Muslim People in Australia (1 Viewer)

[soha]

id vote
yaaay

 

[Z_Nizzle]

it's Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

How good is Wasim though.

 

[googooloo]

How good is Wasim though.

Yeh, i agree.

blah, blah, im writing htis to fill up the post cause they said it was too short, why!!!!

 

[tempco]

How good is Wasim though.

yes, he's great with the media and such. and he says it how it is - without being afraid of offending certain people.

nice guy too.

 

[SabtheLab]

m personally trying to understand why global governments feel the need to ban hizb-ut-tahrir. their aim is legitimate- to set up an Islamic state somewhere in the world through intellectual efforts and peaceful means. they are NOT incitng terrorism( hence use of the term'peaceful organisation'). Nor do they want to overtake the world and turn it into an islamic empire. they simply want to establish a state where they, and im sure hundreds of millions of other muslims, are able to practise their beliefs in full without disturbing the rest of the world. and we have every right to that.

 

[Comrade nathan]

m personally trying to understand why global governments feel the need to ban hizb-ut-tahrir. their aim is legitimate- to set up an Islamic state somewhere in the world through intellectual efforts and peaceful means. they are NOT incitng terrorism( hence use of the term'peaceful organisation'). Nor do they want to overtake the world and turn it into an islamic empire. they simply want to establish a state where they, and im sure hundreds of millions of other muslims, are able to practise their beliefs in full without disturbing the rest of the world. and we have every right to that.

I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.

Islamic states are just illegitimate with Zionist states.

 

[googooloo]

m personally trying to understand why global governments feel the need to ban hizb-ut-tahrir. their aim is legitimate- to set up an Islamic state somewhere in the world through intellectual efforts and peaceful means. they are NOT incitng terrorism( hence use of the term'peaceful organisation'). Nor do they want to overtake the world and turn it into an islamic empire. they simply want to establish a state where they, and im sure hundreds of millions of other muslims, are able to practise their beliefs in full without disturbing the rest of the world. and we have every right to that.

I agree with u, why? it is all just to keep the masses scared, so they can keep them in line, so they can gain more money from thier scared little robotic workers, but their will always be those who speak out, who suffer from dat and will not take 'it'(woteva it happens to be at the time) lying down. Inshallah their iwll be another true islamic state, not the ones that claim to be now, and if it happens in my time i'd wanna live there, adn inshallah this will all be over soon and not escalte any further.

p.s. it was sad how they ambushed and killed of the last of the majestic ottomans, Turkey is too modern now, it disgusts me the way they've gone, i hang my head inshame for them.

 

[tempco]

I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.

Islamic states are just illegitimate with Zionist states.

how can you say that? the methods the two groups use are on completely different scales. on one side, you have murder, and on the other, you have intellectual debate.

and why are either states illegitimate? because both are non-secular?

 

[googooloo]

I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.

Islamic states are just illegitimate with Zionist states.

I agree with tempco, why?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

and why are either states illegitimate? because both are non-secular?

Yes.

State and religion should always be separated, for obvious reasons.

 

[Comrade nathan]

and why are either states illegitimate? because both are non-secular?

No. It is because they attempt to create states that are false, that never existed. For instance there is no Israel, saying that you are a member of country due to religious connections is not make it legimate claim. The Jews have no homeland, they are nothing but a religious entity.

Though but in another case in the Kurdish situation if they were to create a nation and it was Islamic, it would be legitimate, as there is a grounds for Kurdish nation. As modern day Iraq is a British and French colonialist nation. It does not make it right though to form theocracy, as religion should be a truely private matter, though if the Kurds created a Islamic nation it would be legitimate.

There are groups in Australia and Indonesia which follow the patern of Zionism, which try to create nations that do no exist. Groups in South East Asia want to create a Islamic republic that stretches across Indonesia, and into the south of Philippines. These people from these nations have no other connection other then religion. There is no ethinic or historical grounds for creating this republic. So it is illegitimate.

 

[SabtheLab]

comrade, your rhetoric is either completely illogical or supporting our claims, depending on the way u look at it. ur trying to make a distinction between culture and religion. that's true on the one hand. they should be differentiated. but on the other, what do you define as culture? values and beliefs, a way of doing things. culture is what forms the backbone of any society. thus if we take a more general approach and not restrict ourselves to a technical definition of the term' culture' then we can also classify religion as culture- a set of values, beliefs that are common among a group of people. thus by ur own reasoning, that states are formed on the basis of cultural heritage, an Islamic or Zionist state WOULD be legitimate as they are based upon peole sharing a similar culture.

 

[SabtheLab]

Yes.

State and religion should always be separated, for obvious reasons.

Moonlight, don't generalise. ur speaking from a Judeo-Christian point of view. considering both Judaism and Christianity were never intended, even by their founders, to be anything more thna a spiritual guide to life, i can see where ur coming from. ur a product of your context- a furiously anti-religious society burned by the inadequacies of church-run state. the churches never ruled according to the Bible anyway. God did not command them to go on Crusades, nor did he order them to burn the pagans. thus, since christianity never originally purported to express a complete way of life, any attempts to make it as such would be catatstrophic. hence the separation between CHURCH and state.

but one of the very definitions of Islam is ' way of life'. there is no such thing as separation of church and state in Islam simply because we can't. it doesn't work. we cant be practsiing Islam in it's entirety if we are not also living under Islamic rule

 

[googooloo]

Comrade Nathan should just stop talking!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Moonlight, don't generalise. ur speaking from a Judeo-Christian point of view. considering both Judaism and Christianity were never intended, even by their founders, to be anything more thna a spiritual guide to life, i can see where ur coming from. ur a product of your context- a furiously anti-religious society burned by the inadequacies of church-run state. the churches never ruled according to the Bible anyway. God did not command them to go on Crusades, nor did he order them to burn the pagans. thus, since christianity never originally purported to express a complete way of life, any attempts to make it as such would be catatstrophic. hence the separation between CHURCH and state.

but one of the very definitions of Islam is ' way of life'. there is no such thing as separation of church and state in Islam simply because we can't. it doesn't work. we cant be practsiing Islam in it's entirety if we are not also living under Islamic rule

There are good (and obvious) reasons for separating religion and state, regardless of anyone's context or religion.

1. Not all people believe the religion.

2. Religions promote faith, not reason. They are dangerous institutions to found anything on because one cannot question ideas as critically.

3. The state is more likely to conflict with other states because of entrenched differences in religion.

4. The dominance and (express or subtle) codification of one religion means other religions have a lack of liberty and individuals have a lack of religious freedom.

5. In my respectful opinion, the foundation of religious belief is usually not justified and either is, or is is likely to be, false.

6. In my respectful opinion, religion can and often does lead to dogma and in that sense can take society backwards.

 

[mr EaZy]

There are good (and obvious) reasons for separating religion and state, regardless of anyone's context or religion.

1. Not all people believe the religion.

2. Religions promote faith, not reason. They are dangerous institutions to found anything on because one cannot question ideas as critically.

3. The state is more likely to conflict with other states because of entrenched differences in religion.

4. The dominance and (express or subtle) codification of one religion means other religions have a lack of liberty and individuals have a lack of religious freedom.

5. In my respectful opinion, the foundation of religious belief is usually not justified and either is, or is is likely to be, false.

6. In my respectful opinion, religion can and often does lead to dogma and in that sense can take society backwards.

1) not everyone here in Australia is a capitalist. in the past when i can pin point where islamic law was practiced fully; a lot of people in the islamic lands were not muslims- look at the coptics who asked the muslims to rule over them. Or the Muslims in spain who ruled over people of three religions- they didnt complain- because there is a difference between public and private law- public law applies to anyone in the state. Private law is usually between a person and God (if they believed in Him).

2) When u graduate in a few years time, you will be wearing this strange robe, and u might affiliate urself with the UNSW alumni. Where did this tradition come from? it came from the islamic tradition where religious scholars called ULEMA would wear their robes etc. THe earliest universities were attached to or were inside mosques.

After the fall of Islam in Spain, the inquisition followed. This was a period of darkness in Spain where knowledge was lost, muslims and jews were equally persecuted.

one of Saladdin's highest advisors (some1 told me he was THE highest) was a jew; and the islamic world did accept jewish refugees from Europe. When Wiseman, the father of Zionism visited Palestine in the early 1900s, the mufti of Jerusalem greeted him saying something like "our rights are your rights".

must i keep going on about how tolerance is possible when people follow religion and not the hype created by their inner emotions.

I remember one speaker at Islamic awareness week -saying: something about "ignorance leads to fear. and fear according to master Yoda: leads to the dark side". Well this is what Islam teaches us.

I dont go around saying that athiesm is stupid. and no athiest has ever said the same about islam to me. So i hope mutual tolerance will continue to prevail- whatever our agendas are


3) WE have just enough religion to make us hate , but not enough to make us love one another- Johnathan Swift

When you broaden your perspectives and separate the religions from the people following those religions you will see what i mean. Try to judge things objectively

4) all religions promote the things we have taken for granted today - well almost: theres still a lot of corruption going around, and academics in hospitals are hoping that pharmacists will rise up against the pharmaceutical cos. on certain issues (i heard this in a lecture)

ignore that last part.... ummm there's a lot of documented material on how u know, 2 christian sects (a German aryan sect and a catholic sect) could live together in the same village even though they saw each other in principle; as heretics. The germans didnt see any divinity in Christ - just a prophet.

There's also been a lot of such documentation on islam. I for one would like to see a community spring up in this world that would resemble in any small way wat anadolous represented 1000 years ago- its possible when we have tolerance.

Im not saying we should impose islam on Australia or anything.. for this discussion, im just saying its possible for state and religion to be together just as it was in the past.

finally - i respect your ideas (u r entitled to them afterall ) but i dont agree with u.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Why should i stop talking?

 

[malkin86]

Does anyone know what mainstream Islam's views on rape are?

 

[tempco]

Does anyone know what mainstream Islam's views on rape are?

elaborate?

 

[Generator]

Does anyone know what mainstream Islam's views on rape are?

It's never the woman's fault! But, she should have covered up. But, I must stress, it wasn't her fault! Still, she could have taken the proper precautions. However, in no way was she at fault! Etc. (well, that's the impression that I get, anyway).

That's a fairly common view amongst the social conservatives, though. There is nothing 'Islamic' about it, really.

Edit: Sorry about the negativity.