Comment' from my previous post about Miranda Devine's article. Her article should be read.
Comment: This good article (by Miranda Devine) doesn't suggest any approach to dealing with the problem.
Here is the policy to follow:
1. Ban Wahhabi and Salafi Islam, and all groups like Hizb ut Tahrir, in Australia. Cancel the visas of Australia based Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris and deport them. Put Australian citizen Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris under the supervision which is legal under the Terrorism Laws.
2. Prevent all 'Islamic lecturers' coming into Australia. Exemptions require the permission of the Cabinet.
3. Open DIMA bookshops in areas of large muslim residence and make available, in english and arabic all the critical publications that are unavailable in muslim countries. Critical in every field.
4. Compel all arabic and muslim publications to provide a page, at commercial rates, to articles written by a section of specialist writers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(Points 3 and 4 are part of an essential program to breakdown the abysmal ignorance within the muslim communities about a wide variety of matters. Censorship is absolutely vital for Islamists in their current struggle to conquer the Australian sunni muslim community. Break this down.)
5. Spread the muslim school students around the school system. We have a good bus and train system to make this possible. Allowing big groups of muslims to grow in particular schools is now dangerous for their education as Australians.
(It is vital to have a 'behind closed doors' conference of teachers from schools where there are big groups of muslims. The conference has to allow the teachers to tell the truth when they come up to the microphone. No PC rubbish, no screams of 'racism', none of the usual techniques used to prevent unpleasant truths being spoken. Have it on a weekend, and require MPs state and federal to attend...3 line whip.)
6. Enforce the school uniform. End all exemptions that are not medically based. The schools exist to produce Australians. Your religion is your affair, not the school's. Students must wear the uniform of their school not the political uniform of Islam.
7. Get some sensible disciplinary tools into the hands of the authorities at school.
eg. Students dismissed from school should be ineligible for Centrelink payments until they are 21. As about 47% of muslim boys are unemployed, this will be a 'pause for thought' moment for them. Perhaps.
8. Have all applications for migration to Australia from religious muslims dealt with by a special group in Dima. Religious muslims in muslim countries wear a uniform, they are readily identifiable. We shouldn't hide the fact internationally that religious muslims are NOT high on our 'desireable migrants' list.
9. Insist that no 'pilgrim visas' to Saudi Arabia (the intellectual and financial centre of all the trouble) be given out to muslims in Australia under 50 years of age. Certain imams in Australia have the concession to give these out. They will co-operate or they will go.
10. No visas AT ALL for the spouses of Australian muslims who go abroad to find a spouse. If the marriage is genuine the Australian partner can live happily with the new spouse in the muslim country where the spouse was found/bought/arranged.(Such a rule would be a great blessing for all those poor muslim kids, boys and girls, who are actually forced to marry someone from the 'old country' when they would rather make their own choice from what is available in Australia. This happened last year to a muslim mate of mine.)
Australian muslims have to be presented very clearly with the option that it is our way...or the highway.(I suspect that the majority of muslims here would welcome such laws and rules, as these would help them fight off the attacks of the muslim nazis like Tahrir, who seek to conquer them and run their lives, 'a la Taliban'.)
These policies were unnecessary for other migrant groups because they never organised meetings in Bankstown called:
'Should (Italians/Greeks/Vietnamese/Maltese/etc)Subscribe to Australian Values?'
Sadly this 10 point policy is now necessary because of the misbehaviour of many muslims in Australia. The policy would materially help the 2/3rds of muslims in Australia who do not want to be slaves of crazy and backward imams and Tahriri islamists.
Why can't policy be helpful to the ordinary muslim, who wants to live an ordinary life in Australia? Why must Australian authorities always have 'non policies' that, in effect, actively assist the islamists and the backward in the muslim communities to control and oppress the majority of ordinary muslims in Australia?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Now read below 'A Scene Coming To Sydney?'
'I Cannot Say Where This Hatred Comes'
I can. But anyway, here is a vivid report on the recent attacks on churches in Egypt. From the New York Sun, with thanks to all who sent this in:
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt - In temporary offices near the Virgin Mary Church in the Asafra neighborhood here, Father Bejimey Shawky catalogs the damage the Muslim rioters wrought.
First they smashed his church's windows.Then they unhinged the rear door.
The pious Muslim looters broke the electrical switch for the air-conditioner. They burned the anteroom near the main hall reserved for baptism; they burned the father's offices, and they burned the cupboards and shelves that contained the church's library.
"I cannot say where this hatred comes from," Father Bejimey said, his voice low and weary. "We have coexisted for generations."
The church, which smelled faintly of smoke, was barely fit for worship. But Father Bejimey's flock turned out every night for the evening service between the Coptic Palm and Easter Sundays to recite lines from the Gospel and remember Christ's last week before the crucifixion. A few members of the congregation had bandages on their arms and legs from the clashes two days before....
One of the elders at the church yesterday said the funeral procession turned into anarchy the moment the mourners bared the cross. "When the Muslim youths saw the cross in the sky, and the people saw our soul, the animosity in their hearts became evident," Talat Megala said.
Four other Christian eyewitnesses confirmed this account. A Muslim eyewitness, however, did not recall the moment the rival demonstrations turned violent.
