The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Saving democracy from the extremists > Comments

Saving democracy from the extremists : Comments

By Junaid Cheema, published 25/2/2015

The publication had a very un-Australian affect on the readers - comments flooded the paper's social media site vilifying Muslims, promoting hate and creating divisions amongst Australians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 39
  11. 40
  12. 41
  13. All
Craig
"the problem that is being described in the article is not to do with Islam, but to do with the other factors discussed".

The problem described in the article is to do with Islam. The issue is whether it is wrong to connect Islam with abuses carried out in its name.

Junaid is saying it's wrong, and extremist, and un-Australian, and a threat to democracy for Australians to assert that jihadism is motivated by Islam. This raises the obvious question of the extent to which any Muslim accepts or rejects the moral example of Mohammed and the authority of the Koran and hadit.

Therefore my reasoning was not specious on that ground.

"Secondly, as has been reiterated time and again, here and elsewhere, what a Moslem chooses to take from the principles of their faith is entirely up to them, it is not something defined centrally by fiat, therefore your basic tenets are flawed."

This is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Mohammed, the Koran and hadith. It's nonsense.

It is not "extremist" or "un-Australian" or a threat to good government to ask Muslims whether they agree with Mohammed or not; nor to call on them to reject his abusive example.

I find Junaid's preciousness about the sensitivities of Muslims to be pretentious and false. It is entirely appropriate for Australians to point out the connection between Islamism and Islam, and offensive to accuse them of being bigots for doing so.

Junaid
Do you agree with Mohammed that it is okay to kill people for their religious opinion, or not?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 25 February 2015 6:39:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not my reasoning, but Junaid’s reasoning that is specious:
1. Of all Muslims, there is a subset who are known by Junaid to be true Muslims, and another subset who are known by Junaid to be false Muslims.
2. ISIS are false Muslims, even though they claim to be motivated by Islam and obviously they believe that means true, not false Islam
3. Australians are bigoted and hateful and undemocratic for remarking any connection between Islamism and Islam.

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. It only begs the question how Junaid, or anyone, is to know the true from the false Muslims.

It has not escaped my notice that the Muslim community fell into hot dispute about this very question approximately 2 milli-seconds after the death of Mohammed, and have been busily hating and killing each other about it ever since.

Junaid invites us to join the theological controversy; but will not enlighten us as to his distinguishing criterion. The necessary implication of his smug argument is that Junaid shares with Mohammed the one true knowledge of which is which.

But the rest of us have nothing to go by but either:
a) Junaid’s opinion, so the argument is in effect that anyone who disagrees with Junaid’s religious opinion is hateful and bigoted and un-Australian and extremist, or
b) the example of Mohammed and the teachings of the Koran and hadith.

Junaid has got the whole matter precisely back-the-front. If the terrorists he says are false Muslims, are doing what Mohammed told them to do, then it’s perfectly appropriate for anyone to point this out.

But when we ask Junaid how he reconciles his beliefs with Mohammed’s abusive and atrocious example - completely unacceptable by modern Australian standards - all we get are shrieks of silence.

The specious and extremist argument here is that we shouldn’t offend Muslims’ prickly sensitivities when blind Freddie can see that, by definition, they’ve got a major problem with understanding the most basic concepts of ethics and modernity and good government; else they would renounce and condemn Mohammed’s dreadful example.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 25 February 2015 8:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Perhaps raw figures from Europol and the FBI database,concluding well over 90% of terror attacks on western soil have nothing to do with Islam, also seem irrelevant."

I suspect these figures derive from a left-wing source such as this: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/. But if you analyse those tables a little more closely it's possible to see that they're well out of date -- the latest is 2009 -- and heavily dominated by separatist movements in France, Spain and Germany. Take those out, along with the religiously-inspired violence in Ireland, and what remains are generic attacks on 'the West' inspired by Islam. Nobody's suggesting, I take it, that the West go to war on Basque separatists? That's simply a domestic problem for the governments concerned and of no relevance to anyone else.

It's worth pointing out that these figures also count 'attacks' but not property damage or lives lost. I suspect that if those were counted the score for Islam would be considerably higher.

So let's have a debate by all means; but let's not pretend to support our claims with dodgy and irrelevant figures.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 26 February 2015 6:11:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
When Leftists talk about "attacks" they include all sorts of behaviour, almost all of which relates to verbal altercations or harassment and nowadays 99% of their atrocity stories are generated by trolling Twitter and Facebook. ETA and the IRA have never been more of a problem to their respective societies than say,the Mafia in southern Italy.
Islam is only practiced as a religion by a minority of immigrants, for most of them tribal, family and gang loyalty are more important, the "Islamic Problem" in every European society is that they are prone to criminal behaviour, drug dealing, extortion and violent turf wars.
Gangs from Kosovo, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia and Lebanon are the Mafia equivalent in Germany,Denmark,Sweden and Norway they control all of the drug trade in the major cities and run myriad other rackets as well.
Muslim Gangs Terrorize Denmark
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2941/muslim-gangs-denmark
This is an account of how Lebanese gangs were allowed to take over Sydney.
http://1389blog.com/2008/01/29/mideast-gangs-no-go-areas-in-sydney/
We saw exactly the same thing happening under commissioners Nixon, Overland and Lay in Victoria,Police are now effectively prohibited from taking on African and Middle Eastern gangs while petty crime by Anglo Australians, crime by defenceless minorities such as Vietnamese and Chinese and things like domestic violence are given priority.
The Lebanese gangs are left alone because they fight back, they'll attack and stand over Police and members of the public including their own "community leaders" if challenged, they can assemble a mob of 30 bruisers in a few minutes and stare down or defeat anyone who confronts them.
The Imams, "Community leaders" and the White Social Justice Warriors of the community legal centres also work against the Police to protect the gangs under the threat of a breakdown in "social cohesion" if pro active measures are taken against African and Middle Eastern criminals.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 26 February 2015 7:35:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ISIS claims that everything it does is in accordance with the Koran and subsequent hadiths.

Is that so ? Can the actions of ISIS be justified by reference to the Koran ?

But, if not - and since there is nothing much any non-Muslims can do which won't exacerbate the ideological discussion - it is up to Muslims to expose ISIS as anti-Muslim, and their claim on the Koran as a pack of lies.

Until that happens, the rest of us will have to wait patiently.

Of course, what we hear about ISIS may be just taken out of context ......

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 February 2015 7:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,
Craig Minns posted this link in another discussion, it should be read by anyone with and interest in current affairs:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 26 February 2015 8:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 39
  11. 40
  12. 41
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy