I couldn't believe it when I heard reading from the Qur'an could get you jail time in Victoria. No wonder CAIR sends them out free.

Posted by: Beagle at December 14, 2006 3:08 AM

Things are actually far worse and alarming.

(In India), when I greeted a christian friend with "Merry Christmas", a muslim resident of the same apartment glared at me and warned:

"Next time, you are not to say that, as God can have no Son". Idiocy is fatal.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 14, 2006 5:06 AM

Cudos to these two ministers. Clearly the "tribunal" was always going to have its idiotic ruling over-turned once it got to a real court - they just never thought it would get to court. Too bad for them that these pastors turned out to made of sterner stuff. Anti-dhimmis indeed.

Posted by: Brett_McS at December 14, 2006 7:09 AM

'God can have no Son'

Crows&Cows, some people clearly have NO idea of the True power of God.

Posted by: Gary at December 14, 2006 7:42 AM

from above:

"The tribunal agreed with the Islamic Council of Victoria that the church's conduct incited hatred against the Islamic faith. "

I would argue that many followers of the Islamic faith actively participate in car bombings, suicide attacks, beheadings, rapes, intimidation, arson, vandalism , civil misconduct,assaults, rocket launchings, mine laying, mortar attacks, drive-by shootings, assasinations at every level and other actions which could be considered as hatred against mankind or as hatred to anyone who is non Islamic.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 7:52 AM

AN appeal court has ruled that Victoria's first racial vilification case, involving a church accusing Muslims of training to take over Australia, must be heard again by a tribunal

America also has clueless courts, weak and mindless judges (including those on the Supreme Court) ( who tend to make law as opposed to intrepeting law).

But some are at least trying to do the right thing.

The Muslims have openly stated they intend to take over, undercover tapes from inside the mosque sermons have shown what is being preached behind closed doors----Accusing Muslims of training to take over is a no brainer, the Muslims openly boast of doing just that.

Insipid courts are led by Insipid judges.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 8:08 AM

If the truth is hateful, then so be it. The fact is Islam is a hateful philosophy-if it wasn't then nobody would have a problem with it, for it would peacefully coexist with all its neighbors. Shame on those who persecute those who speak this truth.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 14, 2006 8:49 AM

The full ruling of the Victorian Supreme Court is here.

Posted by: saint at December 14, 2006 9:21 AM

From the Islamic Council of Victoria website, I find:

The ICV recently established a position of Media Watch Officer, who is responsible for interfacing with mass media regarding all forms of individual, social, legal, economic, and political issues involving anti-Muslims and Islamic stereotypical views.

The major duties include:

Encounter media slander and vilification on Islam and Muslims and respond too all defamatory, discriminatory and anti-Muslim incidents.
Build positive relationships with local media.

But nowhere do I find them establishing anything regarding identification of Muslims creating violence or Muslims causing the Image of Muslims as evil people nor do I see them striving to publicly decry such "evil Muslims".

Islam is such a creature of misinformation.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 9:46 AM

What I want to say is that we must draw up law documents, in formal legal language - and practice verbal arguments that indicate it is NOT a matter of religion - but rather a tribal culture that is being imposed on the West. Every argument we've had so far, in opposing islam, is "not in the koran" - so say the moslems.

-female mutilation
-honor killing
-rape of women
-female infanticide
-severe wife-beatings

They not approved in the koran- So then it is a tribal culture they trying to impose on the West.

So far, the islamics and law courts here - for multiculturalism argue we're "islam-haters" ---
that's why opponents are losing. We've got to turn it around by presenting oppositions in other ways. Don't you think the minute we go on the defensive, we lose?

We must present cases as exactly that - "cultural" - NEVER the religions aspects - or even mention the word. In legal matters.

Allat

-

Posted by: allat at December 14, 2006 9:53 AM

wife beating?

A quote from Hadith Tirmzi:

If a woman’s conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)

A professional torturer can inflict much damage and not even leave a mark.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 10:45 AM

Allat,

I appreciate the thought that we need to work on the problem from a multifaceted approach. But to abandon illuminating that Islam, both a religion and a geopolitical supremicist movement, is associated with the increased incidence of many of the above, in fact in some circumstances promoting them, would be counterproductive, as well as falling into the PC model of reducing inquiry into and discussion of the tenets of Islam that are causative. (I have no information on female infanticide, I've never heard of this associated with Islam -- do tell if you do).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 14, 2006 10:56 AM

female infanticide-- I found this on an Islamic website:

In a time when women were devalued and female infants were buried alive, the Qur’an raised the value of women and prohibited female infanticide. Due to the Qur’an, this practice was abolished, but in recent times advances in the science of genetic selection has encouraged some unbelievers to practice a modern form of female infanticide.

THis paragraph indicates infanticide still occurs "but in recent times advances in the science of genetic selection has encouraged some unbelievers to practice a modern form of female infanticide."

WHatever that is supposed to mean.

The fact that female infanticide occurs, it cannot be denied that it does not.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 11:24 AM

exsgtbrown,

I believe, though, that the operative term is "unbeliever" -- they are accusing US of that, via sex-selective obstetrical procedures, as a comparative issue to bolster their argument of Islam's "high regard for women". They are also presenting Islam as having ended the Jahiliyya practice of infanticide (as though they were the first; I guess they never read the Tanakh).

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to hijack this thread. JWers please do not start a rant about abortion, etc. I was just trying to clarify that, to my knowledge, Islam was not guilty of inciting infanticide (at least of their own children).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 14, 2006 12:22 PM

"I was just trying to clarify that, to my knowledge, Islam was not guilty of inciting infanticide (at least of their own children)."

I think your right, after all the children need to become toddlers first before they become suicide bombers.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at December 14, 2006 1:16 PM

Hopelessly OT (Robert please forgive me)

From what I can tell, the Mahr (Islamic dowery) is supposed to be paid BY the bridegroom (and according to my cursory review of the Qur'an). This is NOT how it seems to be practiced in Pakistan, which has a booming business of "high tech" female infanticide by and for Muslims.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=47411&SelectRegion=Asia&SelectCountry=PAKISTAN

Attempting to redirect myself:

If CTFM has to go BACK before the SAME tribunal to get a new verdict, is it not still possible that the errant tribunal (is this like the U.S. Ninth Circuit?) can come back with a revised but still ridiculous verdict requiring an additional appeal and further wasting CTFM time and resources?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 14, 2006 1:45 PM

Muslims ARE demons.

Posted by: Madduck at December 14, 2006 2:02 PM

Gary and AmericanIG,
Scary...(kooooran,jooos..what next?)That link about tolerance(Gary) is a good one. Thanks.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 14, 2006 3:06 PM

"(I have no information on female infanticide, I've never heard of this associated with Islam -- do tell if you do)."

It's in the book "Burned Alive: A Victim of the Law of Men" by Soaud

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3939.html

The book is in the public libraries.

If you challenge, the onus is NOT on me to prove that such things happen, but on YOU to prove that they do NOT.

In vast evidence of the islamic men's outright abuse of women, as to collectively grinding their faces into the ground to utterly destroy them - physically - emotionally and in there psyche is out there. There are no words to state that they are never loved and appreciated - or they would never, ever, even consider "honor killings."

You picked on only one aspect - female infanticide" - well what if it wasn't done (?)-
every other point of a woman's life under islamd indicates that islamic men consider women only as breeders. Marriages don't even exist - ony contracts - very easily broken- and when a woman starts getting wrinkles, men get "additionals."

Allat

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 14, 2006 3:25 PM

"In a time when women were devalued and female infants were buried alive, the Qur’an raised the value of women and prohibited female infanticide. Due to the Qur’an, this practice was abolished, but in recent times advances in the science of genetic selection has encouraged some unbelievers to practice a modern form of female infanticide."

EXACTLY! EXACTLY! Didn't I just say above that when an objection to islam is raised- they will come out that such a thing doesn't exist in the koran?

I said that - didn't I? I stand by it. Of course, it's NOT in the koran - it's a cultural thing. A culture that islamic immigrants are trying to impose.

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 14, 2006 3:30 PM

From "Burned ALive" -"Even if I didn't go to school, I knew how to count the sheep. So I could count on my hands that there were only five of us, Noura, Kainat, me Souad, Assad, and Hanan, not fourteen. Where were the others? My mother never said that they had died but it was acknowledged in her usual comment: “I have fourteen children, seven of them are living.” She included the half sisters with us five, since we never said “half sisters,” always “sisters.” It would seem that there were then seven others missing. But really nine were missing, if the half sisters weren't counted. Either way, many of the children she had borne were not still alive.

But one day I learned why there were only seven of us in the house. I can't say how old I was, but I wasn't yet at puberty, so I was less than ten years old. Noura the oldest is with me. I have forgotten many things, but not what I saw with my own eyes, terrorized, but not really aware that it was a crime.

I see my mother lying on the floor on a sheepskin. She is giving birth, and my aunt Salima is with her sitting on a cushion. There are cries from my mother and then from the baby, and very quickly my mother takes the sheepskin and she smothers the baby. She is on her knees. I see the baby move under the blanket and then it's over. I don't remember what happened after that, I just know that the baby isn't there anymore. That's all, and a terrible fear grips me.

So it was a girl that my mother suffocated at her birth. I saw her do it this first time, then a second time. I'm not sure I was present for the third one, but I knew about it. And I hear my sister Noura say to my mother: “If I have girls, I'll do what you have done.” This is how my mother got rid of the seven girls that she had after Hanan, the last survivor. This was accepted as normal. I accepted it, too, but I was also terrified. These little girls my mother was killing were a little of me. I started to hide and cry every time my father would kill a sheep or a chicken, because I was trembling for my life. The death of an animal, like that of a baby, was so simple and so ordinary a thing for my parents, but it set off in me a fear of disappearing as simply and as quickly as these babies had. I would tell myself that it's going to be my turn one of these days, or my sister's. They can kill us whenever they want. Big or small, there's no difference. Since they've given us life, they have the right to take it.

As long as you live with your parents in my village, the fear of death is there. I'm afraid of going up on a ladder when my father is down below. I'm afraid of the hatchet that is used for chopping the wood, afraid of the well when I go for water. Afraid when my father watches the sheep returning to the stable with us. Afraid of the noise of a door at night, of being suffocated in the sheepskin that is my bed.

Sometimes, coming back from the fields with the animals, Kainat and I talk about it a little: “And supposing everybody's dead when we get home …And if our father killed our mother? A blow with a stone is all it would take! What would we do?” “Me, I pray every time I go to the well because it's so deep. I tell myself that if somebody pushed me in, no one would know where I was. You could die down there, nobody will come looking for you.”

That well was my great terror, and my mother's, too. I could feel it. And I was afraid in the ravines when I led the goats and the sheep back. The idea would loom up in me that my father could be hiding somewhere and that he was going to push me into the void. It would be easy for him to do, and I would be dead at the bottom of the ravine. They could even pile up a few stones on top of me and I would be in the ground and I'd be left there to rot. The possibility of our mother dying preoccupied us more than the death of a sister because there were always other sisters. Our mother was often beaten just as we were. Sometimes she tried to intervene when my father beat us really viciously, and then he'd turn the blows on her, knocking her down and pulling her by her hair. We lived every day with the possibility of death, day after day. It could come for no reason, take you by surprise, simply because the father had decided it. Just as my mother had decided to smother the baby girls. She would be pregnant, then she wasn't, and nobody asked any questions. "
---

Mind you- this is only one girl - and from only one little village - what happens in the other villages?" Throughout the ME - Iran - Pakistan - India AND Afghanistan, etc.

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 14, 2006 3:49 PM

Thanks for sharing ALLAT,

I have read this sadistic treatment does indeed go on in todays ME. (Of course, the Muslims who have you believe otherwise).

We are learning to listen to what they say, then observe what they do.

Come and visit often.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 14, 2006 4:45 PM

My God, just reading this site, and seeing what women go through elsewhere, makes me thank the Big Kahuna - or whatever He/She/It is - that' I'm me, like the old song, that Leslie Uggams used to sing (wid her big eyes) and it's so true:

"And when you wake up each morn
Aren't you glad that you were born
Think what you've got the whole day through
Aren't you glad you're you."

And I thank whoever - that I was born in the West and from my background.

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 14, 2006 4:59 PM

It's interesting to note the statistics on the ratio of males to females in most Muslim societies. While some approach the 'natural' ratio of approximately 50%-50%, many Muslim nations are completely out of accordance with this natural ratio. A good place to look is the CIA Factbook -- which has fascinating statistics on every coutry on earth including economics, social, political, and religious composition.

While I suspect some of the gender statistics are a little skewed due to the fact that many Muslim nations, and ESPECIALLY Arab nations 'import' a large contingent of indentured servants (read slave labor) from places in Asia and Africa which wait on the lazy seracens hand and foot, this can hardly completely account for the STAGGERING imbalances when one notices that many Muslim nations have a male to female ratio approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 2:1!

This is so inconsistent with the laws of nature that one may wonder if there isn't an exceptionally high degree of female murders going on... Is it blatant evidence of wholesale mass murder?

Anyone have more information on this startling and deeply disturbing statistical disparity in the Muslim world?*

*Some non-Muslim Asian nations also exhibit a similarly skewed and haywire ratio. Other 'cultures' aside from Islam place a low value on female babies.