Interesting: this account would be in line with traditional dhimmi laws forbidding Christians to display the cross in public.
I have included here in this post the 'Comment' from my previous post about Miranda Devine's article. Her article should be read.
Comment: This good article (by Miranda Devine) doesn't suggest any approach to dealing with the problem.
Here is the policy to follow:
1. Ban Wahhabi and Salafi Islam, and all groups like Hizb ut Tahrir, in Australia. Cancel the visas of Australia based Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris and deport them. Put Australian citizen Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris under the supervision which is legal under the Terrorism Laws.
2. Prevent all 'Islamic lecturers' coming into Australia. Exemptions require the permission of the Cabinet.
3. Open DIMA bookshops in areas of large muslim residence and make available, in english and arabic all the critical publications that are unavailable in muslim countries. Critical in every field.
4. Compel all arabic and muslim publications to provide a page, at commercial rates, to articles written by a section of specialist writers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(Points 3 and 4 are part of an essential program to breakdown the abysmal ignorance within the muslim communities about a wide variety of matters. Censorship is absolutely vital for Islamists in their current struggle to conquer the Australian sunni muslim community. Break this down.)
5. Spread the muslim school students around the school system. We have a good bus and train system to make this possible. Allowing big groups of muslims to grow in particular schools is now dangerous for their education as Australians.
(It is vital to have a 'behind closed doors' conference of teachers from schools where there are big groups of muslims. The conference has to allow the teachers to tell the truth when they come up to the microphone. No PC rubbish, no screams of 'racism', none of the usual techniques used to prevent unpleasant truths being spoken. Have it on a weekend, and require MPs state and federal to attend...3 line whip.)
6. Enforce the school uniform. End all exemptions that are not medically based. The schools exist to produce Australians. Your religion is your affair, not the school's. Students must wear the uniform of their school not the political uniform of Islam.
7. Get some sensible disciplinary tools into the hands of the authorities at school.
eg. Students dismissed from school should be ineligible for Centrelink payments until they are 21. As about 47% of muslim boys are unemployed, this will be a 'pause for thought' moment for them. Perhaps.
8. Have all applications for migration to Australia from religious muslims dealt with by a special group in Dima. Religious muslims in muslim countries wear a uniform, they are readily identifiable. We shouldn't hide the fact internationally that religious muslims are NOT high on our 'desireable migrants' list.
9. Insist that no 'pilgrim visas' to Saudi Arabia (the intellectual and financial centre of all the trouble) be given out to muslims in Australia under 50 years of age. Certain imams in Australia have the concession to give these out. They will co-operate or they will go.
10. No visas AT ALL for the spouses of Australian muslims who go abroad to find a spouse. If the marriage is genuine the Australian partner can live happily with the new spouse in the muslim country where the spouse was found/bought/arranged.(Such a rule would be a great blessing for all those poor muslim kids, boys and girls, who are actually forced to marry someone from the 'old country' when they would rather make their own choice from what is available in Australia. This happened last year to a muslim mate of mine.)
Australian muslims have to be presented very clearly with the option that it is our way...or the highway.(I suspect that the majority of muslims here would welcome such laws and rules, as these would help them fight off the attacks of the muslim nazis like Tahrir, who seek to conquer them and run their lives, 'a la Taliban'.)
These policies were unnecessary for other migrant groups because they never organised meetings in Bankstown called:
'Should (Italians/Greeks/Vietnamese/Maltese/etc)Subscribe to Australian Values?'
Sadly this 10 point policy is now necessary because of the misbehaviour of many muslims in Australia. The policy would materially help the 2/3rds of muslims in Australia who do not want to be slaves of crazy and backward imams and Tahriri islamists.
Why can't policy be helpful to the ordinary muslim, who wants to live an ordinary life in Australia? Why must Australian authorities always have 'non policies' that, in effect, actively assist the islamists and the backward in the muslim communities to control and oppress the majority of ordinary muslims in Australia?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Now read below 'A Scene Coming To Sydney?'
'I Cannot Say Where This Hatred Comes'
I can. But anyway, here is a vivid report on the recent attacks on churches in Egypt. From the New York Sun, with thanks to all who sent this in:
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt - In temporary offices near the Virgin Mary Church in the Asafra neighborhood here, Father Bejimey Shawky catalogs the damage the Muslim rioters wrought.
First they smashed his church's windows.Then they unhinged the rear door.
The pious Muslim looters broke the electrical switch for the air-conditioner. They burned the anteroom near the main hall reserved for baptism; they burned the father's offices, and they burned the cupboards and shelves that contained the church's library.
"I cannot say where this hatred comes from," Father Bejimey said, his voice low and weary. "We have coexisted for generations."
The church, which smelled faintly of smoke, was barely fit for worship. But Father Bejimey's flock turned out every night for the evening service between the Coptic Palm and Easter Sundays to recite lines from the Gospel and remember Christ's last week before the crucifixion. A few members of the congregation had bandages on their arms and legs from the clashes two days before....
One of the elders at the church yesterday said the funeral procession turned into anarchy the moment the mourners bared the cross. "When the Muslim youths saw the cross in the sky, and the people saw our soul, the animosity in their hearts became evident," Talat Megala said.
Four other Christian eyewitnesses confirmed this account. A Muslim eyewitness, however, did not recall the moment the rival demonstrations turned violent.
Interesting: this account would be in line with traditional dhimmi laws forbidding Christians to display the cross in public.
Behold ! The Result Of Neglect. Thank You Miranda Devine.
Note: This timely article from Miranda Devine is a very useful addition to the public consciousness of this, now arrived,serious problem. More journalists have to follow her and Andrew Bolt and write! write! write! about this problem. Not once a month, but every day. Problems don't go away by ignoring them, ask any cancer patient.
Politicians in Sydney and Canberra, on both sides, are to blame for this development.(Take a pie in the face,Bob Carr;take a kick in the bum, John Howard). Unfortunately the incompetent policies which have lead to this situation will be maintained by the imbeciles still in charge. The principal policy is...'have no policy at all, you might get criticised by the greens!'
Now the situation will get worse, as the hopeless 'she'll be right' paradigm falls into place.
Miranda Devine deserves praise for fighting this boneheaded approach.
Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission
By Miranda Devine
April 23, 2006
There is a new wave of sophisticated, articulate Islamic fundamentalists trying to spread the word among moderate Muslims in Sydney. Young men, wearing regular clothes, with neatly trimmed beards, broad Australian accents and fluent in Arabic, they appear to be fully assimilated, second-generation Australians.
But they belong to a political group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) that calls for the creation of a global Islamic state, or caliphate, under strict sharia law.
The message from these young men is one of division, non-assimilation and rejection of the values of the "kafir" - non-Muslims.
At a public lecture at Bankstown Town Hall earlier this month, Hizb ut-Tahrir organiser Soadad Doureihi, his brother Wassim, and Usman Badar, president of Sydney University's Muslim Student Association in 2005, outlined their utopian goal of the ultimate overthrow of Western democracies.
"Islam can never coexist one under the other or one within the other," Soadad told the crowd. "When the state is established, when people see the mercy of Islam they embrace Islam in droves."
The April 8 lecture, to about 200 men and 50 women, was titled "Should Muslims Subscribe to Australian Values?"
Banned in Britain, Germany, Holland, Russia, and much of the Muslim world, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) has been invited to speak at Sydney Boys High at least twice, and often addresses students at Sydney University.
Borrowing its methodology and ideology from Marxist-Leninist groups, HT calls itself a political party which works to "change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society", its website says.
It opposes integration and assimilation of Muslims into Australian society.
Wassim told the Bankstown crowd: "The pushing to integration and assimilation is to get us to think and believe and feel in a certain way that Islam will not condone.
"On the collective level everyone accepts you have to have one set of laws and no Muslim in this country is demanding today the implementation of sharia law.
"In this country, yes, we believe this is the best way forward but . . . our current struggle is the implementation of Islamic law in the Muslim world and that will serve as a model for the rest of humanity. [But] if governments want to interfere in the individual, personal affairs of any citizen, they are going to create the conditions of civil unrest and chaos like in France."
Soadad had a message for youth: "They must be aware of the plot of the kafir, the plot of the Western society to enforce on them a palatable Islam . . . Secularism is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim. Democracy is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim also."
HT says it advocates non-violence, and yet, terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told a conference in 2004, "key members of the al-Qaeda organisation [such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] formerly belonged to the HT organisation . . .
"The upper echelons of organisations of key interest to us, operating at a violent, extremist, radical level, consist of former members of HT."
In Australia, HT's threat is its anti-integration message.
An audience member in Bankstown asked: "The reality is many of us live in Australia as citizens. We or our parents and families have accepted this citizenship with the full knowledge of Australia's social construction and her values. Can we not as Muslims hold these Australian values [while] keeping our Islam intact?"
Badar, a graduate of Malek Fahd Islamic High School in Chullora, who was such a good student he appeared on the 2002 HSC all-rounders list, answered: "It comes back to the theory that Western values, their opposition, the conflict is so clear, so stark there is no middle ground.
"How do you come to middle ground on whether sovereignty belongs to the people or to Allah? You can't.
"Yes, our parents came here. I wouldn't say they were fully aware of the Australian values and systems, way of life and so on . . . But what's more important is why did they come here? What were they running away from? Was the country in which they lived not providing for them? What was the cause of the conditions in that country?
"They were running away from the very same values . . . If you are saying they came here so we should accept or follow those values, there's a clear contradiction. The simple matter of fact is there is no middle ground."
No middle ground. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a fringe group, rejected by most Australian Muslim leaders. But its message is alluring to the disenfranchised. Is the answer to ban it? Wassim says the more the group is attacked, the more it grows. "The more we come under pressure the more we return closer to Islam."
Comment: This good article doesn't suggest any approach to dealing with the problem.
Here is the policy to follow:
1. Ban Wahhabi and Salafi Islam, and all groups like Hizb ut Tahrir, in Australia. Cancel the visas of Australia based Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris and deport them. Put Australian citizen Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris under the supervision which is legal under the Terrorism Laws.
2. Prevent all 'Islamic lecturers' coming into Australia. Exemptions require the permission of the Cabinet.
3. Open DIMA bookshops in areas of large muslim residence and make available, in english and arabic all the critical publications that are unavailable in muslim countries. Critical in every field.
4. Compel all arabic and muslim publications to provide a page, at commercial rates, to articles written by a section of specialist writers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(Points 3 and 4 are part of an essential program to breakdown the abysmal ignorance within the muslim communities about a wide variety of matters. Censorship is absolutely vital for Islamists in their current struggle to conquer the Australian sunni muslim community. Break this down.)
5. Spread the muslim school students around the school system. We have a good bus and train system to make this possible. Allowing big groups of muslims to grow in particular schools is now dangerous for their education as Australians.
(It is vital to have a 'behind closed doors' conference of teachers from schools where there are big groups of muslims. The conference has to allow the teachers to tell the truth when they come up to the microphone. No PC rubbish, no screams of 'racism', none of the usual techniques used to prevent unpleasant truths being spoken. Have it on a weekend, and require MPs state and federal to attend...3 line whip.)
6. Enforce the school uniform. End all exemptions that are not medically based. The schools exist to produce Australians. Your religion is your affair, not the school's. Students must wear the uniform of their school not the political uniform of Islam.
7. Get some sensible disciplinary tools into the hands of the authorities at school.
eg. Students dismissed from school should be ineligible for Centrelink payments until they are 21. As about 47% of muslim boys are unemployed, this will be a 'pause for thought' moment for them. Perhaps.
8. Have all applications for migration to Australia from religious muslims dealt with by a special group in Dima. Religious muslims in muslim countries wear a uniform, they are readily identifiable. We shouldn't hide the fact internationally that religious muslims are NOT high on our 'desireable migrants' list.
9. Insist that no 'pilgrim visas' to Saudi Arabia (the intellectual and financial centre of all the trouble) be given out to muslims in Australia under 50 years of age. Certain imams in Australia have the concession to give these out. They will co-operate or they will go.
10. No visas AT ALL for the spouses of Australian muslims who go abroad to find a spouse. If the marriage is genuine the Australian partner can live happily with the new spouse in the muslim country where the spouse was found/bought/arranged.(Such a rule would be a great blessing for all those poor muslim kids, boys and girls, who are actually forced to marry someone from the 'old country' when they would rather make their own choice from what is available in Australia. This happened last year to a muslim mate of mine.)
Australian muslims have to be presented very clearly with the option that it is our way...or the highway.(I suspect that the majority of muslims here would welcome such laws and rules, as these would help them fight off the attacks of the muslim nazis like Tahrir, who seek to conquer them and run their lives, 'a la Taliban'.)
These policies was unnecessary for other migrant groups because they never organised meetings in Bankstown called:
'Should (Italians/Greeks/Vietnamese/Maltese/etc)Subscribe to Australian Values?'
Sadly this 10 point policy is now necessary because of the misbehaviour of many muslims in Australia. The policy would materially help the 2/3rds of muslims in Australia who do not want to be slaves of crazy and backward imams and Tahriri islamists.
Why can't policy be helpful to the ordinary muslim, who wants to live an ordinary life in Australia? Why must Australian authorities always have 'non policies' that, in effect, actively assist the islamists and the backward in the muslim communities to control and oppress the majority of ordinary muslims in Australia?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Politicians in Sydney and Canberra, on both sides, are to blame for this development.(Take a pie in the face,Bob Carr;take a kick in the bum, John Howard). Unfortunately the incompetent policies which have lead to this situation will be maintained by the imbeciles still in charge. The principal policy is...'have no policy at all, you might get criticised by the greens!'
Now the situation will get worse, as the hopeless 'she'll be right' paradigm falls into place.
Miranda Devine deserves praise for fighting this boneheaded approach.
Wolves in sheep's clothing on an extremist Islamic mission
By Miranda Devine
April 23, 2006
There is a new wave of sophisticated, articulate Islamic fundamentalists trying to spread the word among moderate Muslims in Sydney. Young men, wearing regular clothes, with neatly trimmed beards, broad Australian accents and fluent in Arabic, they appear to be fully assimilated, second-generation Australians.
But they belong to a political group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) that calls for the creation of a global Islamic state, or caliphate, under strict sharia law.
The message from these young men is one of division, non-assimilation and rejection of the values of the "kafir" - non-Muslims.
At a public lecture at Bankstown Town Hall earlier this month, Hizb ut-Tahrir organiser Soadad Doureihi, his brother Wassim, and Usman Badar, president of Sydney University's Muslim Student Association in 2005, outlined their utopian goal of the ultimate overthrow of Western democracies.
"Islam can never coexist one under the other or one within the other," Soadad told the crowd. "When the state is established, when people see the mercy of Islam they embrace Islam in droves."
The April 8 lecture, to about 200 men and 50 women, was titled "Should Muslims Subscribe to Australian Values?"
Banned in Britain, Germany, Holland, Russia, and much of the Muslim world, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) has been invited to speak at Sydney Boys High at least twice, and often addresses students at Sydney University.
Borrowing its methodology and ideology from Marxist-Leninist groups, HT calls itself a political party which works to "change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society", its website says.
It opposes integration and assimilation of Muslims into Australian society.
Wassim told the Bankstown crowd: "The pushing to integration and assimilation is to get us to think and believe and feel in a certain way that Islam will not condone.
"On the collective level everyone accepts you have to have one set of laws and no Muslim in this country is demanding today the implementation of sharia law.
"In this country, yes, we believe this is the best way forward but . . . our current struggle is the implementation of Islamic law in the Muslim world and that will serve as a model for the rest of humanity. [But] if governments want to interfere in the individual, personal affairs of any citizen, they are going to create the conditions of civil unrest and chaos like in France."
Soadad had a message for youth: "They must be aware of the plot of the kafir, the plot of the Western society to enforce on them a palatable Islam . . . Secularism is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim. Democracy is a clear assault on the fundamental belief of a Muslim also."
HT says it advocates non-violence, and yet, terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told a conference in 2004, "key members of the al-Qaeda organisation [such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] formerly belonged to the HT organisation . . .
"The upper echelons of organisations of key interest to us, operating at a violent, extremist, radical level, consist of former members of HT."
In Australia, HT's threat is its anti-integration message.
An audience member in Bankstown asked: "The reality is many of us live in Australia as citizens. We or our parents and families have accepted this citizenship with the full knowledge of Australia's social construction and her values. Can we not as Muslims hold these Australian values [while] keeping our Islam intact?"
Badar, a graduate of Malek Fahd Islamic High School in Chullora, who was such a good student he appeared on the 2002 HSC all-rounders list, answered: "It comes back to the theory that Western values, their opposition, the conflict is so clear, so stark there is no middle ground.
"How do you come to middle ground on whether sovereignty belongs to the people or to Allah? You can't.
"Yes, our parents came here. I wouldn't say they were fully aware of the Australian values and systems, way of life and so on . . . But what's more important is why did they come here? What were they running away from? Was the country in which they lived not providing for them? What was the cause of the conditions in that country?
"They were running away from the very same values . . . If you are saying they came here so we should accept or follow those values, there's a clear contradiction. The simple matter of fact is there is no middle ground."
No middle ground. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a fringe group, rejected by most Australian Muslim leaders. But its message is alluring to the disenfranchised. Is the answer to ban it? Wassim says the more the group is attacked, the more it grows. "The more we come under pressure the more we return closer to Islam."
Comment: This good article doesn't suggest any approach to dealing with the problem.
Here is the policy to follow:
1. Ban Wahhabi and Salafi Islam, and all groups like Hizb ut Tahrir, in Australia. Cancel the visas of Australia based Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris and deport them. Put Australian citizen Wahhabis and Salafis and Tahriris under the supervision which is legal under the Terrorism Laws.
2. Prevent all 'Islamic lecturers' coming into Australia. Exemptions require the permission of the Cabinet.
3. Open DIMA bookshops in areas of large muslim residence and make available, in english and arabic all the critical publications that are unavailable in muslim countries. Critical in every field.
4. Compel all arabic and muslim publications to provide a page, at commercial rates, to articles written by a section of specialist writers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(Points 3 and 4 are part of an essential program to breakdown the abysmal ignorance within the muslim communities about a wide variety of matters. Censorship is absolutely vital for Islamists in their current struggle to conquer the Australian sunni muslim community. Break this down.)
5. Spread the muslim school students around the school system. We have a good bus and train system to make this possible. Allowing big groups of muslims to grow in particular schools is now dangerous for their education as Australians.
(It is vital to have a 'behind closed doors' conference of teachers from schools where there are big groups of muslims. The conference has to allow the teachers to tell the truth when they come up to the microphone. No PC rubbish, no screams of 'racism', none of the usual techniques used to prevent unpleasant truths being spoken. Have it on a weekend, and require MPs state and federal to attend...3 line whip.)
6. Enforce the school uniform. End all exemptions that are not medically based. The schools exist to produce Australians. Your religion is your affair, not the school's. Students must wear the uniform of their school not the political uniform of Islam.
7. Get some sensible disciplinary tools into the hands of the authorities at school.
eg. Students dismissed from school should be ineligible for Centrelink payments until they are 21. As about 47% of muslim boys are unemployed, this will be a 'pause for thought' moment for them. Perhaps.
8. Have all applications for migration to Australia from religious muslims dealt with by a special group in Dima. Religious muslims in muslim countries wear a uniform, they are readily identifiable. We shouldn't hide the fact internationally that religious muslims are NOT high on our 'desireable migrants' list.
9. Insist that no 'pilgrim visas' to Saudi Arabia (the intellectual and financial centre of all the trouble) be given out to muslims in Australia under 50 years of age. Certain imams in Australia have the concession to give these out. They will co-operate or they will go.
10. No visas AT ALL for the spouses of Australian muslims who go abroad to find a spouse. If the marriage is genuine the Australian partner can live happily with the new spouse in the muslim country where the spouse was found/bought/arranged.(Such a rule would be a great blessing for all those poor muslim kids, boys and girls, who are actually forced to marry someone from the 'old country' when they would rather make their own choice from what is available in Australia. This happened last year to a muslim mate of mine.)
Australian muslims have to be presented very clearly with the option that it is our way...or the highway.(I suspect that the majority of muslims here would welcome such laws and rules, as these would help them fight off the attacks of the muslim nazis like Tahrir, who seek to conquer them and run their lives, 'a la Taliban'.)
These policies was unnecessary for other migrant groups because they never organised meetings in Bankstown called:
'Should (Italians/Greeks/Vietnamese/Maltese/etc)Subscribe to Australian Values?'
Sadly this 10 point policy is now necessary because of the misbehaviour of many muslims in Australia. The policy would materially help the 2/3rds of muslims in Australia who do not want to be slaves of crazy and backward imams and Tahriri islamists.
Why can't policy be helpful to the ordinary muslim, who wants to live an ordinary life in Australia? Why must Australian authorities always have 'non policies' that, in effect, actively assist the islamists and the backward in the muslim communities to control and oppress the majority of ordinary muslims in Australia?
Is anyone awake in Canberra?
Saturday, April 22, 2006
There Is No Fear Of Islam In Australia.
Note: This lady member of the Dutch Parliament gives a brilliant interview. Readers are urged to send it around through their email connections.
'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician forced to go into hiding after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, responds to the Danish cartoon scandal, arguing that if Europe doesn't stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship of criticism of Islam that pervades in Holland will spread in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen, free speech.
SPIEGEL: Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film "Submission," which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. Can you understand how the Danish cartoonists feel at this point?
Hirsi Ali: "The cartoons should be displayed everywhere."
Hirsi Ali: They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the postwar generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again.
SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?
Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam - - and a target of radical fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attackers left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief period in hiding, the 36- year- old member of Dutch parliament from the neo- liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, "I Accuse," and is working on a sequel to "Submission."
Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia where she experienced the oppression of Muslim women first hand. When her father attempted to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to Holland in 1992. Later, she renounced the Muslim religion. more...
SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.
SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?
Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.
Hirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.
SPIEGEL: What will be the upshot of the storm of protests against the cartoons?
Hirsi Ali: We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.
SPIEGEL: Many have criticized the film as being too radical and too offensive.
Hirsi Ali: The criticism of van Gogh was legitimate. But when someone has to die for his world view, what he may have done wrong is no longer the issue. That's when we have to stand up for our basic rights. Otherwise we are just reinforcing the killer and conceding that there was a good reason to kill this person.
SPIEGEL: You too have been accused for your dogged criticism of Islam.
Hirsi Ali: Oddly enough, my critics never specify how far I can go. How can you address problems if you're not even allowed to clearly define them? Like the fact that Muslim women at home are kept locked up, are raped and are married off against their will -- and that in a country in which our far too passive intellectuals are so proud of their freedom!
SPIEGEL: The debate over speaking Dutch on the streets and the integration programs for potentially violent Moroccan youth -- do these things also represent the fruits of your provocations?
Hirsi Ali: The sharp criticism has finally triggered an open debate over our relationship with Muslim immigrants. We have become more conscious of things. For example, we are now classifying honor killings by the victims' countries of origin. And we're finally turning our attention to young girls who are sent against their wills from Morocco to Holland as brides, and adopting legislation to make this practice more difficult.
SPIEGEL: You're working on a sequel to "Submission." Will you stick to your uncompromising approach?
The Cartoon Jihad: Did European newspapers make the right decision by reprinting controversial Danish caricatures that disparagingly depicted the Prophet Muhammad?
Hirsi Ali: Yes, of course. We want to continue the debate over the Koran's claim to absoluteness, the infallibility of the Prophet and sexual morality. In the first part, we portrayed a woman who speaks to her god, complaining that despite the fact that she has abided by his rules and subjugated herself, she is still being abused by her uncle. The second part deals with the dilemma into which the Muslim faith plunges four different men. One hates Jews, the second one is gay, the third is a bon vivant who wants to be a good Muslim but repeatedly succumbs to life's temptations, and the fourth is a martyr. They all feel abandoned by their god and decide to stop worshipping him.
SPIEGEL: Will recent events make it more difficult to screen the film?
Hirsi Ali: The conditions couldn't be more difficult. We're forced to produce the film under complete anonymity. Everyone involved in the film, from actors to technicians, will be unrecognizable. But we are determined to complete the project. The director didn't really like van Gogh, but he believes that, for the sake of free speech, shooting the sequel is critical. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to premier the film this year.
SPIEGEL: Is the Koran's claim to absoluteness, which you criticize in "Submission," the central obstacle to reforming Islam?
Hirsi Ali: The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don't believe in hell, in the angels or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.
Comment: The sooner Australia starts producing people like this, from a muslim background, the sooner the excluded muslims in Australia will be welcomed inside. Simple really.
Any chance of getting an invitation to this member of parliament to do a speaking tour of Australia?
Anyone in Canberra awake?
'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician forced to go into hiding after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, responds to the Danish cartoon scandal, arguing that if Europe doesn't stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship of criticism of Islam that pervades in Holland will spread in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen, free speech.
SPIEGEL: Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film "Submission," which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. Can you understand how the Danish cartoonists feel at this point?
Hirsi Ali: "The cartoons should be displayed everywhere."
Hirsi Ali: They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the postwar generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again.
SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?
Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam - - and a target of radical fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attackers left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief period in hiding, the 36- year- old member of Dutch parliament from the neo- liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, "I Accuse," and is working on a sequel to "Submission."
Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia where she experienced the oppression of Muslim women first hand. When her father attempted to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to Holland in 1992. Later, she renounced the Muslim religion. more...
SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.
SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?
Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.
Hirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.
SPIEGEL: What will be the upshot of the storm of protests against the cartoons?
Hirsi Ali: We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.
SPIEGEL: Many have criticized the film as being too radical and too offensive.
Hirsi Ali: The criticism of van Gogh was legitimate. But when someone has to die for his world view, what he may have done wrong is no longer the issue. That's when we have to stand up for our basic rights. Otherwise we are just reinforcing the killer and conceding that there was a good reason to kill this person.
SPIEGEL: You too have been accused for your dogged criticism of Islam.
Hirsi Ali: Oddly enough, my critics never specify how far I can go. How can you address problems if you're not even allowed to clearly define them? Like the fact that Muslim women at home are kept locked up, are raped and are married off against their will -- and that in a country in which our far too passive intellectuals are so proud of their freedom!
SPIEGEL: The debate over speaking Dutch on the streets and the integration programs for potentially violent Moroccan youth -- do these things also represent the fruits of your provocations?
Hirsi Ali: The sharp criticism has finally triggered an open debate over our relationship with Muslim immigrants. We have become more conscious of things. For example, we are now classifying honor killings by the victims' countries of origin. And we're finally turning our attention to young girls who are sent against their wills from Morocco to Holland as brides, and adopting legislation to make this practice more difficult.
SPIEGEL: You're working on a sequel to "Submission." Will you stick to your uncompromising approach?
The Cartoon Jihad: Did European newspapers make the right decision by reprinting controversial Danish caricatures that disparagingly depicted the Prophet Muhammad?
Hirsi Ali: Yes, of course. We want to continue the debate over the Koran's claim to absoluteness, the infallibility of the Prophet and sexual morality. In the first part, we portrayed a woman who speaks to her god, complaining that despite the fact that she has abided by his rules and subjugated herself, she is still being abused by her uncle. The second part deals with the dilemma into which the Muslim faith plunges four different men. One hates Jews, the second one is gay, the third is a bon vivant who wants to be a good Muslim but repeatedly succumbs to life's temptations, and the fourth is a martyr. They all feel abandoned by their god and decide to stop worshipping him.
SPIEGEL: Will recent events make it more difficult to screen the film?
Hirsi Ali: The conditions couldn't be more difficult. We're forced to produce the film under complete anonymity. Everyone involved in the film, from actors to technicians, will be unrecognizable. But we are determined to complete the project. The director didn't really like van Gogh, but he believes that, for the sake of free speech, shooting the sequel is critical. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to premier the film this year.
SPIEGEL: Is the Koran's claim to absoluteness, which you criticize in "Submission," the central obstacle to reforming Islam?
Hirsi Ali: The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don't believe in hell, in the angels or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.
Comment: The sooner Australia starts producing people like this, from a muslim background, the sooner the excluded muslims in Australia will be welcomed inside. Simple really.
Any chance of getting an invitation to this member of parliament to do a speaking tour of Australia?
Anyone in Canberra awake?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
There Were No Muslims At Kokoda.
Note: When muslims in Australia whine the question 'What are Australian values?' you can now tell them to see the movie 'Kokoda'.
There were no muslims at Kokoda.
They have a very long way to go before they are 'Australians'. Maybe they should start on the journey, rather than sit at the feet of Wahhabi Nazi lecturers coming out from Egypt and Saudi Arabia (with visas provided by Senator 'Fatma' Vanstone) filling their minds with poison against Australia.
Kokoda Date 18/04/2006
Member rating 4/5
Mud and guts
By Henry Thornton.
As we left the theatre an old digger, not too steady on his feet, declaimed with passion: "This film should be shown in every bloody high school in Australia." Hear, Hear, digger!
Henry went with Goldmember and contributor Graeme Mills to see a preview of Kokoda on Easter Sunday. The imediate meditation was about the massive sacrifices demanded of the virtually untrained young men who stopped the Japanese on the Kokoda Trail and thereby prevented the invasion of Australia. These untrained "chocos" (chocolate soldiers) were meant to melt in the heat. They had been sent to New Guinea to unload ships and build roads, but were the only men available to try to stop the mighty Japanese war machine. "We have to make a stand. Can't budge an inch. We've got to die here ... all of us." an officer explains.
A second meditation was about the way that relations among countries can change in a generation, though not always for the better, as in the case of Australia and Japan. Our current friction with Indonesia is a relevant example.
The movie has been criticised for showing the story of one small unit that gets cut off from the main body of Australian soldiers and suffers badly as it finds its way back. This device provides a story line, and within this small story the whole story is told effectively. "The universe in a grain of sand."
This is a moving and graphic film, suitable only for people with strong stomachs. It has moments of great Aussie humour, for example when a digger gets a letter and expresses delight at the size of Richmond's defeat of Collingwood, or when the trained men of the AIF arrive and one of the the "chocos" asks, deadpan, "Got any food mate?" It has moments of great violence and presents more mud than blood, although more than enough of mud, blood and guts.
Comment: All nations are tribes. All tribes have their territory. Muslims and Arabs can understand these eternal facts.
There is an Australian tribe, and it has its territory. Not everyone who arrives becomes a tribe member from Day One. Effort and time and sacrifice make you a member of the Australian tribe; not a piece of paper signed by some Canberra public servant.
The men and boys who died at Kokoda didn't have or need 'a piece of paper'. They belonged to my tribe.
There were no muslims at Kokoda.
There were no muslims at Kokoda.
They have a very long way to go before they are 'Australians'. Maybe they should start on the journey, rather than sit at the feet of Wahhabi Nazi lecturers coming out from Egypt and Saudi Arabia (with visas provided by Senator 'Fatma' Vanstone) filling their minds with poison against Australia.
Kokoda Date 18/04/2006
Member rating 4/5
Mud and guts
By Henry Thornton.
As we left the theatre an old digger, not too steady on his feet, declaimed with passion: "This film should be shown in every bloody high school in Australia." Hear, Hear, digger!
Henry went with Goldmember and contributor Graeme Mills to see a preview of Kokoda on Easter Sunday. The imediate meditation was about the massive sacrifices demanded of the virtually untrained young men who stopped the Japanese on the Kokoda Trail and thereby prevented the invasion of Australia. These untrained "chocos" (chocolate soldiers) were meant to melt in the heat. They had been sent to New Guinea to unload ships and build roads, but were the only men available to try to stop the mighty Japanese war machine. "We have to make a stand. Can't budge an inch. We've got to die here ... all of us." an officer explains.
A second meditation was about the way that relations among countries can change in a generation, though not always for the better, as in the case of Australia and Japan. Our current friction with Indonesia is a relevant example.
The movie has been criticised for showing the story of one small unit that gets cut off from the main body of Australian soldiers and suffers badly as it finds its way back. This device provides a story line, and within this small story the whole story is told effectively. "The universe in a grain of sand."
This is a moving and graphic film, suitable only for people with strong stomachs. It has moments of great Aussie humour, for example when a digger gets a letter and expresses delight at the size of Richmond's defeat of Collingwood, or when the trained men of the AIF arrive and one of the the "chocos" asks, deadpan, "Got any food mate?" It has moments of great violence and presents more mud than blood, although more than enough of mud, blood and guts.
Comment: All nations are tribes. All tribes have their territory. Muslims and Arabs can understand these eternal facts.
There is an Australian tribe, and it has its territory. Not everyone who arrives becomes a tribe member from Day One. Effort and time and sacrifice make you a member of the Australian tribe; not a piece of paper signed by some Canberra public servant.
The men and boys who died at Kokoda didn't have or need 'a piece of paper'. They belonged to my tribe.
There were no muslims at Kokoda.
Islamic Nazism Speaks.
Note: This view is part of the common intellectual currency of the Islamic world in 2006. It is Nazism. Sharia law supports this world view.
Muslims in Australia have to come to some understanding of the Australian people...they will not accept Nazism.
The lady opposite holding the sign is, unfortunately, very much in the mainstream of muslim life. She agrees with the spokesman from Tehran; he agrees with her.
How can this mainstream blend with Australian life?
A Tehran-backed Islamic group is recruiting British suicide volunteers for attacks against Israel
April 19, 2006, 12:17 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign spokesman Mohammad Samadi told The Guardian that striking Israel was the first priority for recruits. “All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It is our land and they are in the wrong place,” he said. The fair for “martyrdom seekers” in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran are told to choose between “the Quds occupiers”, the British author Salman Rushdie or “the occupiers of Islamic lands” (the US and Britain). British passport-holders are sought out because they can enter Israel easily.
Comment: These are the views that are put to the simple muslim youth in Australia by the 'lecturers' from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. When will the Immigration Minister, Senator'Fatma' Vanstone take off her political burqa and do something useful for the muslims in Australia and ban both Wahhabi Islam in Australia and stop giving visas to these nazis coming here preaching Islamic Nazism?
Readers are advised to not hold their breath waiting for her to do something.
Is any politician awake in Canberra.
Muslims in Australia have to come to some understanding of the Australian people...they will not accept Nazism.
The lady opposite holding the sign is, unfortunately, very much in the mainstream of muslim life. She agrees with the spokesman from Tehran; he agrees with her.
How can this mainstream blend with Australian life?
A Tehran-backed Islamic group is recruiting British suicide volunteers for attacks against Israel
April 19, 2006, 12:17 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign spokesman Mohammad Samadi told The Guardian that striking Israel was the first priority for recruits. “All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It is our land and they are in the wrong place,” he said. The fair for “martyrdom seekers” in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran are told to choose between “the Quds occupiers”, the British author Salman Rushdie or “the occupiers of Islamic lands” (the US and Britain). British passport-holders are sought out because they can enter Israel easily.
Comment: These are the views that are put to the simple muslim youth in Australia by the 'lecturers' from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. When will the Immigration Minister, Senator'Fatma' Vanstone take off her political burqa and do something useful for the muslims in Australia and ban both Wahhabi Islam in Australia and stop giving visas to these nazis coming here preaching Islamic Nazism?
Readers are advised to not hold their breath waiting for her to do something.
Is any politician awake in Canberra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)