Free Dinner at Mosques During Ramadan

39458

Go to Deal

Taegukgi on 06/05/2019 - 19:45 canberratimes.com.au (1386 clicks)
Last edited 06/05/2019 - 22:25 by 3 other users

Edit - updated title to reflect advice provided by ar7ist.

Read this in the Canberra times -

It's also a month of gratitude. By abstaining from food and water during the day, the faithful are reminded of those less fortunate. Each night during Ramadan, mosques and aid organisations set up tents and tables to serve free evening meals for the poor.

I did a bit of research and it appears that this is 1) available in most mosques around the world; 2) is not widely advertised and 3) generally available to everybody.

The timing of the dinner depends on when the fast is broken which will be different each day for each state.

The time for the dinner is the second last column titled "Iftar Maghrib"

Free food and drinks every evening for everyone in most of the mosques - check for local mosque or speak to any Muslim friend, neighbour or colleague for more details.

This is a great way to explore and connect to a different culture.

Ramadan Kareem to those that celebrate Ramadan.

Dining & Takeaway Ramadan

Freebie
4 Jun 2019

Related Stores

canberratimes.com.au

closed Comments

- - - eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 15:52
      
      Wrong. In some cultures free meals are a duty, not charity.
- Moderatorneil on 07/05/2019 - 09:43
  
  No and incorrect. Read what you linked to.
DEvok on 07/05/2019 - 07:47

Some people are taking free food way to serious, many ozbargainers are in need of food and shelter. Posting it here was the correct thing to do from op, many people don’t know about these special deals, great posting op many more ppl now aware of this, many are just angry they didn’t know this earlier and want to keep it themselfs.
- syousef on 07/05/2019 - 18:37
  
  -1
  
  The price is too high. Those same people tend to be very vulnerable and not in a mental space to consider their beliefs and religion.
  - eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 15:56
    
    So you prefer people not in a mental space to go on with hunger instead? Wow, a true humanitarian
Ruhabb on 07/05/2019 - 07:55

+11

As a muslim I would just like to say I find nothing controversial about this post. In fact I am quite glad people are open to attending a mosque and meet with muslims.
We do have during the month of Ramadhan "free meals" or at least some form of refreshments at mostly all mosques and even smaller places of worship.
Although the intent of the food is for those who have fasted all day and can break their fast with something before returning home, nobody would be turned away.

This is not exactly done by the organisations for "charity", but more for convenience for those who are fasting. Although, Islam strongly encourages charity even if you can only afford to give half a date, especially in Ramadhan. At the end of Ramadhan we are also obligated to pay 2.5% of our savings to charity, and that is the minimum.

However, please note that most mosques and especially smaller places of worship (musallahs) run on charity from attendees, so please also consider giving a donation. There is definitely a difference in the level of resources muslim organisations have in western countries due to having such a minor population. Nevertheless, our level of hospitality would be no less in comparison.

As a muslim, I welcome you to this offer no matter what your background, belief, gender etc.
- [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 12:16
  
  +1
  
  Thank you @Ruhabb. I am happy to share half a date with you at any time.
MondaySleeper on 07/05/2019 - 07:57

+8

I don't think this is a bargain for sites like this. I know many charities, temples, churches, Sikh temples giving food for needy people free, not just on a religious month but all days in year. Some are even reaching to people and feeding them without asking which religion, which race or culture.

Hope no one misuses this and only people really need a meal grab it. Not a thing to get OzBargained.
Vote for Pedro on 07/05/2019 - 08:04

+4

Typical ‘I’m not racist, but…’ going on here.

Vote for Pedro on 07/05/2019 - 08:04 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
- Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 08:12
  
  +1
  
  There are a few comments like that here and there.
  
  Mostly it seems to be people getting confused about this being a charitable cause instead of something that is open to everybody.
  - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 08:37
    
    +4
    
    No, the majority of the "confused" people either know exactly what they're doing or are completely ignorant to religious customs other than their own and the importance of charity and sharing that some religions possess.
    - dracarys19 on 07/05/2019 - 08:51
      
      +1
      
      What are they doing? It's mostly about just moving it to the forums as this type of thing is common amongst religious organisations.
    - Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 08:58
      
      I think you can only judge people on what they've actually said and challenge them on that rather than assuming that they're posting with an agenda and attacking them for it with no evidence.
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:07
        
        +1
        
        @Pantagonist: You're very naive. Count up the amount of off topic/trolling/inappropriate posts removed thus far. You don't believe they have an agenda? There's been, at least 3 by my count, fake accounts signed up (and since removed/banned) just to post inappropriate comments alone.
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 09:18
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: That may have been the intent of those people (hard to know what was said as the text gets deleted), but you can't then say that everyone who cast a negative vote holds those views and has an agenda.
        
        Assuming to know the intention of people whose views you disagree with is one of the main reasons why public discourse worldwide is in such a parlous state. Everything gets boiled down to warring camps on either side of the debate as there's no room for compromise or opinions outside what is mandated by those camps.
        
        You're free to do as you wish, but my preference is to prosecute the opinions as they're presented. All I know is that it's frustrating as hell trying to have a debate with someone who has already decided that you're a waste of space because your opinion might partially align with the views of someone else who posted something abusive or unreasonable.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:35
        
        +2
        
        @Pantagonist:
        
        but you can't then say that everyone who cast a negative vote holds those views and has an agenda.
        
        I never said that. That's a Straw Man. I said the majority. Over 50% of the negs have been removed since 11pm. That's a majority.
        
        Assuming to know the intention of people whose views you disagree with
        
        Mods removed their posts either due to trolling/spam/inappropriate or hate speech. I trust their decisions there.
        
        it's frustrating as hell trying to have a debate
        
        There's no debate. Mods have allowed this post. Move on.
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 09:55
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I can't understand why you're drawing attention to posts that have been deleted and the content hidden.
        
        I'm judging the thread based on the comments that have stayed up as I have no idea what other comments have been made.
        
        You're essentially giving credence to those other trolling/inappropriate views by acknowledging their existence and summarising what they said in such as way that those views are allowed to stay in the public sphere, which seems to be contrary to your objective?
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 10:04
        
        +1
        
        @Pantagonist: I said - majority of the "confused" people either know exactly what they're doing or are completely ignorant to religious customs other than their own and the importance of charity and sharing that some religions possess."
        
        You said
        
        There are a few comments like that here and there.
        
        I said there are a huge amount of trolling/spam/inappropriate or hate speech posts removed. So you advocate the ostrich method? Head in the sand? Far more than a "few" comments.
        
        which seems to be contrary to your objective?
        
        Don't Straw Man yet again.
        
        Majority of those posts have been removed due to trolling/spam/inappropriate or hate speech and you know exactly why and what those posts would have contained.
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 10:38
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Let's at least attempt to be objective here.
        
        At the time of posting this, unpublished comment stats are approximately as follows:
        
        Requested by Commenter: 2
        Trolling: 12 (8 of these were from DisabledUser258318, 1 from Major Mess who was also done for hate speech)
        Hate Speech: 4 (3 unique users)
        Personal Attack: 2
        Spam: 2
        Inappropriate: 2
        Ghost Account: 1
        Inappropriate use of negative vote: 10
        
        Three individuals deemed as having used hate speech.
        Four individuals deemed just to be trolling (if you exclude Major Mess).
        
        In the context of the total number of posts in this thread, I'm not seeing any evidence of a "huge amount" of problematic posts, especially given that many of the posts removed were from repeat offenders.
        
        I'm also not seeing any evidence that the purported "50% of negs removed" (not sure where that statistic comes from) were due to reasons other than them being used in contravention of the OzBargain guidelines rather than for reasons to do with hate speech or trolling.
        
        Based on the votes tab, 18 have been removed. There are currently 44 valid negative votes, so 18 removed represents about 30%.
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 12:33
        
        @Pantagonist:
        
        Let's at least attempt to be objective here.
        - nek minnit subjective -
        I'm not seeing any evidence of a "huge amount" of problematic posts
        
        Link another recent deal with a larger amount of problematic posts. I know exactly one that does. Guess what it shares with this deal?
        
        You also conveniently ignored all the off topic posts and started referring to votes.
        
        purported "50% of negs removed"
        2 hours 49 min ago "Over 50% of the negs have been removed since 11pm"
        
        Statistics change.
        
        There's no debate. Mods have allowed this post. Move on.
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 13:34
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        Link another recent deal with a larger amount of problematic posts.
        
        How about this one? Plenty of misogyny and transphobia in there.
        
        OzBargain doesn't have a "search by problematic post" function so I can't think of any more to dig up. You're correct in saying that determining a problematic post is subjective in nature. In looking at the reasons for post removal and tallying them, I was at least trying to be a bit scientific about it. If we are deferring to the decisions made by the mods, I'm making the assumption that if a post was removed due to "inappropriate use of negative vote", then the reasons given for its removal fit the verbatim phrases listed in the OzBargain Voting Guidelines.
        
        You seem to be conflating "negative posts removed" with "problematic posts" which, as I've illustrated, is not necessarily the case. I can't see the content of the posts that have been removed, but I know that a few of them just said "not a bargain", "not a deal" etc. as I reported them myself. Personally if someone just says "not a deal" and negs a post, I don't consider that a problematic post in terms of hate speech or trolling. You may be different.
        
        There are a "huge amount" of problematic posts in this thread in same way as there are a "huge amount" of scientists who believe climate change isn't real.
        
        In terms of "50% negs removed since 11pm" claim, if we go from approximately 14h30m ago through to 4h ago when you made the claim, there were 18 negative votes cast and 5 of those were removed. A bit less than 50% by my calculations. I'm not really sure why you chose 11pm to start counting either.
- [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 12:17
  
  scroll up and down
nuno on 07/05/2019 - 08:26

+1
Far too many posts calling for the removal of the ad because it doesn't fall under a deal or a bargain.

Maybe rejig the title to say " Free meal. ( conditions apply) " .

Must attend a mosque.See capital cities listings below for locations.

Sit and eat with like minded fellow muslims

One meal per person.

offer valid for 30 days.
MauTauAja on 07/05/2019 - 08:27

+9

Muslim are lucky living in non muslim majority community, unlucky for those who non muslim living in majority muslim population

MauTauAja on 07/05/2019 - 08:27 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
- Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 08:40
  
  +4
  
  Muslims in Myanmar and China would like a word with you.
  - sajidmib on 07/05/2019 - 09:26
    
    +2
    
    Kashmir and Palestine would like to have a word as well
  - MauTauAja on 07/05/2019 - 12:12
    
    If they didnt start the fire (wanting shariah /become independent state unlike other religion) they surely life
    in peace
    - Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 12:24
      
      +1
      
      Like many issues, who started what is all a matter of perspective.
      
      If you're happy to lay 100% of the blame at the feet of Rohingyas and Uyghurs for the situations they're currently facing then that's your prerogative. In doing so you fail to understand the complexity of both issues.
      
      I was merely responding to the assertion that Muslim minorities get to freely practice their faith around the world, which is patently false.
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 12:46
        
        +1
        
        @Pantagonist: I doubt SaputraJ has any actual knowledge of previous and current cultural world events, let alone the persecution of the Rohingya people.
      - MauTauAja on 07/05/2019 - 12:51
        
        +2
        
        @Pantagonist: and so why muslims are in conflict in all region of the world?
        
        Russia -> Chech
        China -> Uyghurs
        Myamar -> Rohingya
        Israel -> Plestine
        Philipines -> Mindano
        Indonesia -> Aceh / Madura
        Thailand -> Phatani South Thailand insurgency
        Africa -> Boko Haram, El Shabab
        Middle east -> Al Qaeda, ISIS
        
        Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan.
        
        Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
        
        Cote d’Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
        
        Cyprus Christians & Muslims
        
        East Timor Christians & Muslims
        
        Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
        
        Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
        
        Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
        
        Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.
        
        Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
        
        Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians
        
        Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
        
        Pakistan Suni & Shi’ite Muslims
        
        Philippines Christians & Muslims
        
        Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.
        
        Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics
        
        Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 13:18
        
        @MauTauAja: If your analysis of all those situations is "Muslims started it" then there's not really much I can seriously debate with you.
        
        Let's take East Timor, a country I've lived and worked in, as an example. A country that wouldn't even be Christian were it not for the Portuguese occupation / colonisation that started in around 1770 and lasted until 1975. When Portugal abandoned it the Indonesians came and took over. This was primarily to do with fears around a possible communist state forming in the region rather than some radical expansion of Islam. Let's also not forget that this takeover happened with the tacit approval and support of the Australian, British & US governments at the time.
        
        Then, if we're criticizing splits along religious lines and religions breaking away from sovereign countries and "causing trouble", the (primarily Catholic) East Timorese voted for an independent state in 1998.
        
        So, in this case, whose side are you on? Please be consistent with your logic.
        
        MauTauAja on 07/05/2019 - 13:35
        
        +1
        
        @Pantagonist: answer this simple question:
        Why Budha / Jesus if insulted nothing will happened? why the other side will have blood sheed?
        
        Pantagonist on 07/05/2019 - 13:57
        
        @MauTauAja:
        
        Why Budha / Jesus if insulted nothing will happened? why the other side will have blood sheed?
        
        Because there are nutters on all sides who think they have a right to inflict violence on others to protect their religious institutions.
        
        Case #1: Buddhists in Myanmar killing Muslims
        Case #2: Muslims in France killing people who they perceive insulted Muhammad
        Case #3: A guy in Norway calling for a Christian Crusade against Muslim immigration by killing a bunch of young people
        
        See how your assertion doesn't take all of this complexity into account and is wrong as a result?
        
        Also still waiting for you to respond to my previous question.
        
        eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 16:02
        
        @MauTauAja: When did allegedly become proof?
        
        You have a great personality, allegedly.
- gamemaster on 07/05/2019 - 08:45
  
  +1
  
  https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/muslim-australians…
  - MondaySleeper on 07/05/2019 - 09:09
    
    +3
    
    I feel sorry for those people constantly targeted esp when I see some Muslims who consider human values above the religion. But, while reading that article, I dont want to pretend that I forgot the fact that the reverse is also true - most of the world is terrified by Muslim militants, ISIS etc. Western countries giving them life, and in return, some are planning to kill the host etc. Only if all people of all religion understood that humans made these gods and in that process of creating heaven our dear earth has been made a hell.
    - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:37
      
      +1
      
      most of the world is terrified by Muslim militants
      
      That's blatantly false.
- sajidmib on 07/05/2019 - 09:27
  
  -1
  
  Also the recent WMD discovered from Iraq Syria and Libya. Western countries huh.
berger on 07/05/2019 - 08:37

+2

This 'deal' is going to attract the wrong type of people.. These venues will likely be under-catered for such an influx of people and the genuine people wanting to go will miss out.
- Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 08:38
  
  +2
  
  What would you define as the "wrong type of people"?
  - berger on 07/05/2019 - 09:17
    
    +1
    
    Freeloaders
    - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:39
      
      +1
      
      Freeloaders
      
      There are freebies posted every week here. From steam keys, to McDonalds deals, to promo items. Lots of people miss out. Should all those freebie deals be banned as well?
      
      These venues will likely be under-catered
      
      Lol, this just shows you've never been to one of these events.
- Danstar on 09/05/2019 - 09:17
  
  -1
  
  I don't think that many people will actually go, other then the Muslim community who would've gone anyway.
  
  This is just virtue signalling at its best.
  - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 12:50
    
    -1
    
    Accusing others of virtue signalling is also virtue signalling. Irony.
    - Danstar on 09/05/2019 - 13:20
      
      -2
      
      No it's not. I'm not trying to make myself look or sound good with my opinion
  - eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 16:04
    
    Wrong. Quite a few new faces at the Masjid last night. Many happy and full people who will come back for a different meal tonight,
    - Danstar on 12/05/2019 - 10:24
      
      What’s quite a few? 3? 30? 300?
      
      I’d say closer to the former number
MoonlapseVertigo on 07/05/2019 - 08:53

+11

Free dinner at a mosque or any religious institution is not a bargain. Should not be on the front page of ozbargain. Downvote
Mkr on 07/05/2019 - 08:59

Would love to go, but is there vegetarian food available?
- Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:07
  
  +1
  
  Without a doubt, yes.
- dracarys19 on 07/05/2019 - 09:09
  
  I believe it's only vegetarian food.
  - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 09:39
    
    +1
    
    You believe incorrectly sorry.
sajidmib on 07/05/2019 - 09:25

-3

A lot of hate seed is sowed into peoples heart after 9/11 although not proven, but one day it will come out as was PRISM and NSA scandal.

There a good people out there not everyone looks fo kill people, man is an animal if not controlled by law or religion or regulation can bring upon destruction and domination in this world.

Live and let other live, be nice and positive, try to be open to understand a religion. Poverty or other problems can drive one to take such measures as is mass killing or shooting at worshippers. 5th Generation war is upon us. So be tolerant and understand all are not the same in any religion or country or race.

Peace out.

sajidmib on 07/05/2019 - 09:25 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
- dracarys19 on 07/05/2019 - 09:36
  
  +1
  
  Not just 9/11. Just the general happenings all over the world.
- [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 12:22
  
  -1
  
  5th Generation war is upon us.
  
  It is? OK, locked and loaded.
massafiri on 07/05/2019 - 09:42

+3

OP if you wanted to post this you should have set the price to 0.05c.
Then it's no longer charity, it's a genuine bargain of over 99% savings on the cost of food.

Seriously this shouldn't be such a contentious topic.
Breaking bread with your fellow human is the absolute best way to make a genuine connection with your local community.
- [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 12:23
  
  …you should have set the price to 0.05c.
  
  A peppercorn will do - ask any lawyer.
Yapapi on 07/05/2019 - 09:47

+7

This is like a broken dial on an elevator… it is wrong on many levels.
AAN on 07/05/2019 - 10:00

+2

I think its a bargain for us as a multicultural society to go to such gatherings to meet people we have alienated. I'd encourage people to go and meet worshipers share a meal with them to see that you may have more in common than you think.
- dracarys19 on 07/05/2019 - 10:02
  
  worshippers?
  - AAN on 07/05/2019 - 10:10
    
    +1
    
    dinner timing is close to prayer timing so a lot of people present would most likely have gone for prayer
- [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 10:59
  
  +4
  
  …people we have alienated.
  
  Umm. I think they've alienated themselves.
  
  The default culture is default. They brought something different in. The idea that people can go anywhere and expect their culture to be embraced is asinine.
  - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 11:05
    
    expect their culture to be embraced
    
    Here we go. Provide one example of this purported expectation? Groups worship in private. Iftar is open and welcome to all. There is no expectation for anyone to attend, worship, pray or convert. Zero expectation. Just more conjecture.
    - [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 11:39
      
      +1
      
      Hmmm.. example. Example.
      
      I'm hard pressed because the niqab and burqa was also part of Australian Need Kelly culture.
      
      I mean, who actually notices the different dress, different buildings, some pushing for different laws…
      
      I wonder how they alienate themselves… hmm…
      
      Ps. Evangelism isn't the topic, alienation is. They are not actually the same thing, FYI.
      - Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 15:10
        
        @[Deactivated]: Those are certainly all words.
        
        Where is there any expectation for you to embrace anything?
      - Ruhabb on 08/05/2019 - 07:36
        
        @[Deactivated]: We certainly do not alienate ourselves. If you think the niqab or hijab is creating a barrier between societies then you have no idea what the meaning behind them is. If you really have an issue with this then you shouldn't be living in such a multicultural country. There is a fundamental issue of people such as yourself creating this barrier by making us "different" to western society. We belong here as much as you, and this is our country as much as yours.
        Everyone has brought something "different in" except for Aboriginals
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 08:08
        
        -3
        
        @Ruhabb:
        
        We certainly do not alienate ourselves. If you think the niqab or hijab is creating a barrier between societies then you have no idea what the meaning behind them is.
        
        It is not anyone's responsibility to know what their meaning is. To me, their meaning is as ridiculous as the garment looks. Maybe it is the job of this minority to understand what the meaning of ridiculous is.
        
        Understanding works both ways.
        
        If you really have an issue with this then you shouldn't be living in such a multicultural country.
        
        I was here before it was multicultural.
        
        There is a fundamental issue of people such as yourself creating this barrier by making us "different" to western society.
        
        You join a country, it is common sense that the ernst is on you to join their society. Your religion is a choice and if your religion tells you to dress a certain way, you are free to drop the religion. You chose not to. You created the barrier.
        
        We belong here as much as you, and this is our country as much as yours.
        Everyone has brought something "different in" except for Aboriginals
        
        No other group tried to bring their laws in.
        
        (Queue edgy aboriginal trump card comment. Do it)
        
        Ruhabb on 08/05/2019 - 09:01
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: You are free to drop your opinions and show some respect too. Why should I drop my faith?
        I did not join this country, I was born here. And even if I did "join" this country like some people I know, they definitely contribute enough to this country to have the right to their own religon and wear whatever they want without your criticism.
        I practice my faith and integrate in society like many muslims I know so I dont see any barriers except the ones people like you choose to keep up.
        Neither am I trying to bring in any of my laws.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 09:07
        
        -3
        
        @Ruhabb: My criticism is my freedom of speech. It is enshrined in law.
        
        …right to their own religon and wear whatever they want without your criticism.
        
        If you don't want to bring in your laws, you can begin by not inventing rights.
        
        Ps. Of course I am referring to proponents of Sharia law.
        
        I practice my faith and integrate in society
        
        In other words, you keep doing what people seem to be uncomfortable with, and you keep calling that integrating.
        
        Right.
        
        Ruhabb on 08/05/2019 - 09:37
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: Freedom of speech is great, I also love using my freedom to wear what I want, and to have freedom of my religon.
        I am not creating rights, but you are trying undermine rights of those that are not "western" in your eyes.
        I know what proponents you are referring to. Yet I am not trying to bring any laws in to this country. I don't see muslims going around doing so either.
        
        No, in other words I continue to integrate well in society with my work and social events etc while I maintain my faith. I work in the city as a consultant dealing with happy clients every day. I do not sit in a cave planning to bring in Shariah law.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 10:13
        
        -4
        
        @Ruhabb:
        
        my freedom to wear what I want, and to have freedom of my religon.
        
        Your have the right to express yourself however you wish. That right does not infringe on anyone elses rights to not like your expression and to socially exclude you.
        
        …not trying to bring any laws in to this country. I don't see muslims going around doing so either.
        
        Come on. That's a blatant lie.
        
        It seems a common theme for you to say things contrary to the truth. I have no interest in such malleable use of words.
        
        Ruhabb on 08/05/2019 - 10:50
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: You are the one trying to exclude us from yourself. That is the blatant truth.
        Great article btw, you should read the whole thing. Maybe also read this: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZLawHisteJl/2007/3.…
        
        It was not Sharia law that banned gay marriage, it was influence from other other more dominant religons in this country,
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 10:53
        
        -1
        
        @Ruhabb:
        
        You are the one trying to exclude us from yourself.
        
        And if I am, that's my prerogative isn't it?
        
        That is the blatant truth.
        
        More claims. Calling it truth, blatant or otherwise, doesn't make it anymore true than religious text.
        
        It was not Sharia law that banned gay marriage, it was influence from other other more dominant religons in this country,
        
        Irrelevant. Not sure how gay marriage got brought up.
        
        Ruhabb on 08/05/2019 - 13:12
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: This discussion has become he says she says so I wont longer bother.
        However, judging by your comments plus response to Khomeini, you have a really bad understanding of our religon.
        I don't think you care either so I will leave it at that.
        But if you do, feel free to actually to go a mosque and talk to some muslim there or anywhere else, you would be welcomed regardless what day of of the year it is, and you might actually learn something.
        Dr Google or Youtube and Channel nine news is not the best source of information.
        
        khomeini on 08/05/2019 - 09:54
        
        @[Deactivated]: tshow TLDR: What are you uncomfortable with? Pray tell.
        
        What do you have a problem specifically with Muslims or what they practice?
        
        Here are things that most muslims - I'd say 99% of us here in Aus follow & support.
        
        legal laws of the land - including everything you would follow
        
        no consumption of alcohol
        
        no eating of pork (or haram products)… if it's not halal then we go elsewhere, simple really.
        
        Some men have beards (I'm sure the early settlers did too). Some women wear headscarves - again, something early settler womens did too.
        
        The contentious stuff which I'd assume you're alluding to I'll note:
        1. child marriage - I don't know any muslim who practices that here - mind from media there have been cases. Again, 99.99% of us do not support this. The islamic law is that once a child is past puberty they are allowed to marry. Going over puberty means you've reached adulthood - that was the custom in nearly every place on earth. I remember Spain had a legal age of concent at 13 - is that right or wrong - do you blame all spanish for being peadophiles? (unsure of laws now)
        
        female genetal mutilation - I didn't even know of this practice and only heard it from the media a decade or so ago - in reviewing it, it seems to be mainly practiced in North & East African countries, Somalia & Sudan being majority…. it seems to be a societal practice & is not a religious one, ie. Christians as well as Muslims practice this.
        
        Terrorism - yeah, we don't support them. The ones which do support it should rot in jail or be killed as far as I'm concerned.
        
        Burka/Niqab - most muslim women don't wear these face coverings. Again I'll bring in the 99% . Some do, but if you're for freedom of speech & expression, why are you blocking this if someone wants to wear it?
        
        Adultury - again not a supporter of death. I know a few muslims who are guilty of this and wouldn't like to be stoned to death.
        
        LGBTQI - I'm unsure what most muslims think about them to be honest. My family & I voted Yes. I have gay & lesbian friends - each to their own (there is actually a surah in a Quran about people practicing their religion - Al kafiroon)"You worship that which you worship and I'll worship that which I worship"
        
        And if you will bring up religious text, please don't as most Jewish text is exactly the same or very similar as Islamic ones (stoning for adultury for example) - why are you against one & not the other?
        
        Also you bring up the point about us pushing for new laws. Countries evolve through laws & changes of those laws. Why did the local laws of the aborigines not get observed and instead we have the british legal system we inherited from the English. We are an ever evolving nation with new needs & requirements. If you really want to stick to the past then I don't know what options there are for you.
        
        Would be interested to know what exactly your issue is with Muslims or what they practice in general.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 10:19
        
        -1
        
        @khomeini:
        
        What do you have a problem specifically with Muslims or what they practice?
        
        Typical. First assert the inference that Muslims are the exclusive target/victim. Operate from that point.
        
        I don't like all religion.
        
        What are you uncomfortable with? Pray tell.
        
        One day, I'll have a word document to copy and paste. Its a non-sensical book inciting violence. The typical defence of "proof" will just have to be Google since this is readily accessible information.
        
        The next defence of "not to be taken literally"… well… that's a blanket statement to make everything anyone says acceptable. If you don't take Hitler literally, I'm sure he is a poet.
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 11:26
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        My criticism is my freedom of speech. It is enshrined in law.
        
        If you don't want to bring in your laws, you can begin by not inventing rights.
        
        You might want to check the Australian Constitution again. There is no enshrined right to freedom of expression in Australia.
        
        There is more detail around freedom of religion in the Australian Constitution than freedom of speech. Section 116 for example.
        
        What you're saying to Ruhabb is actually contrary to what Section 116 outlines.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 11:35
        
        -1
        
        @Pantagonist: Pardon to the word "enshrined". A protected right would be the more technical term.
        
        What you're saying to Ruhabb is actually contrary to what Section 116 outlines.
        
        Which part is contrary? I have never said anything against freedom of religion. Please quote me from any thread anywhere to the contrary.
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 11:45
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Which part is contrary? I have never said anything against freedom of religion.
        
        People practice their religion. As part of that practice they wear specific clothing. You contend that the wearing of clothing that you deem to be not in keeping with whatever standard you expect people in Australia to dress like means that they're not integrating and you treat them differently as a result. If this thinking was adopted by our politicians and they passed laws restricting the wearing of religious garments, this would be in contravention of Section 116 and would likely be tested in court.
        
        I'm not saying that you are personally preventing people from practicing their religion in real life, however if you were a lawmaker and tried to translate your views into legislation it's highly likely that they'd be met with an adverse finding in the courts.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 11:47
        
        @Pantagonist:
        
        You contend that the wearing of clothing that you deem to be not in keeping with whatever standard you expect people in Australia to dress like means that they're not integrating and you treat them differently as a result. If this thinking was adopted by our politicians…
        
        It's not in policy now is it? We were talking about social acceptance.
        
        if you were a lawmaker and tried to translate your views into legislation
        
        I'm not and if I were, I wouldn't. Opinions and perspectives are best left to people to figure out. I have never been a proponent of civil restrictions policy.
        
        Feel free to quote me to the contrary.
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 12:01
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: What I don't understand is how you think your freedom of expression is being curtailed?
        
        You say that Muslims are making the conscious decision to "exclude" you through their choice of garments etc. but you don't seem to understand that the feeling of being excluded because someone is dressing differently to you is entirely an internal construct of your mind.
        
        Doesn't it strike you as a tad egocentric to assume that someone who puts on a niqab or hijab does so with the express intention of excluding themselves from people who don't wear those things rather than it being a for reasons of religion or culture? I think you'll find it's not all about you.
        
        If you accept the premise that you're choosing to exclude Muslims (as you hypothetically refer to here),
        
        And if I am, that's my prerogative isn't it?
        
        why are you in this thread breathlessly telling Muslims that you don't like what they're doing? If we apply your logic, you're curtailing the freedom of expression of Muslims in doing so. In reality I doubt whether they internalise much of what you've got to say or take it personally.
        
        I guess I don't really understand what your end game is here?
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 12:13
        
        -1
        
        @Pantagonist:
        
        What I don't understand is how you think your freedom of expression is being curtailed?
        
        "right to their own religon and wear whatever they want without your criticism."
        
        Such a right would curtail my freedom of expression wouldn't it? Or can I only express encouragement?
        
        You say that Muslims are making the conscious decision to "exclude"…
        
        Never once said that. Please quote me from anywhere.
        
        Doesn't it strike you as a tad egocentric to assume that someone who puts on a niqab or hijab does so with the express intention of excluding…
        
        Topic of this few comments was alienation and specifically who is doing the alienation. Google the definition.
        
        If you accept the premise that you're choosing to exclude Muslims (as you hypothetically refer to here),
        
        Looks like I'm not now am I? Hence the if because that's what someone else is claiming.
        
        why are you in this thread breathlessly telling Muslims that you don't like what they're doing? If we apply your logic, you're curtailing the freedom of expression of Muslims in doing so. In reality I doubt whether they internalise much of what you've got to say or take it personally.
        
        Moot point since I'm not.
        
        I guess I don't really understand what your end game is here?
        
        Someone claimed that we (ie. the rest of Australia) is alienating Muslims. Seeing as how the operative word in the definition of alienation is being different or to the effect of, wouldn't the "end game" be obvious? Ie. Refuting this claim?
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 12:27
        
        @[Deactivated]: OK, so your entire argument is based on the premise of groups "alienating" themselves.
        
        Just for clarity, in response to that claim being made (which I don't agree with), your response was:
        
        Umm. I think they've alienated themselves.
        
        A point which you should also be able to adequately defend.
        
        To refute the claim, I'll need to know the baseline comparison point that these people are alienating themselves from.
        
        Is there some objective standard of appropriate dress or behaviour in Australia that I can refer to, or are we talking about some arbitrary point in time that tshow recalls as the halcyon age of Australia before deciding that the country had fallen victim to multiculturalism?
        
        I'm genuinely interested to know at what point you believe the tipping point was, given that the White Australia Policy was effectively dismantled shortly after World War II. If you remember a time before that you must be getting quite long in the tooth.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 12:31
        
        -1
        
        @Pantagonist: CBB starting this over again. Seems like the argument will keep shifting until something sticks.
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 12:33
        
        @[Deactivated]: We're not starting again.
        
        You clarified the boundaries of the issue solely being around the issue of alienation and who is alienating who.
        
        I responded to that.
        
        You bailed from the debate.
        
        No goalpost shifting from my side.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 12:37
        
        @Pantagonist: You went from the topic of exclusion, telling me I've made comments contrary to section 116, shifted social exclusions to political exclusions…
        
        Now we are back to alienation and supposedly no goalpost shifting.
        
        All the while, making claims of what I've said but you cannot provide a quote.
        
        That's not debate, that's putting words in my mouth and asking me to defend my alleged statements.
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 12:55
        
        @[Deactivated]: It's difficult to provide quotes when the request for them comes in the form of an edit while I'm responding to your original post.
        
        I qualified my Section 116 comments by saying that your views wouldn't legally translate into anything meaningful. You haven't been clear as to whether social exclusion of Muslims is a practice you engage in, but if you do it's certainly ironic that you're interested in online debating with the people you choose to socially exclude.
        
        You seem to be interested in the "you can live your life as long as you don't interfere with mine" philosophy so this approach you're taking seems counter intuitive. If a Muslim feels like they've been alienated by broader Australian society, what impact does that feeling have on you?
        
        As far as I can see, my points about alienation go precisely to the heart of what you're talking about. It's strange that you don't want to take the opportunity to re-engage with the discussion now that you've successfully dragged it back to the original point of contention.
        
        [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 13:08
        
        -1
        
        @Pantagonist: Immigrant comes into a country. There are norms. Many cultures continue to practice their uniqueness discreetly.
        
        New immigrant comes in, everything preceding has become the new norm.
        
        New immigrant dresses differently, ie. Outwardly appearing vastly different in garment. (Choice of garment isn't the same as choice of skin colour.)
        
        People hold their reservations. New immigrant feels alienated.
        
        Do individuals have the ability to simply embrace something new? Certainly, as much as the new immigrants can accept new garments.
        
        On a community scale, can people simply embrace something new? They may.
        
        So which is easier, for an individual to dress like everyone else (no self imposed dress code) or for society to simply embrace a new garment?
        
        Correct, it is easier for an individual to adapt than it is for society to.
        
        Individual chooses not to adapt. Feels isolated and clearly different looking.
        
        And we are still having a debate on how it is society that is doing the alienating?
        
        Hence why I've lost interest. The expectation that the majority adapts for the minority. The existing to adapt to the new.
        
        Edit - I edit to add. not retract. Your inability to quote me on my supposed statement has nothing to do with the edit. You can still quote me on those supposed claims
        
        Pantagonist on 08/05/2019 - 13:36
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Immigrant comes into a country. There are norms. Many cultures continue to practice their uniqueness discreetly.
        
        Is your contention that previous migrants to Australia just kept a low profile and hence didn't encounter the issues that Muslims are currently facing?
        
        If so, a quick reading of history around Italian and other migrants to Australia will put paid to that suggestion.
        
        New immigrant dresses differently, ie. Outwardly appearing vastly different in garment.
        
        How people dress seems to be your trigger point. The overarching issue is that people who want to be pricks to other people will choose something they don't like about that person and use it to attack them. Clothing. Skin colour. Accent. Car they drive. Whether they look you in the eye. The list is endless.
        
        I think the world could do with a lot less dragging people down for reasons of them doing something different to another individual's personal view about what is normal provided that the practice they engage in isn't causing real, objective and measurable harm to another person or thing. Choice of clothing seems to fit into that category.
        
        And we are still having a debate on how it is society that is doing the alienating?
        
        I'll say again; I don't agree with the premise of the original poster, much as I don't agree with your premise that Muslims are alienating themselves.
        
        If you say that a group is "alienating themselves" then proceed to advocate the right to "socially exclude" that group, I think that warrants a discussion about where that person's actions which cause their exclusion stop and where your decision to socially exclude them begins.
        
        Muddying the waters around whether "alienation" and "exclusion" are the same thing seems like an attempt to weasel your way out of sharing what your actual views are. I have no qualms about stating my own views and explaining my philosophies when dealing with other people. It would be refreshing if you did the same thing rather than talking hypothetically about the general prerogative to exclude someone if you choose to do so.
        
        eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 16:13
        
        @[Deactivated]: If there is any lesson that History has taught us, it is this one truth. It is not who came to the country first that sets the culture, it is who came last!
        
        The people you identify with came to Australia after some other people came here. Now there are people coming to Australia and you are crying about how they dont adopt your culture.
        
        However, as you didnt adopt and assilimate with the culture who was in Australia before you, then it is hypocrisy to expect others to do the same.
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/05/2019 - 16:20
        
        +1
        
        @eman resu: The British didn't colonize to assimilate. They colonized to conquer.
        
        So the new comers are also here to conquer?
        
        eman resu on 11/05/2019 - 16:51
        
        @[Deactivated]: You came with the British?
        
        YOu must be the oldest person alive
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/05/2019 - 18:09
        
        @eman resu: Right.
        
        Danstar on 12/05/2019 - 10:25
        
        @[Deactivated]: If you read some theories….
        
        There’s a lot who say yes.
        
        [Deactivated] on 12/05/2019 - 10:30
        
        -1
        
        @Danstar: I'm the oldest person alive?
        
        Danstar on 12/05/2019 - 10:39
        
        @[Deactivated]: Sorry should’ve quoted
        
        So the new comers are also here to conquer?
Cleremy on 07/05/2019 - 10:07

+1

Cool, I'll head over to the middle east to partake… Oh wait, our corrupt government has brought the Middle East over here after helping the USA to drop bombs on phony pretences.
I'll go down the road and see if they'll accept me as one of their own.

Cleremy on 07/05/2019 - 10:07 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
PDeez on 07/05/2019 - 10:17

+5

Nice idea, not a bargain. There are many faith groups that offer this sort of thing and do so regularly but they aren't on OzBargain which lets face it, is a sight catering to consumerism not religion.
- Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 10:25
  
  +1
  
  is a sight catering to consumerism not religion.
  
  So you're an official OzBargain spokesperson?
  
  This deal isn't forcing or pressuring you to perform any religious acts in any possible way.
  - PDeez on 07/05/2019 - 12:04
    
    +5
    
    No I'm not an official OzBargain spokesman and I don't proclaim to be. I have an opinion just like everyone else that I'm well within my rights to express.
    
    While the 'deal' isn't forcing anyone to perform religious acts one would presume the general idea of this is to promote the activities of the religion. I have no problem with that but it's not a deal or a bargain and there are other outlets for religious promotion.
    
    I'd have the same opinion if it was any other faith, it's simply not a deal in any definition of the word.

This was posted 5 years 7 months 28 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Free Dinner at Mosques During Ramadan

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals