Why are they removing these questions? Who gave them the right to insult Jesus and Marry? Why do they have to send American children to die for Israel?
Taxi Reform Home link of the NSW Transport and Infrastructure is somewhat disturbing. In that document the T&I is asking for submissions regarding the very complex taxi plate issues before 11 March 2010.At outset, it appears the T&I is conspiring to cover up old crimes and attempting to provide some legitimacy to many illegitimate acts of the past and present, regarding a series of taxi plate scandals.
The above issues were not advertised properly and most taxi drivers, operators, owners and public in general know nothing about it. Obviously, the question I am asking is, “what are the reasons and grounds behind such secrecy?”
Why have the NSW T&I refused to compel the taxi networks to broadcast these types of messages?
Taxi Reform Home link, the NSW Transport and Infrastructure has ignored all other vital issues of the taxi industry including the Five Vital Components of the Taxi Industry. The NSW T&I is also blatantly using the taxi-payer’s funds and resources to protect the taxi plate value rather than protecting the public and state interests. Surely this is not the CHARTER of the NSW Transport & Infrastructure!
I therefore ask the Premier of NSW to initiate an immediate investigation about the conduct of the NSW T&I officials and their modus operandi.
Resolution of the so-called "Nexus Scheme" heading and information contains in that segment is very disturbing too.
In the past, the predecessors of the T&I had given hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public assets to people who could only be described as ‘criminals’. These people took those taxi plates under the guise of providing service to nexus area people, invalids and disabled people. In reality, they failed and refused to provide services to the intended people. They also double dipped the public, state and taxi drivers in general. The NSW T&I refused to take any action despite repeated requests to do so. Most of the time the T&I and those ‘protected species’ used racism and worker bashing to divert attention from these and other vital issues. TAXI COUNCIL (Limited) ON "CHERRYPICKING (front) and Deliberate Incitement are only two more examples in this regard.
The Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Report is another shameful episode. This questionable mob only spoke to one of the people who are responsible for this scandal. They also spoke to only other person who was beneficiary of this scandal. All of those people failed to (or refused to?) provide any documentation, evidence or any explanation regarding these scandals! Yet, Doloitte said, “ … While past poor administration and record keeping was noted, no evidence of corrupt conduct relating to the "Nexus Scheme" was found …”! One must wonder is it another example of promiscuity for virginity?
The NSW T&I officials also covered up about The Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Inquiry at that time to the authors of A Nexus Inquiry and Call for Nexus Inquiry!
One way to remove most of these corrupt and dangerous practices is handing over taxi plates to dedicated bailee taxi drivers through creative and service oriented modes with appropriate checks and balances. The seniority list register and many other incentive based scheme are only a few suggestions.
Unless the taxi industry is free of investors – the industry will remain captive, negative, anti-public, corrupt, vicious and counterproductive.
I also hope Price Waterhouse Coopers won’t compromise ethics, integrity, fairness and notion of justice for commercial interests.
The approach of the NSW Taxi Council Limited is blatant and sugar coated i.e. NO MORE taxi plates. This approach is to ensure investor control as in many ways 90% taxis are under the thumbs of the investors and taxi bases. All these years they have manipulated the lease price and thereby the taxi plate price contrary to the wishes and interests of the state and public in general. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission must investigate this aspect of collusion and anti-competitive policies and practices with proper assistance of the NSW Transport and Infrastructure.
Many of those taxis mentioned above are not on the road because of operator A, B and C!
Operator A: Ruthless person and believes in charging the harsh and unjust maximum pay-ins to bailee drivers. This one will send 50 taxis on the road at the rate of $80 (for example) to make $4000.00. This person also believes such a scenario will reduce maintenance cost and will increase profit thereby.
Operator B: Not a bad fellow. B will send 60 taxis at the rate of $60 (for example) to make $3600.00 and so forth. Considering the extra maintenance cost, despite providing more service, Operator B will be making less profit. It is dumb, anti-public and anti-service.
Operator C: These good folks drive themselves and do not want to engage bailee taxi drivers to reduce their workers' compensation premium and insurance cost. Again a lesser service oriented environment is not encouraging to utilise most taxi cabs!
The NSW TDA: The remaining three and a half (out of 12 elected) Committee Members of the NSW Taxi Drivers Association for many reasons fighting to say NO MORE taxi plates to protect their meagre income! They are not realising that a fairer arrangement at the NSW Industrial Relations Commission can provide them a minimum income according many Case Laws of this land. More taxi plates with pro-service conditions got very good potential to eliminate ruthless Operator A and enhance more income.
Most importantly, taxi plates got no intrinsic value and they are the property of the state and public. Therefore; they must be utilised for the benefit of the state and public in general. Please note plates provide nothing. Nothing of any use! $400,000 to provide nothing! $28,600PA for nothing!! Except higher operator costs!!! Higher pay-ins and higher taxi fares!?
2. Taxi Passengers must be given a safe and comfortable ride.
3. Taxi Drivers must be provided with a safe workplace and safer work practices.
4. Taxis plates are the property of the state and general public.
5. Taxis licenses must be used for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. Both the commuter and workers within the taxi industry must benefit not just a few privileged "stake-holders" as is the present situation.
However, the NSW Transport and Infrastructure's Conspiracy to Cove Up Crimes, Desperate Issues Papers and many more evidence clearly demonstrate the fact that the NSW T&I is openly and madly in love with taxi plates and interests of taxi investors contrary to the wishes and interests of the state, travelling public, taxi operators, bailee drivers and society in general!
Can any one explain how and from what authority the NSW T&I gained such a power like Rasputin?
Eleven killers murdered Mahmoud al-Mabhouh while cameras watched, write Paul Lewis, Julian Borger and Rory McCarthy.
As soon as Mahmoud al-Mabhouh walked out into the foyer of DubaiInternationalAirport at 3:17pm, the foreign assassins had latched on to his tail.
Within five hours, the Palestinian militant would be dead, the apparent victim of a sophisticated team of killers dispatched to end his life in what officials in Dubai have suggested is an extraordinary tale of modern-day espionage.
Mabhouh was so closely shadowed that, within seconds of passing immigration control, he was forced to manoeuvre his baggage trolley around one of his would-be assassins, a man in a white baseball cap and T-shirt talking casually on a mobile phone. On Tuesday night Dubai confirmed it had instigated an international manhunt after law enforcement officials issued arrest warrants for 11 individuals accused of the ''premeditated murder'' of Mabhouh, 49, a senior figure from the militant group Hamas, in a case that could have a profound impact on Middle East diplomacy.
This combination image shows 11 suspects wanted in connection with the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Photo: AP
Hamas has blamed the Israeli foreign intelligence agency, Mossad, for the killing.
Reports have emerged that at least three of the European identities used by the killers were stolen from Britons living in Israel. Israel has refused to comment on the allegations.
Dubai police said they could not rule out Israel's involvement, and hinted at the involvement of spies. ''If the law of the jungle is the system for some countries, in the UAE it is rule of law that governs us, and if leaders of some countries give orders to their intelligence services to kill, this practice is rejected and is a crime in our laws, religion and Islamic traditions,'' said Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai's chief of police.
After going for a walk around the city, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh returns to his fate.
The allegations were met with some scepticism in Israel, where at least one former Mossad official, Rami Yigal, said the operation did not ''look professional''.
According to the detailed but unverified account given on Monday by Dubai police, the killers began arriving in Dubai shortly after midnight on January 19. Their movement across the city was captured on CCTV footage, much of it released by the Dubai authorities, along with hotel records and flight data they said supports their allegations.
When Mabhouh arrived in Dubai 15 hours later, police believe his assassins, who were using forged European identities, tracked him to room 230 of the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel, in the heart of the city, killed him, and then left the country. The entire operation was completed in just 19 hours, they said.
The first two suspected assassins used the names Michael Bodenheimer and James Clarke, and respectively carried German and British passports. They were followed 30 minutes later by the only female member, Gail Folliard, and Kevin Daveron. Both carried Irish passports and arrived on a flight from Paris.
The pair were said to have taken separate taxis to the same hotel, in what appears to have been the first in a series of repeated, meticulous decoys and counter-espionage techniques.
Throughout their 19 hours in the emirate, members of the gang used cash rather than credit cards for their transactions and almost continuously changed their identities, switching outfits and wearing wigs and glasses as disguises, Dubai police said.
The CCTV footage showed Daveron appeared to have undergone the most extreme transformation, appearing in a hotel lobby as a bald man in a suit, before reappearing with thick black hair and glasses. Dubai police said the team used international calls to communicate and ''special communication devices'' to relay encrypted messages. Austria was identified as a possible ''command centre'' by police, who claimed to have tracked a series of calls to the country from numbers used by the assassins.
By the time Mabhouh arrived in Dubai, all 11 members of the team - including the alleged ringleader, a French passport holder who used the name Peter Elvinger - were in the country and preparing for his murder, police said. They included a man using an Irish passport and the name Evan Dennings, as well as five other British passport holders: Paul John Keely, Stephan Daniel Hodes, Melvyn Adam Mildiner, Jonathan Louis Graham and Michael Lawrence Barney.
Two Palestinians believed to have been involved in the operation are in UAE custody after being handed over by Jordan. It is still not known why Mabhouh, who was involved in killing two Israeli soldiers during the first Palestinian uprising in 1989 and, according to Hamas, was still active in the Palestinian militant group, travelled to Dubai.
Senior Hamas figures have denied reports that the commander was en route to Iran, which is a major backer of Hamas.
However, if the evidence presented by Dubai police is believed, Mabhouh's fate was sealed the moment he touched down on UAE territory.
After his assassins made an initial sighting at the airport, Dubai police said he was followed to the taxi rank and, later, to the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel.
Footage from the reception desk showed Mabhouh checking in at 3.25pm, as two individuals in tennis outfits - identified by Dubai police as ''surveillance'' operatives - stood nearby.
As a member of staff showed Mabhouh to his room, the assassins dressed as tennis players quickly followed him into the elevator, in what police said was an attempt to note down his room number.
Half an hour later, in another part of the city, it was claimed that Elvinger called Al-Bustan Rotana to book room 237 - opposite Mabhouh's room.
Mabhouh returned to his room from a walk around the city at about 8.30pm. He is thought to have been suffocated. Dubai police suggested four assassins may have entered his room while he was out and ambushed him on his return.
Dubai police said all 11 alleged killers flew out of the emirate shortly after. One of the final clips showed Elvinger and Folliard casually leaving the hotel at 8:52pm. She was wearing a striped sunhat, while his head was hidden beneath a white trilby.
New South Wales Government Attorney General’s Department, Paramatta Justice precinct 160 Marsden Street, Paramatta Locked Bag 5111, Parramatta, NSW, 2124 Telephone: 02 8688 7777 Fax: 02 8688 7980 www.lawlionk.nsw.gov.au
30 Jan 2009
Mr. Faruque Ahmed P O Box 349 Alexandria - NSW 2015
Dear Mr. Ahmed,
I write in reply to your letter concerning the taxi Industry and a decision made in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) in 1993.
From the outset I should advise that neither the Attorney General, nor officers of the Attorney General's Department are able to intervene in the decisions of a properly constituted Court or Tribunal. While it is noted that you dispute the decision of the IRC, the appropriate forum for your concerns to be considered would be before a Court at appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that several years have elapsed since the decision, I can only suggest that you seek independent legal advice in relation to any options that may be available to you.
I note your comments in relation to the conduct of the legal representative for the Transport Worker's Union. However, the Attorney General has no role in the investigation of complaints against solicitors. The proper authority for members of the public to complain about the conduct of legal practitioners is the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC). The OLSC can be contacted by writing to GPO Box 4460, Sydney NSW 2000 or by telephone on 1800 242 958.
Your letter also raises complaints in relation to the conduct of the Commissioner who heard the matter in the IRC. The proper authority for members of the public to complain about the conduct of judicial officers is the Judicial Commission of NSW. The Judicial Commission requires that complaints be in writing and be verified by statutory declaration. Complaints should be addressed to the Chief Executive, Judicial Commission of NSW, GPO Box 3634, Sydney NSW 2001. More information is available on the Commission's website at www.judcom.nsw.gov.au.
If you seek a source of free legal information and referral, you may wish to contact LawAccess NSW on 1300 888 529. LawAccess NSW can be contacted for the cost of a local telephone call, Monday to Friday during business hours. Further information is also available at www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au.
I regret that the Attorney General is unable to be of further assistance to you in this matter.
Yesterday’s tribunal decision ordering 2GB and Alan Jones to apologise and pay damages for hate-comments in 2005 is a victory for all minorities.
As the ABC reported this morning, Alan Jones and his employer 2GB have been ordered to pay $10,000 in damages and apologise on air to me after I made a complaint to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in New South Wales over a series of radio broadcasts.
The tribunal also ordered the second respondent (2GB) to conduct "a critical review of its policies and practices on racial vilification and the training provided for employees including all 'on-air' personnel with a view to determining whether they are adequate to ensure compliance with the racial vilification provisions contained in the Act."
This was an expensive, time-consuming and stressful victory. However, the complaint had to be made because years of efforts at engagement with talk-back radio and Jones in particular produced only temporary results that would fade away very quickly after each of the few meetings we had.
The string of comments uttered by Jones in April 05 included the following:
"These mongrels."
"Lebanese males in their vast numbers not only hate our country and heritage."
"They have no connection to us."
"They simply rape, pillage and plunder a nation that's taken them in."
"What did we do as a nation to have this vermin infest our shores?"
"Tell me we don't have a national security problem in the making."
"Take the gloves off, and make life a collective hell for these bastards and their followers ..."
It took approximately two years at the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW and a further two-and-a-half years at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to get a decision that virtually means that such comments are not acceptable to be broadcast in Australian society.
While this is a victory, a conclusion that arrives four-and-a-half years after the incident is a slow conclusion indeed, its slowness meant that the respondents continued with comments such as the following in the week preceding the Cronulla riots, which were reproduced by Media Watch in February 2006:
"My suggestion is to invite one of the biker gangs to be present in numbers at Cronulla railway station when these Lebanese thugs arrive, it would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs ... Australians old and new shouldn’t have to put up with this scum."
John: Now, ah, my grandfather was an old digger and he used to say to me when we were growing up "Listen, shoot one, the rest will run!"
Jones: (laughs)
John: Right?
Jones: (still laughing)
This case has taken a great toll on me and my family over the past four-and-a-half years. The comments that went to air at 2GB motivated some people in the community to help partly fund the tribunal action, I had to borrow some and use my own finances, a third each or thereabouts in order to get an adjudication. My children understand that I preferred to fund this action instead of their university studies in order to protect Australian society against divisiveness and vilification.
While some of the comments quoted above were said to be comments made by listeners, either by phone or email, Jones still chose to broadcast them and a minority of Australian society became victimised while the majority were being told that they are the victim. This is indeed a tragic irony, that needs to be stemmed by our legislature. Otherwise, it can create fears, tensions and Cronulla-style riots and, God forbid, pogroms and worse.
The damages awarded by the tribunal, when they are eventually paid, will go directly to a Muslim Women’s Respite centre as promised all along.
The apology, if it is not appealed, will eventually come, either through agreement or by order of the tribunal, and the review will hopefully improve the standards of broadcasts to eliminate vilification.
This whole costly exercise could have been avoided soon after the broadcasts with a sincere apology. I hope that this decision will give heart to all Australians, especially the long-suffering Muslim Australians.
End of article, below are the interesting paragraphs from the tribunal findings:
“that the broadcasts had the tendency or capacity to incite hatred or serious contempt for Lebanese Muslims and Lebanese men” (Para 65).
The Tribunal was also critical of Mr. Jones failure to appear at any point of the proceedings (para 152 “It is worthy of note that Mr Jones himself gave no evidence at the hearing and no explanation of his absence has been tendered. In a case of this kind it would have been reasonable to expect that he would have given evidence. It is, therefore, reasonable to draw a conclusion that his evidence would not have been of assistance either to him or to 2GB had he done so.”)
“Rather than dispassionately analysing the evidence and commenting on it, Mr Jones appears to have been induced or stimulated by his own preconceptions to place highly exaggerated and distorted interpretations on the few objective facts apparently known to him.” (para 209)
“211 Although Mr Jones was long on commentary he was, in fact, short on debate. In relation to the Schedule A broadcast, he canvassed or broadcast no views other than those that agreed with his. Yet, as we have pointed out above, there were significant flaws in his larger argument that Lebanese Muslims were a national security threat. This in our view went far beyond the bounds of reasonable commentary.
212 Third, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which it is reasonable for a commentator in a society ruled by law, either directly or indirectly to endorse, or imply endorsement of, violent solutions to social issues or problems. In his discussion with ‘Usel” about the “Lebanese bad boys” in Hickson Rd, ‘Usel’ told Mr Jones that he and others could track down the “hoons” and deal with them. Mr Jones’s response was not one of express endorsement – he was somewhat cautious and commented that the police could not find them and that they had their hands tied – but he gave ‘Usel’ an encouraging farewell: “Good on you, Usel. Great call. You keep in touch with us, hey. Thank your for ringing. We appreciate your sentiments.”
213 While Mr Jones did not expressly adopt the vigilante solution proposed by ‘Usel’, neither did he condemn it. Rather he gave ‘Usel’ to believe that such an approach was a welcome one. Although ‘Usel’s’ proposition was obvious nonsense, Mr Jones’s support implied a partiality for a vigilante solution to the problem.”
“219 Although at times, especially on 29 April, Mr Jones gave the impression that he had intended no harm to the Lebanese Muslim community, for much of the time he gave the opposite impression. Having listened to the broadcasts and having read the transcripts, the overwhelming impression Mr Jones’s broadcasts left was that much of his material was imprudent, incautious, inflammatory and motivated by prejudice against those whom he apparently believed to be a threat to a culture to which he is very much attached.
“220 In our view, Mr Jones was both highly offensive and reckless in repeating to his audience in the Schedule A broadcast his correspondent’s view that and later adopting and repeating these views as his own:
… Lebanese males in their vast numbers not only hate our country but our heritage… They've got no connection to us. They simply rape, pillage and plunder a nation that's taken them in. No-one who's written to me could believe what they saw. Without exception, you asked what did we do as a nation to have this vermin infect us like this…
And don't start saying we don't have a national security problem. So much for the government and the police commissioner saying, "We've delivered safer streets." What we've seen this week both at the Bankstown town hall with that sick Muslim sheik and now with these hoons is a graphic example of the extent of social failure amongst us.”
“222 Until 29 April, we see no evidence that Mr Jones took any action to minimise the damage done to the Lebanese Muslim community. On the contrary, until that day, whenever an opportunity arose to broaden his attack from individuals such as Sheik Faiz Mohammed, Mr Trad or some “car hoons” to encompass the Lebanese Muslim community as a whole, Mr Jones took it himself to make generalisations or else endorsed those offered to him by his listeners and correspondents.”
“223 His comments about “Lebanese males in their vast numbers” hating Australia and raping, pillaging and plundering the country, about a “national security” crisis, and about the undermining of Australian culture by “vermin” were reckless hyperbole calculated to agitate and excite his audience without providing them with much in the way of solid information.
224 The respondents in our view have not discharged the onus of establishing that Schedule A broadcast was either reasonable or made in good faith. Accordingly the defence contained in s 20C(2)(c) in not available.”
“172 Fourth, Mr Jones’s technique in conducting interviews with, and reading correspondence received from, those listeners whose views he agrees with has both an encouraging and a stimulating effect. There appears to be a stimulatory effect working in both directions — Mr Jones feeds ideas to listeners who then call in and repeat back his own ideas. Occasionally, as the transcripts show, he picks up ideas from his listeners and correspondents and feeds them back into the discussion, generating further feedback the other way. In short, his very technique lends itself to incitement. That is, he stimulates, urges and agitates his listeners and correspondents with his emotive editorials and, unsurprisingly, often receives as feedback highly inflamed and inflammatory comment more or less echoing his provocative commentary. Numerous examples can be found in the extracts above and the transcripts in the appendix.
173 Fifth, the tone used by Mr Jones during his broadcasts to which we have listened is critical to our analysis. Throughout the broadcast period when speaking about the subjects relevant to the present matter, his tone combined, often simultaneously, elements of urgency, anxiety, anger, aggression and contempt. This was the case with the Schedule A broadcast. As pointed out by the respondents, it is not unusual for Mr Jones to also approach less controversial topics with vigour. That Mr Jones may use tone and expression to emphasise his views and persuade his audience about other topics does not detract from their power when used in respect of the Schedule A broadcast.
174 Sixth, in respect of the Schedule A broadcast the ordinary listener would have been left with no doubt that Mr Jones endorsed the views of his correspondent. Using his correspondent’s heavily-loaded, highly emotive language, and backing it with his own indubitable authority, Mr Jones conveyed to his audience that he perceived the Lebanese Muslim community and Lebanese males as a threat — “a national security problem in the making”. It is difficult to think of a metaphor more calculated to arouse fear and loathing in a listener’s mind than to endorse a letter describing Lebanese Muslims (as Mr Jones insisted they were) as “vermin” who “in their vast numbers” were raping, pillaging and plundering the generous land that had offered them succour. One of the most contemptuous forms of commentary on another person or group is to describe them in sub-human terms, such as likening them to insects, vermin or animals. Although he did not initiate the use of the term “vermin”, Mr Jones implicitly endorsed it by reading his correspondent’s letter approvingly. On 28 April, in his introduction to his interview with Mr Jeff Schuberg, the transcript shows that he adopted the term himself to describe the “car hoons”. From an objective point of view, it could only be regarded as an incitement to listeners to hate and hold the Lebanese Muslim community and Lebanese males in serious contempt.”
“178 In respect of the Schedule A broadcast we find that not only did it convey the impression that Mr Jones held the Lebanese Muslim community and Lebanese males in deep contempt but also was capable of inciting the ordinary reasonable listener to feel serious contempt for both groups.”
“239 Mr Trad said that he couldn’t believe that “public discourse had descended to such a level of calling human beings vermin ... rapists and pillagers…that they a security problem in the making”. He claims that he “felt terrible” on hearing the Schedule A broadcast. We accept that claim. It is plain from his evidence that it was not only the Schedule A broadcast which caused Mr Trad distress, however this does not detract from the fact that he was also distressed by that broadcast.”
“49 Mr Jones also misrepresented Mr Trad. At one point during the broadcast he replayed a lengthy excerpt from Sheik Faiz Mohammed’s speech, commented “Well, the man’s plainly ill” and then asserted, “I spoke to Keysar Trad from the Lebanese Muslim Association and he had his usual go at defending the indefensible.” As the full interview with Mr Trad excerpted above shows, Mr Trad did not seek to defend Sheik Faiz Mohammed but sought to deflect Mr Jones from unfairly holding the whole Muslim community to account for the Sheik’s conduct.”
I am pleased to debate Islamic and non-Islamic issues as they are affecting all of us. Debate and Discussionis for enlightenment, advance an idea as well as a means to improve friendship.
Sadly in some Muslim countriesDebate and Discussion are not easy commodities! I find it anti-Islamic. However, it is not the fault of the religion. We are responsible for these anomalies. In my understanding, Islam stands for:
1.Justice
2.Fairness
3.Equality
4.Humanity
5.Love and Peace.
Arabs are only 8% of the world Muslim population.Yet, recently they are attracting far too many headlines for wrong reasons! Although the same Arabs made wonderful contribution to the world and humanity in general when they followed the true Islam and the principles like:
1.Love.
2.Compassion.
3.Humanity.
4.Democracy.
5.Free Speech.
6.Tolerance and
7.Power of knowledge!
The whole world was in darkness for too long. Lately, for a number of reasons, the Islamic world is struggling.I personally prefer to be part of this struggle and struggle continuum through peaceful means.
The Western world appears to be following some of the good values of Islam while we are in a confusion mode! Nonetheless, these newfound values of the West are a recent trend. They are bright and hollow, foul and spectacular, probably nearing to an end.
In conclusion, reference above confirms and reconfirms the fact that the West is heading for an Israel centric darkness and we can bounce back if we can follow peaceful and logical way!
--- On Sun, 6/12/09, saleque sufi wrote:
Turkey and to some extent Malaysia are nearest approach of Democracy. But remember Muslim majority Turkey is a secular country. No country should have religion as state law.Religion is for individual to perform .There can not be state religion. Then People of other religions can not feel safe and are not treated properly.
Countries in Middle East have totalitarian government where even people of Islamic countries are treated as miskins.
MR SUFI CONGRATULATION FOR YOUR LETTER BUT PLEASE SHOW ME ANY TRULY DEMOCRATIC MUSLM COUNTRY!!!! AS LONG AS STATE GOVERNING RULES AND REGULATION AND RELIGION IS NOT SEPARATE RULE OF LAW FOR COUNTRY TO FOLLOW DEMOCRACY WILL NEVER WORK PROPERLY THERE.
------------------------------------------
From: saleque sufi <saleque123@gmail.com>
Hi All,
Mr Masud is very correct.We Muslims are responsible for present plight of Muslims around the world.There no Muslim leader in Muslim country now who can be role model for youth.Look at the life style of Arab Leaders. Look at their life styles. Are they even following the teachings of Islam. Are Muslims of poor countries treated well in any affluent Muslim countries. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya are sponsoring terrorism around the world. For the excesses of fundamentalists Muslims all over the world are getting the treatment they deserve.
Do not think we do not feel bad about it.If the leading Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia ,Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia could play their role properly Muslims could leave peacefully all over the world.But for the follies of undemocratic Islamic countries Muslims are suffering. Some of the beauties of Islam is however practised by Non Muslims Anyway thanks to Mr Masud for his deep insightful mail
DEAR MASUD ISA BHAI, CONGRATULATION AND THANK YOU FOR A TIMELY MESSAGES YOU WROTE FOR THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM NEEDED RIGHTLY NOW. THE HATE AND FEAR MONGERING SCHOLERS OF ISLAM ARE NOW THE MOUTH PIECE OF IT.SO MUCH LIES AND DECEPTIONS TOLD WHENEVER IN ANY SORT OF MUSLIM GATHERING IN THE NAME OF ISLAM IS UNBELIEVABLE!
------------------------------------------
From: Masud Isa <masudisa@yahoo.com>
Mr. Faruque,
Greatness of a cult or religion or belief or faith lies in its practical application and its results. Look at all the Muslim countries in terms of liberty to women, democracy, economy, governance, tolerance, respect and then conclude your assertions. Look how Shias are killing the sunnis and the intolerance being bred by the wahabis. Look at how suicide bombings are killing innocent men , women and children. Look at India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Lybia, and even Philippines.
Conclude yourself about the peace loving religion - want to know about how it did spread in the first place ? Read history and the battles its followers fought to conquer lands and spread it. God does not need to kill people to force them to accept Him or get his way through to be establised among the humans. You may come up reasons from faith but faith based justifications can be given by any of the followers of any faith.
Christianity has gone through the dark past as well prior to renaissance. They have killed innocent women in the name of witchery, killed the scholars and scientists just because they went against the established dogmas and pillars of faith.
Please don't blame others for what the Muslims are doing - they need to introspect and correct themselves. If they don't, this religion will be thrown out into the dungeon of history - already the civilised world is worried about Islam and agitations by the general peace loving citizens are the results of what the Muslims are doing. So look at your soul and please don't be driven by blind faith - its important to bring in reason and rationality in the behaviour of the Muslims.
I am a peace loving person and want see the people of all faiths live in peace and harmony and respect each other and does not divide and disrespect humanity just because he or she belongs to a different faith or a different culture. Look at the Arabs - even if you are a Muslim from another country you wont be allowed to marry their girls and obtain any citizenship. The policies are totally selfish verging on racism - but they talk of humanity and peace. The middle east is the place where the terrorism was bred . Bin Laden has millions of followers in his killing spree just because he is a Muslim ? What a logic.
On Sat, 5/12/09, Faruque Ahmed <union_faruque@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Received: Saturday, 5 December, 2009, 2:07 AM
Why don’t you have a test of the zipnised Christian (?) fundamentalism first and try to improve your knowledge about Islam before bad mouthing a great religion. Attacking Islam based on false and fabricated reason and ground is not a good idea.
