Muslim People in Australia (3 Viewers)

[HotShot]

Other Australians might take your shit. Do not mistake me for one of them.

cos ur not one -LOL. wannabe aussie!

 

[Justin]

Remember, the media in australia is being very selective, it claims most the rapes are caused by middle eastern origin- this isnt true.

The media has never claimed that most rapes are committed by middle easterners.

 

[HotShot]

The media has never claimed that most rapes are committed by middle easterners.

are u sure?

 

[Pubert]

The media has never claimed that most rapes are committed by middle easterners.

Obviously not directly, but the people who listen to the news and dont question it are usually under the assumption that muslim lebanese youth go around raping people. Only a select few have done this and the media puts them in the spotlight. There are many rapes hapening in Australia by non-middle eastern people yet the media fails to address the issue correctly.

 

[Captain Obvious 1]

Obviously not directly, but the people who listen to the news and dont question it are usually under the assumption that muslim lebanese youth go around raping people. Only a select few have done this and the media puts them in the spotlight. There are many rapes hapening in Australia by non-middle eastern people yet the media fails to address the issue correctly.

That's because it is seen as a kick in the face for Australians when people come to their country and then rape them.

A child stealing from their own house is seen as less offensive then a stranger breaking and entering and stealing from the same house.

I don't doubt there are hundreds more rapes comitted by non-middle easterners, but it's clearly not the same as there are added elements.

 

[Pubert]

That's because it is seen as a kick in the face for Australians when people come to their country and then rape them.

A child stealing from their own house is seen as less offensive then a stranger breaking and entering and stealing from the same house.

I don't doubt there are hundreds more rapes comitted by non-middle easterners, but it's clearly not the same as there are added elements.

Before i continue please define by what you mean when you say 'Australian'.

 

[veterandoggy]

That's because it is seen as a kick in the face for Australians when people come to their country and then rape them.

A child stealing from their own house is seen as less offensive then a stranger breaking and entering and stealing from the same house.

I don't doubt there are hundreds more rapes comitted by non-middle easterners, but it's clearly not the same as there are added elements.

umm, yeah. what pubert said. because i sure as hell am a child of this country, but the moment words spreads that i have done something i am shoved into the middle eastern group just before the picture is taken.

 

[funnybunny]

i dont care about which religion's right or which one's wrong but what makes me laugh my head off (not literally, obviously..just for those ...those..way out there..) is when christians say "that was the Old Testament ..no one listens to THAT anymore"...
i mean, not respecting your history or changing *publications* when the need arises sure sounds fishy to me.. HOW ABOUT YOU???

 

[HotShot]

That's because it is seen as a kick in the face for Australians when people come to their country and then rape them.

A child stealing from their own house is seen as less offensive then a stranger breaking and entering and stealing from the same house.

I don't doubt there are hundreds more rapes comitted by non-middle easterners, but it's clearly not the same as there are added elements.

"a child stealing from their own house" wtf -are u mad?

Look the law is for everyone, it treats everyone equally so why should it discriminate between who looks lebish and a white boy.

How can it be less offensie, its the same crime and should be given the same amount of attention, or is just the nature of australians to be discriminatory and rascist?

 

[veterandoggy]

i dont care about which religion's right or which one's wrong but what makes me laugh my head off (not literally, obviously..just for those ...those..way out there..) is when christians say "that was the Old Testament ..no one listens to THAT anymore"...
i mean, not respecting your history or changing *publications* when the need arises sure sounds fishy to me.. HOW ABOUT YOU???

sounds like you posted it in the wrong thread

 

[Salima]

She did but she reposted in the right one.


Man this thread is DEAD! Can someone close it! Cause it's dead is all!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Salima: I'm going to leave it open because every time an issue about Muslim people comes up, have a dozen threads emerge. It is best to keep it contained to one thread.

Also, threads are not closed simply because no-one is participating in them at the current time. They are left to fade into the background, that they may be raised again when issues come up in the future, so that people can continue the discussion later, or simply for reference purposes.

 

[davin]

She did but she reposted in the right one.


Man this thread is DEAD! Can someone close it! Cause it's dead is all!

ok, now maybe its just me.....but.... if you wanted the thread to be no longer active... why on earth did you post in it to bring attention back to said thread? that strikes me as rather counterproductive

 

[Salima]

I get you Moonlight...good idea, for some reason it didn't cross my mind. I'm thinking abut too many things at once i guess..and enjoying my coffee explosion...mmmm coffee hadn't tasted it in like 50yrs it feels! Though I'm no where near that old I may add.

Davin, I did this so that Moonlight, or one of the other monitor ppl would look and see the msg. You see. Also if anyone would make the thread more interesting. I love ot tlakand debate and stuff, and well I got kinda bored is all. BUt I was htinking if no one's going to use it then just shut it down man, instead of letting it linger like a said starving little street puppy you know is going to die any second.

 

[Salima]

I KNOW UREKA! I have something to discuss. The diea of a muslim state (caliphate!). I know most people disagree with it becuase most see it as a dictatorship. The idea of one main ruler is just like a president or prime minister. But it can be any scholar to take the job. Someone who is well known in the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah, and can implement laws to abide by the teachings from god and prophets. But he would have advisers around him. People could see him and discuss problems on a more personal level than we do with our politicians. I guess it could be a woman too if she was well learned. I just say guy cuase well, it's usually men ain't it. Even in places that say they aren't sexest, though everyone knows they really are!

It's just that a caliphate doesn't have a mutliparty system. I mean, with a special example of america cause they suck at this, multiparty systems don't always work either. Their is corruption anyway...like Indonesia!

This is why this version of democracy doesn't really work in the middle-east, also due to tribes and ethnicities. though if they're really islamic, they won't care about this, becuase we are all human. We have the same red blood corsing through our veins. We all bleed red. And when the lights go out we all have the same complextion (not colour! racist way of putting it).

heres a link to help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

and some info from that link!

Caliph is the term or title for the Islamic leader of the Ummah, or community of Islam. It is an Anglicized/Latinized version of the Arabic word خليفة or Khalīfah (listen (help·info)) which means "successor", that is, successor to the prophet Muhammad. Some academics prefer to transliterate the term as Khalîf. The caliph has often been referred to as Ameer al-Mumineen (أمير المؤمنين), or "Prince of the Faithful," where "Prince" is used in the context of "commander."

After the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib) the title was claimed by the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Ottomans, as well as by other, competing lineages in Spain, Northern Africa, and Egypt. Most historical Muslim rulers simply titled themselves sultans or emirs, and gave token obedience to a caliph who often had very little real authority. The title has been defunct since the Republic of Turkey abolished the Ottoman caliphate in 1924.

Origins of the caliphate

Most academic scholars agree that Muhammad had not explicitly established how the Muslim community was to be governed after his death. Two questions faced these early Muslims: who was to succeed Muhammad, and what sort of authority he was to exercise.

Succession to Muhammad

Fred Donner, in his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), argues that the standard Arabian practice at the time was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader's death and choose a leader from amongst themselves. There was no specified procedure for this shura, or consultation. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader, but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir. Muhammad, if he considered the matter of succession at all, would possibly have thought that the standard procedure would apply.

This is also the argument advanced by Sunni Muslims, who believe that Muhammad's lieutenant Abu Bakr was chosen by the community and that this was the proper procedure. They further argue that a caliph is ideally chosen by election or community consensus, even though the caliphate soon became a hereditary office, or the prize of the strongest general.

Shi'a Muslims disagree. They believe that Muhammad had given many indications that he considered Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, as his chosen successor. They say that Abu Bakr seized power by force and trickery. All caliphs other than Ali were usurpers. Ali and his descendents are believed to have been the only proper Muslim leaders, or imams. This matter is covered in much greater detail in the article Succession to Muhammad, and in the article on Shi'a Islam.

A third branch of Islam, the Ibadi, believes that the caliphate rightly belongs to the greatest spiritual leader among Muslims, regardless of his lineage. They are currently an extremely small sect, found mainly in Oman.
[edit]

The authority of the caliph

Who should succeed Muhammad was not the only issue that faced the early Muslims; they also had to clarify the extent of the leader's powers. Muhammad, during his lifetime, was not only the Muslim leader, but the Muslim prophet and the Muslim judge. All law and spiritual practice proceeded from Muhammad. Was his successor to have the same status?

None of the early caliphs claimed to receive divine revelations, as did Muhammad; none of them claimed to be nabi, a prophet. Muhammad's revelations were soon codified and written down as the Qur'an, which was accepted as a supreme authority, limiting what a caliph could legitimately command.

However, there is some evidence that the early caliphs did believe that they had authority to rule in matters not specified in the Qur'an. They believed themselves to be the spiritual and temporal leaders of Islam, and insisted that implicit obedience to the caliph in all things was the hallmark of the good Muslim. The modern scholars Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, in their book God's Caliph, outline the evidence for an early, expansive view of the caliph's importance and authority. They argue that this view of the caliphate was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema, or Islamic scholars, clerics, and religious specialists. The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox. The proper Muslim leader, in the ulema's opinion, was the leader who enforced the rulings of the ulema, rather than making rulings of his own. Conflict between caliph and ulema was a recurring theme in early Islamic history, and ended in the victory of the ulema. The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule. He would be considered a righteous caliph if he were guided by the ulema. Crone and Hinds argue that Shi'a Muslims, with their expansive view of the powers of the imamate, have preserved some of the beliefs of early Islam. Crone and Hinds' thesis is not accepted by all scholars.

Most Sunni Muslims now believe that the caliph has always been a merely temporal ruler, and that the ulema has always been responsible for adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law (shari'a). The first four caliphs are called the Rashidun, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, because they are believe to have followed the Qur'an and the way or sunnah of Muhammad in all things. This formulation itself presumes the Sunni ulema's view of history.

 

[davin]

i believe the issue here would be that a theocracy would have laws in place that were basicly of the sense "god said this, its the law", whereas the idea behind democracy allows laws to become more fluid...for example, it has made it easier for women to get the vote. when you tie your laws to god, it becomes very tricky to ammend.

also, when dealing with countries....its not purely islamic. so you're forcing people to live by the restrictions of a religion they don't believe and aren't a part of....whereas otherwise its the laws of a society that they ARE part of just from living in the country

 

[Not-That-Bright]

it becomes very tricky to ammend.

Not really, it just comes down to the people whom can 'communicate' with god (rich, powerful arseholes...) saying they had a new vision or a revelation from god. The problem with a theocracy is that it the laws are not created by the whim of the people, nor the whim of a god... but by the whim of the rich and the powerful.

Now of course this is somewhat true in our 'democracy' also, however in a theocracy it is much worse... where the rich and powerful are speaking not just as someone rich and powerful... but as a messenger of God.

 

[Salima]

This may be so. But it has similar principles.
Women had equal rights when muhammad came into power in mecca and medinah. They would bury their baby girls becuase they wanted sons, and they thought by giving their daughters to the gods they'd be blessed with a son, but they didn't necessarily want ot do this.
Woman back then were seen as possessions. Muhammad, (anythign he says is form the Qur'an) told of how women were equal to men, and that women had their own rights and were not possessions of men, not to be bought, sold, used up, and discarded like they were back then. There is hadith saying that those best among the muslims are those best to women (meaing nicest, kindest and who make them happy) and those best among you are also women. Men and women would have a say on who the most learned scholar would be to become the caliph. Because he would have to be knowledge on women's things in the religion, if it were a man. but if it is a women then she would now already.

The idea of a caliphate though is to have it based on islamic teaching hence a caliphate, and that is what i'm hear to dsicuss.

But the teachings are fair and just. So laws based on the teachings would be good enough you see what i'm saying?

 

[Salima]

Not really, it just comes down to the people whom can 'communicate' with god (rich, powerful arseholes...) saying they had a new vision or a revelation from god. The problem with a theocracy is that it the laws are not created by the whim of the people, nor the whim of a god... but by the whim of the rich and the powerful.

Now of course this is somewhat true in our 'democracy' also, however in a theocracy it is much worse... where the rich and powerful are speaking not just as someone rich and powerful... but as a messenger of God.

But the caliphs couldn't do this beucase muhammad was the last. So if they said this everyone, including other religious leaders would call them crazy. They they didn't then chame on them. Cause no one will have a vision or message from god via gabriel again. It's not possible.

Did you read my first post on caliphate?

 

[Salima]

The history of the caliphate
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor on his deathbed, and the Muslim community submitted to his choice. Uthman was elected by a council of electors, but was soon perceived by some Muslims to be ruling as a "king" rather than an elected leader. Uthman was killed by rebellious soldiers. Ali then took control, but was not universally accepted as caliph. He faced numerous rebellions and was assassinated after a tumultuous rule of only five years. This period is known as the Fitna, or the first Islamic civil war.

One of Ali's challengers was Muawiyah, a relative of Uthman. After Ali's death, Muawiyah managed to overcome all other claimants to the caliphate. He is remembered by history as Muawiyah I, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Under Muawiyah, the caliphate became a hereditary office.

Under the Umayyads, the Muslim empire grew rapidly. To the west, Muslim rule expanded across North Africa and into Spain. To the east, it expanded through Iran and ultimately to India.

However, the Umayyad dynasty was not universally supported within Islam itself. Some Muslims supported prominent early Muslims like al-Zubayr; others felt that only members of Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hisham, or his own lineage, the descendants of Ali, should rule. There were numerous rebellions against the Umayyads, as well as splits within the Umayyad ranks (notably, the rivalry between Yaman and Qays). Eventually, supporters of the Banu Hisham and Alid claims united to bring down the Umayyads in 750. However, the Shi'at Ali, the party of Ali, were again disappointed when the Abbasid dynasty took power, as the Abbasids were descended from Muhammad's uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib and not from Ali. Following this disappointment, the Shi'at Ali finally split from the majority Sunni Muslims and formed what are today the several Shi'a denominations.

The Abassids would provide an unbroken line of caliphs for over three centuries, consolidating Islamic rule and cultivating great intellectual and cultural developments in the Middle East. But by 940 the power of the caliphate under the Abassids was waning as non-Arabs, particularly the Turkish (and later the Mamluks in Egypt in the latter half of the 13th century), gained influence, and sultans and emirs became increasingly independent. However, the caliphate endured as both a symbolic position and a unifying entity for the Islamic world.

During the period of the Abassid dynasty, Abassid claims to the caliphate did not go unchallenged. The Shi'a Said ibn Husayn of the Fatimid dynasty, which claimed descendancy of Muhammad through his daughter, claimed the title of Caliph in 909, creating a separate line of caliphs in North Africa. Initially covering Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, the Fatimid caliphs extended their rule for the next 150 years, taking Egypt and Palestine, before the Abbassid dynasty was able to turn the tide, limiting the Fatimids to rule to Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty finally ended in 1171. The Ummayad dynasty, which had survived and come to rule over the Muslim provinces of the Spain, reclaimed the title of Caliph in 929, lasting until it was overthrown in 1031.

1258 saw the conquest of Baghdad and the execution of Abassid caliph by Mongol forces under Hulagu Khan. The Mamluk regime of Egypt claimed to host a branch of the Abbasid caliphate, but later Muslim historians referred to it as a "shadow" caliphate and its authority was not widely acknowledged. For all practical purposes the institution lapsed in 1258. Muslim kings or sultans sometimes referred to themselves as commanders of the faithful, implying caliphal authority, but such claims were largely rhetorical.

The sultans or kings of the Ottoman Empire were originally thought of as civil rather than religious leaders. The rulers of the Ottoman state only rarely used the title of khalifa or caliph, and then for political purposes. Mehmed II and his grandson Selim used it to justify their conquest of Islamic countries, but it was little more than a rhetorical flourish. Around 1880 Sultan Abdulhamid II decided to proclaim himself caliph, as a way of countering creeping European colonialism in Muslim lands. His claim was most fervently accepted by the Muslims of British India. By the eve of the First World War, the Ottoman empire or sultanate, despite its weakness vis-a-vis Europe, represented the largest and most powerful independent Islamic political entity. But the sultan also enjoyed some authority beyond the borders of his shrinking empire as caliph of Sunni Muslims in Egypt, India and Central Asia.