Sharia Morning Herald
An article in today's SMH reports on Muslim discomfort with the slow uptake of Sharia within the mainstream legal system.
She continues to offer helpful advice on how Australians can be more culturally sensitive:
Terrific.
Australia's Muslims would not move towards a parallel legal system if some Islamic practices were better integrated into the existing legal framework, a University of Sydney academic said.Muslims won't implement their own set of laws? Isn't that nice of them. Needless to say, the SMH doesn't offer any critique of Sharia.
She continues to offer helpful advice on how Australians can be more culturally sensitive:
"I also think to not do anything about it at all, to dismiss this whole argument, is actually pushing the community towards setting up a parallel legal system."In other words, this is going to happen whether we like it or not so we might as well help it along.
Terrific.
Labels: Islam
posted by Dan at 6:15 AM |
41 Comments:
http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/staff/GhenaKrayem/index.shtml
Nice photo of the Sydney University Academic who wrote the SMH article.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Well I don't want Sharia or any other archaic religo-legal system here, any more than you. But to suggest that they can just go ahead and implement it as some kind of parallel structure is baloney. It first has to be accommodated in legislation, and I suspect it will be snowing in Bali before that happens here.
(Cue hysterical claims that Sharia has been implemented in Britain and elsewhere, which I trust will be supported by credible links.)
I can't wait for the introduction of sharia. My wife needs a good beating. My son is a lush. And my daughter is turning in to a skanky ho and could do with a cliterectomy - that works a treat in Egypt where 90% of women have their clits slashed.
Oh, and we had better stop the gay marriage push - that is fairly offensive to most muslims and thus completely culturally insensitive. Instead we can expand the concept of marriage to include multiple wives (but not multiple husbands).
Australians are going to love the new freedoms under sharia - no booze, no Jeeeews and 6 year old brides (but to protect them there is no consummation until they are 9).
But we need to start slowly so as not to alarm the people - sharia compliant finance and sharia family law first. Then will come the "Sharia Compliant Area" posters. Once the laws grow organically within communities the culturally sensitive intelligentsia will explain in learned papers how ridiculously overwrought our enlightenment values are. The pollies will leap on board and end the dreadful cultural hegemony of Western values.
You will get an idea of the glory that awaits us if you look at the parts of the world that substantially comply with sharia law. Take Saudi Arabia for example. It is completely Jew-free, there are no churches, women can't drive, and floggings and amputations keep the villains under control.
Oh infidel friends, do not fear gay marriage.
Sharia does not legislate against gay marriage. Not at all.
There will however be some difficulties presented to gays who wish to marry, being as all gays will already have been hanged!
Like I said, this thread has the enormous potential to develop into a fact-free hysteria zone.
It has the potential John, but it won't develop into one.
There will be neither falsehoods, nor hysteria.
Not unless an adherent of the Religion of Peace drops in.
"potential to develop into a fact-free hysteria zone"
Hysteria is a woman's problem - nothing that a bit of female gential cutting can't fix.
Hysteria is a woman's problem
Whoever said that obviously hasn't read this blog before.
Hysteria is a woman's problem
Whoever said that obviously hasn't read this blog before.
Hysteria not a women's problem?
John is going to have change his attitude by the time Sharia law arrives, or else he's going to be one of the first to run afoul of it!
Read what I wrote above. Preferably before you leave for the pub, rather than after you get back from it.
Sharia law will never happen here. Anyone who suggests otherwise needs a nice tin-foil hat.
"Anyone who suggests otherwise needs a nice tin-foil hat."
You don't know what hysteria is, and you don't know what a tin foil hat is for.
The hat will protect you from all the nasty unpleasant thought-waves generated by people saying negative things like, "sharia is a bad idea".
By saying "sharia will never happen here" shows us it is you who wears the tin foil hat. Try saying "sharia must never happen here" and see how your thinking starts to clear.
You don't know what hysteria is, and you don't know what a tin foil hat is for.
I know exactly what is what and my use of the idiom was entirely correct. From Wikipedia:
The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy theorists = people like Lieutenant Dan and yourself who think that Muslims are plotting to take over the world by degree, by stealth and by conquest. You need those tin-foil hats to protect your febrile brains.
In response to your last point, if it helps you I'll expand the point: Sharia law must never happen here and it will never happen here.
Sharia law is already happening, in Sydney and in parts of Melbourne, Perth etc. unofficially of course.
Simon Crean and the unlamented Nick Sherry have been helping to push it into Australian tax law.
The NAb, westpac Bank and Macquarie banks have been dealing with it in the form of Sharia finance. But of course crean said there was nothing wrong with it becaseu his friends the saudis gave him a pamphlet that said so!!
Good investigation, Crean!!
See further info by Googling "Sharia finance" at australianislamistmonitor.org
(no defunct but archivfesw online)
and www.shariah-finance.org
yes just like there wouldn't be a carbon tax. Etc, etc.
When there's duplicitous leftist liars on the job, anything is possible
We can only imagine what 'industry' you occupy 'John'
@John the Naive:
Conspiracy theorists = people like Lieutenant Dan and yourself who think that Muslims are plotting to take over the world by degree, by stealth and by conquest. You need those tin-foil hats to protect your febrile brains.
There's nothing stealthy about it at all. The Koran explicitly refers to Islamic conquest. It was a trend started by the Islamic Prophet Mohammed and has been continued ever since (albeit with plenty of defeats along the way).
Since you like Wikipedia so much, let me make it easy for you. Read this and this.
It is neither a conspiracy theory nor a secret. What remains to be seen is how our society deals with the problem. Or for that matter whether Islamic society decides to rethink its direction and reform. On current trends I'd say pretty unlikely.
You really are a confounded moron, Lieutenant Dan. But worse still, you're a bigoted xenophobic confounded moron.
The Qu'ran is not the only ancient or medieval religious text that refers to conquest. The juicier parts of the Bible advocate the slaughter, imprisonment, enslavement and rape of non-believers. And like the Qu'ran, the Bible has been used to justify everything from colonial conquest to apartheid.
Be that as it may, religious calls to arms from the 7th century mean little if they are not supported or acted upon by elements of the modern religious movement. While I agree that Islam is in dire need of internal reform, particularly with regard to its illiberal tenets on women, etc., to suggest that it is hell-bent on conquest is just idiotic. Change 'Qu'ran' to 'Protocols of Zion' and 'Muslims' to 'Jews' and you'd scarcely notice much difference from you-know-who.
Simon Crean and the unlamented Nick Sherry have been helping to push it into Australian tax law. The NAb, westpac Bank and Macquarie banks have been dealing with it in the form of Sharia finance.
Please provide evidence of where and how they have been 'pushing it into Australian taxation law'. When I say evidence, I mean parliamentary speeches, press releases or draft legislation. Not nutter-chat on xenophobe blogs or forums. The first thing that pops up on Google is this:
http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2010/sc_100212.html
...which makes no reference to changes in taxation law. There have been some accommodations to Islamic practices in finance and lending, which seems like sensible business to me, given the oil holdings and accumulated wealth in many parts of the Arab world. Most trade agreements and inducements involve concessions on both sides, after all. I hardly think that is making way to rolling hordes of Islamic conquerors; to suggest otherwise would make you sound like Bruce Ruxton in the 1980s, complaining about Japanese investment in Australia.
Anyway, Sharia is a much broader concept than the context than the one you wingnuts generally employ. Were your concerns about Australian Muslims wanting to codify polygamy, arranged marriages, sectarian local government or community stonings of loose women, they would be justified. But is this really all you've got to harry and whine about? A few changes to banking practices? Gimme a break.
We can only imagine what 'industry' you occupy 'John'
And why would you need to 'imagine' such things in the first place? Aside from the fact you're probably a creepy little tosser, that is.