Posted by: jsla at December 14, 2006 5:48 PM

It is very strange that those who say that Gos is totally able to do as He wants and is above all wil in the same breath say Gos cannot have a Son, It is true the Christian God cannot do as He please hE IS CONSTRAINED BY THE LOVE FOR US,unlike the Muslim Allah who can do all He wants when He wants and has no limitations in other words no reason to care for us.

Posted by: mark52 at December 14, 2006 7:31 PM

This is a really interesting opinion. People should read it if they have time. The appeals court found the trial court to be wrong as to both fact and law. Here are some good parts:

"Pastor Scot did not say at T4 that that the Qur’an promotes violence and killing."

"Equally Pastor Scot did not say at T24 that 'looting, killing and destroying people - good for Muslim people'."

"Pastor Scot did not say at T4-5 that 'Muslim scholars misrepresent what the Qur’an says by varying the emphasis, depending upon the audience'."

"Pastor Scot did not say at T10 that that Allah is not merciful."

"Pastor Scot did not say at T10-11 that 'Muslims lie for the sake of Islam and that it is ‘all right’, they have to hide the truth'."

"Pastor Scot did not say at T13-14 that Muslims are demons."

"Pastor Scot did not say at T14-17 that the practice of abrogation was the cancellation of words from the Qur’an and Hadiths solely to fit some particular purpose or personal need."

"I add that, like the Tribunal, I have listened to the tape recording of the Seminar .... Unlike the Tribunal, however, I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the manner of Pastor Scot’s delivery which rendered his statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred or other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims.... But on any analysis his plea to love Muslims and to 'minister' to them comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his audience’s reaction to it."

"... [T]he affront to the feelings of the Muslim witnesses was largely if not wholly irrelevant."

"I do not doubt that some Muslims may have regarded Pastor Scot’s observations on the meaning of the Koran as deeply offensive, and perhaps been outraged by the fact that things to that effect should be said in a public place; even if the place were no more public than a Catch the Fire Ministries Hall in suburban Surrey Hills .... But that is not the law. As has been seen, the prohibition in s.8 is not a prohibition against saying things about the religious beliefs of persons which are offensive to those persons, or even against saying things about the religious beliefs of one group of persons which would cause another group of persons to despise those beliefs. It is against saying things about the religious beliefs and practices of persons which go so far as to incite other persons to hate persons who adhere to those religious beliefs. And as a matter of logical analysis, it does not suffice to establish incitement to hate a group of persons to show that scorn has been poured on the religious beliefs or practices of that group of persons ...."

"I do not think it can be a contravention of s.8 to refer to an event which occurred in Saudi Arabia, provided that what is said is the truth, despite the fact that it may not reflect favourably on Muslims in that country. Nor do I think it can be a contravention of s.8 to refer to what an Imam has said in Australia, provided he said it, even if it may reflect or be perceived to reflect unfavourably on Muslims in Australia."

"... [I]t was unwise for the Tribunal to attempt to assess the theological accuracy of what was said at the Seminar."

The only bad thing about the decision was that the whole "hate speech" law wasn't thrown out as violating the Australian constitution. But, alas, not everybody has the First Amendment.

Posted by: tvdog at December 14, 2006 8:59 PM

"...Pastor Scot's comments included that Australia's Muslim population was growing rapidly "because they control the immigration department"...

This is a matter of great concern, a serious matter that must be investigated and if so, why isn't the MSM and the TV stations all over this story? If this is true, it would be an outrageous scandal:

Mohammendan foreign agents infiltrated the immigration department? In Canberra?

Please, if anyone has more information on this we should do everything to bring it out in the open!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 14, 2006 9:15 PM

Allat,

If you challenge, the onus is NOT on me to prove that such things happen, but on YOU to prove that they do NOT.

My query was not IF they happen, but was it associated with ISLAM, and, if so, WHY was it associated with ISLAM. There is a general emphasis on Islam on this site.

By comparison with beheading, for example, FGM has a relatively weak link to Islam (Mohammad was aware of and did not condemn it), but even that is enough for me to see why this "tribal custom" is frequently discussed on THIS site.

Weaker still, but still valid, is "honor killing" of women (an association not limited to women).

Quoting you:

In vast evidence of the islamic men's outright abuse of women, as to collectively grinding their faces into the ground to utterly destroy them - physically - emotionally and in there psyche is out there. There are no words to state that they are never loved and appreciated - or they would never, ever, even consider "honor killings."

