Article

2006-08-25 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-08-25 02:02|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If the Islamists decided to live in a country not ruled by the Islamic laws, they have a very simple choice, to obey the laws of the land or to leave. Any thing else is the contempt of law on their behalf. I can not understand why the host countries tolerate the excesses of Islamic stupidity.

Posted by Annon 2006-08-25 02:25|| 2006-08-25 02:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Shari'a is applied to varying degrees in countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia

No problems in these countries hey!!!!!?

Posted by Cheregum Crelet7867 2006-08-25 05:17|| 2006-08-25 05:17|| Front Page Top

#3 "A book published by the Islamic Council of Europe in 1980, "Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States," instructed Muslim minorities how to work towards achieving domination of European countries through a policy of concentration in geographical areas.

Muslims were told to avoid assimilation by the majority, get together and build mosques, Islamic schools and community centers, and establish communities based on Islamic principles."

And there you have it right there, the whole meat of the issue. Those two paragraphs represent the camels nose, no, the camels head sticking through the tent flap.

Those two paragraphs illustrate perfectly why Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to non muslim countries, and, why the ones that are here need to be sent packing.

Can anyone say Dearborn, MI? Or any other number of places this pestilence has settled.

-M

Posted by Manolo 2006-08-25 08:09|| 2006-08-25 08:09|| Front Page Top

#4 M, the only good part about Dearborn (I grew up about 10 min's down the road) was the christian arabs (chaldeans aka catholic iraqis) who did want assimilate to some degree and hate hussein. The muzzies owned most of the gas stations and the chaldeans had the mom/pop corner store ("party store") racket. I agree w/sentiments in totality though. Time to freeze all muslim immigration methinks.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-08-25 09:14|| 2006-08-25 09:14|| Front Page Top

#5 OR, I should of said it is well past time to freeze all muzzie immigration. That should've happened on/or about 12 Sept 01.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-08-25 09:15|| 2006-08-25 09:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Try immigrating to Iran and setting up a Christian school. See how far you get. Phuech these people, send them all back to sandland. They long to set up a worldwide muzzie califphate with death to all infidels.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-25 09:19|| 2006-08-25 09:19|| Front Page Top

#7 "Shari'a law has no place here"

Or anywhere else on this planet!

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-08-25 10:26|| 2006-08-25 10:26|| Front Page Top

#8 One of the Muslim leaders arguing at the time for a shari'a court, Abdul Jalil Ahmad of the Islamic Council of Western Australia, stressed that Islamic law would not replace Australian law, because Muslims were in a minority.

"Only in areas where we are legally allowed to implement our Islamic teaching we do," he said.

First off, there's that taqiya thingie. It renders moot all statements of policy and all predictions by Muslims.

Secondly, when they say; "Islamic law would not replace Australian law, because Muslims were in a minority", what it really means is only their lack of numbers holds them back from imposing sharia law. This has nothing to do with recognizing the ascendancy of local dictates and even less to do with actually integrating into their host country's culture (perish the thought!).

Muslims were told to avoid assimilation by the majority, get together and build mosques, Islamic schools and community centers, and establish communities based on Islamic principles.

Which sort of puts the lie to all that; "Islamic law would not replace Australian law, because Muslims were in a minority" blather. Even moreso when you consider the following;

"The Muslim community in France is well on the way to becoming...a state within a state," he wrote in a recent article. "The only substantive goal still outstanding is the implementation of Islamic law instead of French law.

"Muslims in France have by and large rejected the concept of the integration of individuals and are working instead for the integration of communities," Sookhdeo said. "The same is happening in the U.K."

What makes anyone think that a similar outcome is not being sought in Australia, or even, for that matter, in the United States? All predictive models not based upon statements by Muslims (that old taqiya thingie again) indicate a single end result. Subverting or overwhelming local customs and law through violent means or by sheer force of numbers. The pattern is absolutely clear and any blindness to it must be entirely willful.

The only solution is to strip away all religious status that Islam enjoys. They must be taxed out of existence and legally proscribed where they have already established beachheads. There must be no provision of "sharia compliant" loans or anything of the sort. We must ensure that their own self-imposed limitations remain in force in the same way that it has throughout the Middle East. This iswhat has restrained the technological development of their culture and we must not permit them access to thefruits of our libert base achievements without full assimilation being a requirement. Any lack of it represents a direct threat and the intentional subversion of our governmental systems.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-25 11:08|| 2006-08-25 11:08|| Front Page Top

#9 Try immigrating to Iran and setting up a Christian school. See how far you get.

Which is a perfect mirror image of Muslim priorities. Within Islam reciprocity is as foreign a concept as coexistence. The lack of both is what makes Islam a political ideology and we must ban it now.

Why Pope Benedict is not using his bully pulpit to make a greater commotion about this restraint of religious freedom throughout the Middle East is beyond me entirely. The Pope has already fired opening salvos on this issue and would do well to avoid any lull in his assault upon this threat to all humanity.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-25 11:15|| 2006-08-25 11:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Curious, I googled "what Is 'Shari'a law" and found a pretty good summary in Wikipedia One item under "Sharia, democracy and human rights" caught my eye. It seems the EU got one thing right.
In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party on the grounds that the "rules of sharia", which Refah sought to introduce, "were incompatible with the democratic regime," pointing up that "Democracy is the antithesis of sharia." On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy". Refah's sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". It was further ruled:

[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. It is difficult to declare ones respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

I agree with Pan 'Shari'a law has no place anywhere because Shari'a is the antithesis of Democracy.

Posted by GK 2006-08-25 11:27|| 2006-08-25 11:27|| Front Page Top

#11 I agree with Pan 'Shari'a law has no place anywhere because Shari'a is the antithesis of Democracy.

Exactly so. And perhaps a point will be reached soon when the present mossies in the US will either have to leave i-slam or leave the US because it's a dangerously subversive political ideology legitimising terror, not a religion. A couple of dirty nukes later perhaps....

Posted by Duh! 2006-08-25 15:42|| 2006-08-25 15:42|| Front Page Top

#12 From Wikipedia

The Cuculidae or cuckoos are a family of near passerine birds. Many of the Old World species and some New World species are brood parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other birds. The best-known example is the European Common Cuckoo. The cuckoo egg hatches earlier and the chick grows faster and in most cases the chick evicts the eggs or young of the host species.

Posted by DMFD 2006-08-25 22:04|| 2006-08-25 22:04|| Front Page Top

23:58 Fordesque
23:52 phil_b
23:39 wxjames
23:32 trailing wife
23:23 phil_b
23:04 Old Patriot
23:01 Phegum Spins7297
22:58 trailing wife
22:56 trailing wife
22:51 Old Patriot
22:40 Swamp Blondie
22:37 trailing wife
22:34 Swamp Blondie
22:06 SteveS
22:04 DMFD
21:56 Rd
21:55 flyover
21:51 RWV
21:50 mac
21:45 flyover
21:42 flyover
21:40 Poison Reverse
21:37 flyover
21:36 flyover