"John",
Bookmark my comment and refer to it in future should you ever be about to call someone a moron. Ready?
The Qu'ran is not the only ancient or medieval religious text that refers to conquest. The juicier parts of the Bible advocate the slaughter, imprisonment, enslavement and rape of non-believers.
Sorry, which bits of the Bible are those? Would especially love a link to the rapey section.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't Moses or Jesus who married a six year old girl (and slept with her at nine).
Of course even if you were right (which you aren't) the fact is that no Christians or Jews are running around in 2011 trying to "Slaughter", imprison or enslave, much less rape non-believers. Same simply cannot be said of Islam. I look forward to your reference.
Change 'Qu'ran' to 'Protocols of Zion' and 'Muslims' to 'Jews' and you'd scarcely notice much difference from you-know-who.
Except the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a document by which Jewish people live their lives. It was an antisemitic forgery. Whereas the Koran is real.
Good job, John. What was that you called me again? Moron I believe?
Sorry, which bits of the Bible are those? Would especially love a link to the rapey section.
Numbers 31:13-18 in particular urges conquering soldiers to kill all men and non-virginal women, and to take the virgins for themselves. Judges 20 says something similar. Deuteronomy 22:20 says brides who are revealed to be unchaste are to be stoned to death.
There are numerous other biblical exhortations to violence, Lieutenant Dan. If only you knew the central tenets of the Western tradition you so love to defend, instead of obsessing about the Qu'ran, you might be a little more grounded.
The Bible and the Qu'ran are texts of medieval construction so contain some (to us) pretty sick medieval suggestions. What matters is not what they contain but how their modern adherents - the mainstream ones, not the fringe-dwellers and the nutjobs - interpret and employ them.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't Moses or Jesus who married a six year old girl (and slept with her at nine).
Daniel-san, child marriage was extremely common in medieval Europe too. The Catholic church did not place any restrictions on ages of marriage or sexual consent; there were several incidences up to the 1400s of English royalty marrying girls with single figure ages. The Mohammed-was-a-pedo-so-all-Muslims-are-pedos routine doesn't wash because a LOT of men were pedos - by our modern standards - back in the day. It proves nothing.
Incidently, the Book of Numbers as cited above encourages Christian soldiers to take 'women children' as sexual trophies. Make of that what you will.
Of course even if you were right (which you aren't) the fact is that no Christians or Jews are running around in 2011 trying to "Slaughter", imprison or enslave, much less rape non-believers.
Kindly point some examples of where Muslims today are 'slaughtering, imprisoning, enslaving or raping' non-believers, either systematically or en masse, motivated wholly or mainly by religious tenets.
Except the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a document by which Jewish people live their lives. It was an antisemitic forgery. Whereas the Koran is real.
The analogy was not between Jews or Muslims, Dan, it was between you and your fellow xenophobes who fill the Internet with this sh1t and dig air-raid shelters in your backyard to hide from the 'call to prayer' you fear so much. Personally I don't like Islam either: I think it's a regressive, medieval cult with very few redeeming features. But the best way to defeat such things is through logic and intelligence, not hysteria and bulldust.
Bookmark my comment and refer to it in future should you ever be about to call someone a moron.
Good advice! I have bookmarked your comment and will point others to the link, should they require evidence of what a moron sounds like.
"Conspiracy theorists = people like Lieutenant Dan and yourself who think that Muslims are plotting to take over the world by degree, by stealth and by conquest. You need those tin-foil hats to protect your febrile brains."
We need them? So... you think they work.
"Sharia law must never happen here and it will never happen here."
OK, you say you like logic and intelligence. Why will it never happen here?
We need them? So... you think they work.
No.
OK, you say you like logic and intelligence. Why will it never happen here?
For many reasons actually. One of the main ones is that our societies are liberal, secularist and incredibly resistant to crappy ideas whose time has (or should have) long passed.
Western societies are not impervious but they are stronger, more resilient and more resistant to superstitious clap-trap than some here give them credit for. They have so far resisted communism and fascism, which both had much greater potential to infiltrate and exert control than a few rogue Arabian Allah-chanters.
"liberal, secularist and incredibly resistant to crappy ideas whose time has (or should have) long passed"
That's why they're dressed up as new ideas, eg diversity.
'John' (aka ??) =
"Western societies are not impervious but they are stronger, more resilient and more resistant to superstitious clap-trap"
What - you mean like 'global warming' perhaps?
then this pearler,
"rogue Arabian Allah-chanters"
Then you go on to call Dan xenophobic??
You're either a mendacious idiot or schizophrenic John.
Probably both.
All the best wanker.
What - you mean like 'global warming' perhaps?
Bait-and-switch, a pathetic debating tactic, even for someone of your limited intellect, "foxy".
"rogue Arabian Allah-chanters." Then you go on to call Dan xenophobic??
It should be perfectly apparently to anyone possessing Grade Three literacy skills (yes, I understand this discounts you, "foxy") that I have nothing against Arabians. Only those who happen to be rogue Allah-chanters (a reference to Islamic fundamentalists and proselytisers).
More curious though is your fallback position when unable to conjure up any meaningful response: you resort to the same indignant political correctness that on most other days of the week you'd claim was bringing down Western civilisation. You've done this before by claiming that my use of the nickname 'Daniel-san' was racist.
Now I know the standards of discourse, debate and exposition here are already pitifully low. Loewenstein publishes a typo, alarm bells flash in Beck's workshop and on Daniel's Nokia E7, and this blog has another week's worth of posts. But your insipid, solopsistic contributions, "foxy", make Beck look like the Ambrose Bierce of his generation.
Or, if all those big words are giving you are headache, I'll condense and simplify: 'You are a witless dumbf**k'. I would make some suggestion to you to improve your condition, but there is none. Other than converting to Hinduism and praying for reincarnation in a body with somewhat more functional cerebrum.
Your life is obviously bereft of affection or even company 'John' (he he) which comes as no surprise.
I'm glad you mentioned the Daniel-San episode, as you unwittingly but correctly admit - it shows the deep well of unconscious hypocritical racist contempt in every pompous left wing dirt bag while screaming the same accusation at others.
I see you are even contemptuous of a ....mobile phone....you don't apparently approve of...or is this some inside tech joke that's supposed to reveal your comic genius?
And I am perfectly sure that a few muslims I know who quietly get on with their professional lives would regard 'Allah chanter' as an extreme racist insult, that would (again) label you as exactly the closet racist scum bag you accuse everyone else to be. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of projection.
Ah yes, and the climate change superstition that the west's useful idiots have taken hook line and sinker is no bait and switch but a factual example of western mumbo jumbo acceptance - which your poor grasp of reason has failed to notice - purposefully no doubt.
In short, 'John', you're a loathesome moron with a fairly bleak Xmas coming I'm sure.
Never mind, I wish you all the best despite the fact you're a dickhead.
Cheers + best wishes
"foxy", your sad, pathetic jibes about what I'll be doing over Christmas are neither true, relevant or based on any evidence. They're the blogging equivalent of a four-year-old shouting 'You've got no friends, neh neh neh neh neh'. If that's the best you can manage here, I suggest you get the Internet disconnected now. Either that or start commenting on Youtube videos, where you'll meet people of a similar ilk.
I'm glad you mentioned the Daniel-San episode, as you unwittingly but correctly admit - it shows the deep well of unconscious hypocritical racist contempt blah blah fecking blah...
No, it shows I used a character name from a reasonably well known movie, as an oblique reference to young Danny's role on this blog. Is this seriously the best you can manage?
And I am perfectly sure that a few muslims I know who quietly get on with their professional lives would regard 'Allah chanter' as an extreme racist insult
Slurring a religion is not the same as slurring a race. Even someone as dimwitted as you should be able to work that out (although from the Daniel-san routine above, perhaps that's a false hope).
I will be quite frank about the fact that I am a secularist, an atheist and a humanist and I do not like Islam. Actually I do not like any religion, but Islam is one of the most regressive of the mainstream ones. Christianity, at least, as evolved enough to have some liberal strains. Islam has not and so I mock it at will. This is neither 'racist' (since white people can be Muslims too) or 'xenophobic' (since there are Muslims everywhere).
I don't expect you to understand this, "foxy", because you're a brain-dead troglodyte. Worse than that, you're seriously compromised - you put on your wingnut hat to ridicule liberals and global warming, then when someone like me confuses you, you get all PC and start chanting you're-so-racist. So not only are you stupid, you're also a sell-out.
Also, interesting that since I shot down his denials about the rapey parts of the Bible, Lieutenant Dan has disappeared from this thread. Instead, he's moved back to easier ground: more posts about Loewy. The blog equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting la-la-la-la-la.
This blog really is frequented by mental midgets.
"foxy", your sad, pathetic jibes about what I'll be doing over Christmas are neither true, relevant or based on any evidence. They're the blogging equivalent of a four-year-old shouting 'You've got no friends, neh neh neh neh neh'. If that's the best you can manage here, I suggest you get the Internet disconnected now.
I'm glad you mentioned the Daniel-San episode, as you unwittingly but correctly admit - it shows the deep well of unconscious hypocritical racist contempt blah blah fecking blah...
No, it shows I used a character name from a reasonably well known movie, as an oblique reference to young Danny's role on this blog. Is this seriously the best you can manage?
And I am perfectly sure that a few muslims I know who quietly get on with their professional lives would regard 'Allah chanter' as an extreme racist insult
Slurring a religion is not the same as slurring a race. Even someone as dimwitted as you should be able to work that out (although from the Daniel-san routine above, perhaps that's a false hope).
I will be quite frank about the fact that I am a secularist, an atheist and a humanist and I do not like Islam. Actually I do not like any religion, but Islam is one of the most regressive of the mainstream ones. Christianity, at least, as evolved enough to have some liberal strains. Islam has not and so I mock it at will. This is neither 'racist' (since white people can be Muslims too) or 'xenophobic' (since there are Muslims everywhere).
I don't expect you to understand this, "foxy", because you're a brain-dead troglodyte. Worse than that, you're seriously compromised - you put on your wingnut hat to ridicule liberals and global warming, then when someone like me confuses you, you get all PC and start chanting you're-so-racist. So not only are you stupid, you're also a sell-out.
Also, interesting that since I shot down his denials about the rapey parts of the Bible, Lieutenant Dan has disappeared from this thread. Instead, he's moved back to easier ground: more posts about Loewy. The blog equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting la-la-la-la-la.
Don't flatter yourself, John. The reality is that I can post above the fold and tend to leave comments for others unless there's a major clanger, such as yours in which case I might respond. I am also extremely busy planning to take over the world and haven't had a lot of time. Posts about Loewenstein being stupid require very little time or effort as he's so good at being stupid.
Apropos your comment, you were wrong. Numbers 31:13-18 does not at all infer rape as a casual read of it shows.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
There's a big difference between keeping someone alive and raping them. Even if it's been lost in translation, by your argument, we are to believe that Moses, right after rebuking the Israelites for sexual immorality with Midianite women then encourages them to rape the virgins. You're kidding right?
You made an astonishingly big call. Care to try again?
Lalalalal indeed.
There's a big difference between keeping someone alive and raping them.
There's also a big difference between 'keeping someone alive' and 'keeping someone alive for yourself'. Interesting that you prune the last two words when you quote the relevant passage.
Also, tell me oh wise Biblical scholar... why did God command Moses to kill every single man, woman and child (an issue in itself) but specifically ordered him to spare the virgins? Do virgins make good housemaids or something?
Numbers 31 contains an exhortation to rape prisoners-of-war, even if it doesn't use the word "rape". It means what I said it means and I'm sure you know it, despite your contrariness. It also reveals that the Israelites were just as fascinated with deflowering virgins as some of our Muslims friends.
Incidentally, my interpretation is backed by numerous Biblical scholars including (to name two) Edward Dalglish and Robert Lindsey. Neither of them suggested that it was a big misunderstanding or that it was "lost in translation". But you would know better, of course.
Perhaps you could ask Loewy what he thinks.
Incidentally, the similarity between your remark:
By your argument, we are to believe that Moses, right after rebuking the Israelites for sexual immorality with Midianite women then encourages them to rape the virgins.
And this one, found here:
According to Martin, we are to understand that Moses, immediately after rebuking the Israelites for their sexual immorality with Midianite women encourages them to rape the virgins.
...is quite alarming. You obviously went Googling for an answer and were too lazy to either paraphrase or to acknowledge. Either way, that's blogging of Loewensteinian standards.
John,
I don't profess to be a bible scholar, particularly with respect of the New Testament hence I forwarded it to someone who is and paraphrased the reply. Yes, that would be the source of the commentary and it's a fair cop.
Loewenstein would of course simply delete your comment. I haven't and mea culpa albeit I know that now.
Broader point being (and you KNOW this despite being the argumentative type) that your earlier comment was flat out wrong, and nobody's running around doing little girls "Jesus Style" or "Jerusalem Style". The same simply can't be said of a certain other group, whose leaders in 2011 claim that scantily clad women are "eligible to be raped" (and this was said in Australia mind you, not some third-world hell hole).
Sorry, the "eligible to be raped" comment was made a few years prior to 2011, but is still widely held of course.
This is exactly what I said earlier:
The Qu'ran is not the only ancient or medieval religious text that refers to conquest. The juicier parts of the Bible advocate the slaughter, imprisonment, enslavement and rape of non-believers.
Nowhere did I suggest that these parts of the Bible - which come from the Old Testament incidentally, as well as the Jewish Torah - are today being used to justify rape or child rape. Of course that is not true. My point was that the Bible contains just as much dodgy stuff as the Qu'ran. So if you anti-Islamic obsessives try claiming Biblical high ground, it simply ain't there.
I am not familiar with the Muslim leader (Hilaly?) who suggested women are 'eligible to be raped', which is obviously a deplorable remark. But I am familiar with Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps who have said some similarly heinous things. Muslims have no monopoly on irrational fundamentalism or anti-humanist stupidity.
John, I'm a secularist, while your'e just a nasty gob off wanker with pretentions on your worth in society which my guess is in reality, roughly zero.
All the while revealing little glimpses of that bigotted underbelly.
Your parents, whom I'm sure you have grotesquely sponged off for years for some sort of witless tertiary 'education', must be very proud of your ability to spew non contextual sneering bile. And I have no doubt you sneer at them as well as a thank you.
We all know your type, we see them all the time. Even your 'friends' probably loathe you.
Never mind, all the best for the festive season etc etc.
There's always next year to develop some value to society, however small
John is eating all the time he he
"foxy", there is no stupidity more irrelevant or pointless than to speculate on the personal life of someone you don't know from Adam.
Even Lieutenant Dan, to his credit, remains on-topic and attempts to address the issues. All you can do is chant you're-so-useless and you-have-no-friends and you-live-off-your-parents. Then again, this is probably the kind of inane jibe you've been using all your life, in lieu of wit or ability.
I don't wish you a happy Christmas and I don't wish you a sad one. Actually, I couldn't care less what you do, such is your intellectual insignificance.
off topic? try reading your own posts back wanker. Not to mention schizoid.
"you-have-no-friends and you-live-off-your-parents"
because it's almost certainly the truth....
We can only guess which branch of the arts your HECS was wasted on...
half wit poseur
ha ha what a numpty
You are so boring and pointless, "foxy", that I have nothing further to say to or about you.
well how sad
he he
what a bloated ego numpty
Post a Comment
<< Home