Quoting Spencer,

November 18, 2003
Daughter raped by brothers, murdered by mother
I have been hesitating to put up this story, because what this article says is true: honor killings are indeed not sanctioned by the Qur'an. And obviously it has no clear connection to jihad.

But there is a reason why the problem of honor killing is so rampant in Islamic society, and it goes back to attitudes toward women that are rooted in the Qur'an, the Sunna, and Islamic jurisprudence. It was not really a surprise that last September in Jordan, a law stiffening penalties for honor killings was rejected, partially on Islamic grounds.

Agreed with both of you.

You picked on only one aspect - female infanticide" - well what if it wasn't done (?)-
every other point of a woman's life under islamd indicates that islamic men consider women only as breeders.

I "picked" on it, partly out of ignorance. However, on this site, there is only one reference to infanticide and it is rather obtuse:

February 08, 2006
Spencer: Mother From Hell
In FrontPage this morning I profile Hamas' Mother of the Year, Umm Nidal, Mariam Farhat, and discuss some implications of her election to the Palestinian Legislative Council (news links in the original):

The horrifying ingredients of the life of Mariam Farhat, or Umm Nidal (mother of Nidal), one of the newly elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, provide a terrifying glimpse into the future of the Palestinian Authority under the rule of the new Hamas government.
To be sure, no one more fully embodies the Hamas ethos -- and the ethos of infanticide that permeates contemporary Palestinian culture as a whole -- than Mariam Farhat, a mother who wills the death of her own children and the children of others.

This still seems to be of the variety alluded to by JadeDragoness above.

So, female infanticide seems to be a new issue to JW as well as to me. Thank you (and I do mean that) for bringing this to "our" attention. I think this "goes back to attitudes toward women that are rooted in the Qur'an, the Sunna, and Islamic jurisprudence", to quote Robert again. This needs to be discussed more.

But again, I wonder, WHY DO THEY DO IT? What I (and others above) have found is it seems to relate primarily to the prospect of future loss of dowery monies by the brides families, perhaps secondarily to esteem of having sons, and perhaps controlling family size while favoring sons.

But the Qur'an specifies the GROOM paying the dowery, so how did this get turned on its head? Merely thes "attitudes"? Why is the male-supplied dowery not enforced, and the female-supplied dowery abolished by these "pious" "Islamic" states? As well, Mohammad HAD NO SONS (that survived), so this should not be an example of following uswa hasana, al-insan, al-kamil.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 14, 2006 9:21 PM

Gernaminamerica - "I also resent that now we are supposed to call them "moosleems"."

Never. No attempts at linguistic imperialism thank you. By using words like sharia, hijab, etc. Muslims are trying to highjack the language, trying to force us to use their words and terms.

* sharia - Islamic law.

* burkha etc - head to toe covering

* madrassa - Islamic school

I refuse to use their language.

Muslims in Australia (2% of the population) are also given special treatment and funding. The federal govt. is actually funding religious aparthied by financing separate washrooms and prayer rooms for Muslims in universities.

There is a tremendous groundswell of opposition to Muslims and Muslim immigration.

Sheik Yer'mami - "Australia's Muslim population was growing rapidly "because they control the immigration department".."

I have been told the same thing many times by friends who work in DIMA and other govt. depts. Important positions quite often go to under- qualified Muslims, who then proceed to hire other under-qualified Muslims. Most Australians are not aware of how many govt. positions are held by Muslims.

Posted by: Deecha at December 14, 2006 10:50 PM

There is a feeble and tasteless, but systematic, attempt to discuss Islam, re-vocabularising it by replacing all these tedious Arabic words with language more amenable to an English speaker at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Flimflam_discussion_group/

Posted by: wallyUK at December 15, 2006 1:54 AM

I remember watching a documentary on TV (either BBC or ITV) more than 10 yrs ago. I don't recall everything about the show but one thing really stuck in my mind. A film crew travelled around Pakistan (& maybe India), visitng mainly the rural areas, & found that in every single village the boys vastly outnumbered the girls. In one village they couldn't find any girls except those who were brought in from other villages to marry. In another village they talked to a woman who was the only female of her generation to survive her first 30 days. let me repeat that: SHE WAS THE ONLY FEMALE TO SURVIVE!

All the villages had about 80-90% boys for 3 generations. No one can tell me they weren't practicing infanticide. And at that rate the authorities must have known about it.

Posted by: clipper at December 15, 2006 7:41 AM