>>As terrorism follows its natural course to failure, deep Muslim grievances remain and cannot be ignored. It is likely Muslims will search for alternative, probably political, modes of expression.<<

Terrorism has never stopped Islam for pursuing it's expanssion campaign and immigration assault on the west.

It is part of islam to conquer the world and bring all people to surrender to their god Allah.

Terrorism could be frouned upon by some Muslem leaders because it has open too many eyes and shed the light on their Islamic schemes.

When force fails, use ruse, lies, and malice.

Ultimately the entire world will understand the true colour of islam which is far more dangerous than a few suicide bombers here and there.

It is not just terrorism that is going to fail but the entire ideological religion that is based on violence.

‘The Muslim world inevitably recognises that terrorist organisations are its enemies, too.’

Does it really? I suppose that’s why the so-called moderates start squealing about discrimination against Muslims every time the Western world talks about the need to protect itself from Islamic terrorists.

You fool only the wet left, Waleed. Fortunately, the people who make the rules don’t take any notice of you. It takes more than a nice smile and a mild manner to convince people who really know their onions.

Waleed, a good article thanks. It as you probably expected it has fallen on the deaf ears of those who want conflict but is still worth saying.

The question that remains from that is "What are the political solutions which you think are required?"

If we are somehow able to stop those who want to fight from driving the agenda then what needs to be done? What will it take in the real world to address muslim grievances against the west?

How willing is the muslim world to deal with western concerns about issues in Islamic states? The behaviour of the Talliban and it's treatment of people and historical sites was a stench that could have been addressed first by muslims rather than US bombers and troops.

Cheers
R0bert

Thanks Waleed. Please keep writing.

Why is it that when a muslim extremist says that all westerners want to take over the muslim world and convert muslims to Christianity we laugh, but when a westerner says that all Muslims want to take over the world and convert everybody to Islam we westerners take it very seriously?

The great majority of muslims are just trying to get on with their daily lives, make a living and love their families. If you asked the average westerner if he'd like to have his country invaded and occupied by the Iraqi army or if Iran should tell us if we should be able to enrich uranium, we'd be outraged, but turn the question around and it's good western policy.

Certainly all muslim and any other variety of terrorist should be hunted down and thrown in jail forever, but that does not make anybody of "middle eastern appearance" a terrorist. We will get further in stopping muslim terrorism by working with the majority of muslims who hate terror, than by demonising everybody who is muslim.

Hmmm, the question I have is, when was Al Qaeda officially taken off the CIA payroll? And what proof do we have that they ever were?

Nice article. Some comments, not so well thought out.

I was particularly interested in the suggestion that if creative ways to capitalise on the situation can be found the rhetorical dismantling of Al Qaeda may complete itself...

Earlier it was mentioned that the muslim world has been resentful of US support for oppressive regimes.

To me, this screams saudi arabia, which I'm quite convinced is the real hotspot for this 'war on terror'

Regrettably the saudi arabian share of the US economy is fairly hefty, so we're not about to see any hostile policies toward them, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if the US halted it's tacit support for the Saudi royal family.

Whilst the US needs all the friends it can get in the middle east, I can't help but feel this would be a positive step away from hypocrisy.

A thought provoking essay Waleed.

Like Irfan you’re unusually articulate and principled (for a lawyer that is mate ;-)

I'm a little more wary about the thesis al Qaeda may be on the decline:

- Terrorist groups (including Muslim ones) often reinvent themselves. While bin Laden may have been isolated from the rank and file of al Qaeda (AQ) deep, organised groupings (or quickly mobilised sympathisers) may still exist in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

- Its known AQ is still strong in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there is any reduction in the fight against AQ in those countries then AQ energies might be directed back to bombing Western soil or aircraft. A major pullout of US forces from Iraq is likely pre US November 2008 Presidential elections. The West’s Iraq occupation at current force levels is financially unsustainable.

- One major AQ bombing on Western soil will unmake the thesis and your optimism. Prior to 9/11 AQ was assessed as no great threat. AQ reads the media and reacts to complacency.

- The recent perceived success of Hezbollah in fighting Israel may agitate AQ to try harder - either in concert with Hezbollah (putting aside Shia-Sunni animosity) or alone.

- AQ has a well documented history of working with JI in our region (Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia). With the anti Pope campaign going on and JI's Bashir again free to stir up Indonesia jihadists, JI is still a threat, particularly in Jakarta and Bali.

- The Chatham thesis refers to home-grown terrorism as a continuing threat (due to AQ linking Western invasions and occupations).
= With Lebanon's Hezbollah seen as "heroic" among some locals and with increasing Australian commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn't take mind readers to see possibilities.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

It is only Muslims who can stop the terrorism but it would have to be a whole hearted affair and it is obvious by the screaming whipped up hysteria of demonstrations, burning of churches, murder of a nun, placards ,all over a few misunderstood words, where the Muslim heart really lies.
One picture on television was particularly telling, two very small children dressed in Muslim clothes, were holding a placard that said,"KILL THE POPE".
Why?

Dear Waleed
It seems your thesis is:

"Political Assasination and Violence does not advance the cause of true Islam"

The classic case of this being done, sadly is by Mohamed your prophet.

His view was.. "Mocking Poetry and illicit political Liasons by Kaab bin Al Ashraf, the Jewish chief of the Bani Nadir tribe in Medina, to the Quraysh in Mecca are deserving of death."

BACKGROUND.

1/ 2 large Arab tribes and 3 smaller Jewish tribes inhabited Medina.
2/ When Mohamed fled Mecca due to persecution, he managed to persuade all tribes in Medina to sign up to a document called the 'Pact of Medina' Kaab also signed this as leader of the Banu Nadir tribe.
3/ The Meccans attacked Medina but were unsucessful, and Mohamed's forces captured some of the top Meccan nobles, who he then executed.
4/ Kaab was outraged by this brutality, and began writing poetry lamenting their loss, and began seeking an alliance with the Quraysh against Mohamed.
5/ Mohamed, irritated by the poetry and the political overtures toward the Quraysh, asked "Who will rid me of Kaab bin al Ashraf"
To which question Muhammed Ibn Maslama replied "I will" and he had Mohamed's approval for this assasination.

The 'Hit' was arranged and planned to be through deception, (Lies) and 'on the quiet'. There was no trial, no arrest, just 'assasination' at night.
It is even described as the 'Murder'... in Islamic Hadith.

ISLAMIC PRECEDENT.

Given that Mohamed is the 'pre-eminent example' of Islam, and his actions are mean't to inspire others. Does this one incident alone, suggest that Islam by precept and practice of its founder, justifies political assasination without trial or public hearing ? YES !

Without a trial, it was pure speculation and this murder was carried out at the whim of the prophet.

VIOLENCE in DEFENSE of ISLAM, YESTERDAY and TODAY. Here, we see the direct connection between violent defense of the 'religion' at it's core. We also see the inseparable connection between 'State' and 'Religion'.
Dangerous at any time. Note the violent Muslim reaction to the Popes legitimate use of History.

Nice article but is it accurate? From the BBC there is this item:

"Iraqi tribal chiefs in the so-called Sunni Triangle have agreed to join forces to fight al-Qaeda, and have pleaded for US supplies of arms.

"People are fed up with the acts of those criminals who take Islam as a cover for their crimes," Sheik Fassal al-Guood told the Associated Press news agency on Monday.

He said 15 of the 18 tribes in Ramadi "have sworn to fight those who are killing Sunnis and Shiites", and had put together "20,000 young men".

Here was the response from:

"a young al-Qaeda leader called Abu Farouq told Reuters that the fight would go on until an Islamic caliphate had been imposed across Anbar."

"This tribal system is un-Islamic. We are proud to kill tribal leaders who are helping the Americans," he said.

Neither side seems to get it!

The very LAST thing anyone needs in Iraq or elsewhere in the world is yet another group of fanatical young men who are provided with more weapons, whatever their cause, to run around rampant with only killing, maiming and violence on their mind.

Waleed
Thank you so much for your contribution. It is one of the best opinions I have ever read on the so called War on Terror.

The tenor of some of the comments above leave me very troubled, which goes to show, I suppose, that there are many people who are invested in dividing up the world between us and them.

Please post more articles

David James.... in an ideal world there would be no need to highlight ideological danger points, but alas, the world is not ideal.
A war is indeed going on, and I see it as an important role to determine where this is coming from.

Clearly, Christians are not up in arms about insults to their faith. Do we care ? Sure we do. I was just watching Southpark and the episode was to do with 'Stations of the Cross' and it had Kartman crucified and mouthing off at the other guys. Clearly it was disrespectful of the deep and serious meaning of the Crucifixion of our Lord, but I am more concerned that people gain a right view of the event than wreaking 'vengance' over a cartoon misprepresentation.

ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD ?
Such a claim is often repudiated by Muslims, who will often point to the "grateful defeated who happily embraced Islam when they experienced the mercy and just treatement of the Muslim Armies."

THE REALITY.
The Campaign of Tabuk. Mohamed saw the need to have a buffer zone between his forces and the Byzantines. The Northern Arabian tribes were mostly Christian and allied to the Byzantines. He send his general Kalid bin Al Waleed to challenge them to "fight me or become my ally". Many surcumbed to this threat, embracing Islam out of fear.
One prince Ukaydir of Dumah refused. Walid murdered his brother in his presence, and sacked the city, then took Prince Ukaydir back to Mohamed, who 'offered him Islam'. Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that having just seen his brother hacked to death by Waleed, this 'offer' was of the type you 'cannot refuse'...
So, he embraces Islam and returns as Mohammed's Ally.
The prince would have made social changes to suit this new faith, and people would have followed their prince.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm

Islam, spread....by the sword ! This is inescapable.

BD,

Why does it always have to become back to religion with you?? I understand that religion is important in your life, but the worlds problems cannot be solved by villifying other religions for whatever reason.

The war on terror is not some sort faith based ideological struggle! It is about politics, land, oil and power!

I'm not denying that religion does play a role but you just seem to place waaaay to much emphasis on it. I'll give you this link again in case you didn't get it on the other thread, I think you could benefit from watching it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q

It is an excellent analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.

I really think the only way to achieve peace is to forget about the side issues of race, religion and ethnicity and educate people on WHY we go to war.

Hey Waleed,
I notice the usual quota of redneck rubbish from elements trying to disrupt these blog sites. Is it intended to discourage discourse? What could be the motives?
In "Christendom", we have Catholicism, Orthodox variations and Protestant groupings. There must be hundreds of sects, ranging from the rational and useful, to utter ratbag fringe elements, likely eventuating and mediated through the sometimes murky lens of politics and history.
For example in Catholicism, there is disputation between the more grassroots "liberation' theology with its active campaign to attend to the needs of the poor and an older and more conservative/aristocratic authoritarian Catholicism, embedded in the class structure of Latin countries responsible, in effect, for maintaining social stasis as much as any expected function relating to pastoral work and educative theology.
Like wise, in Protestantism there are all manner of variations between species of rednecks, Hansonists and exclusivist fundamentalists( Exclusive Brethren, Pentcostals, Waco misanthrops ), through to pastoral organisations like the Sally Army and Vincent de Paul, through to liberal intellectual Anglicanism and Jesuitism.
One presumes that similar tendencies could be said to apply within "Islam" involvinghistorical evolution. For instance, we already know there is a historical theological split between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, rooted in deeper metaphysical and theological conflicts symbolised by and involving the succession to the Prophet's back in the seventh century. There are presumably ideas arising in different parts of the Islamic world history expressive of local or universalist aspirations involving mystical, rationalist, authoritarian, democratic or messianic tendencies forming an unnoticed parallel to Christianity.
In the West we have hard core American fundamentalists (Oklahoma, Jonestown, Bush neo conservatism, or Opus Dei. So, in Islam, Arabian Wahabis for example, have been identified as part of an extremist problem. Are there different factions within Wahabism itself?
I hope those better-versed in Islamic history, culture,politics and theology may add more to this thread for the benefit of those of us genuinely interested in understanding such tendencies

" I notice the usual quota of redneck rubbish from elements trying to disrupt these blog sites.What are the motives?"
Well funguy[ha!ha!] the reason might possibly be that this is Australia where freedom of speech still is the rule.The redneck rubbish are merely using their rights to put their opinions. If you have objection to that,please contact the monitors.

“As terrorism follows its natural course to failure, deep Muslim grievances remain and cannot be ignored”

What about the grievances of those who bear the brunt of the redneck fungus spawned in the redneck ‘petri dish’ of the Islamic or Middle-Eastern diaspora?

What about the amount of murders and violent bashings inflicted on “skipps” and “Aussy scum” by “Middle-Eastern” “Lions” whom, whilst maybe not practicing Muslims, nonetheless grow out of the xenophobic tendencies inculcated therein?

Do you find any link between such “Lions” and the xenophobic practice of “pure” Islamic women not sharing the same pool as “impure” Infidels? I do.

Wahleed, your comments show you want to legitimise the “Islamic problem” by interpreting it only in its socio-economic dimension (such as poverty, Marxism), but you will never get anywhere until you acknowledge and condemn the redneck-icity inherent in its cultural dimension, and somehow flood this out by emphasising your supposed tolerance of “criticism” (e.g. the trial of pastor Danny in Victoria!)

With true “slave morality” you react to all fair criticism in a defensive manner. It is people like you who make the issue an “ethnic” or “religious” one, the rest of us just have an issue with a sector of the population, as we would if they were Anglo “skin heads”.

What would you think if prominent Anglos or Christians got all defensive whenever you complained that skin head gangs racially bashed Australians of Middle-Eastern origin? Forget about the (paranoid) “looks” people give you!

This whole debate is upside down, made possible by leftwing extremist discourses shrouding all of the REAL RACISTS behind a barrier to criticism, making them appear and themselves believe that it is THEY who are the victims of racism, when in fact “multiculturalism” is nothing but a policy to appease the rednecks coming here.

To those who say that some of the comments are by “rednecks,” rather than patronisingly ingratiate yourselves to Wahleed, why don’t you justify your name calling, you know, give reasons in support of it?

Poor ol' Waleed!
As a Muslim he is honest enough to acknowledge that even Muslims sometimes are moved to violence when politics is running really bad.
Have we had a similar honest acknowledgement from the Bush family or Cheney, or other US politicians like Clinton and Albright about the over a million Iraqis killed arguably as result of Western policy, over the last twenty-odd years. As the US Current Affairs show "Frontline" amongst other sources demonstrated; because of the cynical machinations of US politicians complicit in the rise, installation, and maintainence of Saddam Hussein in power, the Iraqi public has had to pay a shocking price in life and limb over a generation.
When Albright was told that the sanctions policy had already cost half a million lives by back through the mid-nineties, she is said to have said, "better half a million Iraqis than one US citizen" in arguing against the changing of the sanctions regime. After all, how were unarmed Iraqis supposed to get rid of Saddam?. It didn't really worry HIM when they were dying like flies, so what did the US and its allies think they were achieving. Apart from keeping Saddam in power, that is!
Now, for one last time. What IS the redneck definition of "terrorism"?
Nothing like the Israeli brutalising of children, pregnant women and the elderly in the Lebanon, West Bank or Gaza, I suppose?

funguy,

The only argument that can be made against the overthrowing of Sadam and the ensuing war is that democracy is not something that can just be implemented overnight.

However, in making that argument one has already accepted that some societies might need a dictator to keep the barbarians in line, whom came out in full force after Sadam was no longer around to murder their families if they stepped out of line.

Indeed, this could be the only decent argument one could make against the implementation or imposition of democracy onto a society, for in principle democracy is as sound as the principle upon which rests our forum here. That is, insofar as you expect your argument here it to be read and replied to, you necessarily presuppose that that principle ought to be implemented universally. Otherwise your words would be meaningless.

The "West" had every right to support Sadam under such potentially unstable circumstances.

If your argument against the recent war is based on how the "West" ought to have left Sadam in power, and if the basis of this is as I've outlined - because some societies need a harsh dictator to force a bit of stability onto an otherwise factionally divided murderous bunch of people - then your are inconsistent to say the least

The only ones you can blame for Iraqis not taking advantage of the situation they now find themselves in (sans Sadaam) is themselves.

Muslims are killing Muslims... what for?

I enjoy Walid's comments but wonder about the world in which he dwells. As a lawyer, and assuming he practises at the Victorian bar, one would expect some reliance to be placed on evidence.

Citing a report from Chatham House as proof of the diminishing appeal of al Queda is a waste of time. The enemies of democracy long ago learned to use what was supposed to be a system of analysis uncoupled from ideology and national interest to provide a veneer of legitimacy for their aims.

Look around Walid and you will see that militant firebrand preachers affect the young much more than clercis calling for restraint. They appeal to the rebellious nature of youth, the alienated and the credulous; provide a new paradigm of meaning and unfortunately, come to believe that so-called holy war is just. A number are then prepared to bcome martyrs. If the fundamentalist clerics practised what they preached, the problem would solve itself, although more lives would be lost in the process.

Waleed Ali often says stupid things, and this has to be the pick of the crop.

I remember his comments after the London attack, that the perpetrators were 'home-grown' British......sure.

They played in Pakistani only cricket club teams, mixed only among their own kind, somehow believe themselves superior to non-Muslims, and so on.

Either Waleed is in denial, like most Muslims, or is being deceitful. I don't want to accuse him of the latter, but in the current climate, what else can one think?

His own Islamic Council of Victoria's website had links to race-hate books about killing infidels as recommended reading!

To be fair when someone (who wrote an excellent report on the two pastors vilification case in Victoria - during which, astonishingly, when counsel for the pastors offered to read extracts from the Koran about infidels to the judge counsel for the ICV objected saying it would denigrate Islam! Even more insane is the judge agreed!)

complained they took it down, but still, how could it have got there in the first place without someone there noticing it?

I don't believe there is much else to say, for to believe that Al-Qaeda is on the wane is to suggest that most Muslims abhor terrorism. To date, all the evidence points to the opposite, from surverys, however detailed, to responses by the Muslim community to racist, bigoted comments from their leaders.

That is how one judges a community, not by the racist comments of a vile Islamic cleric, but that no one protests to have him step down.....

.....Can you imagine what would happen if a Christian preacher called for the murder of those of another religion, or women who dressed in skimpy clothing whores?

Sheik Hilali is the leader of Australia's Muslims, yet this vile used car-salesman of a character hasn't been told to pack his bags.

One can only assume that Muslims agree with his sentiment.

Oh, there have been attempts to remove him, most notably when he went on his PR campaign to Iraq to help free Douglas Wood (during which he was busted of lying repeatedly about the situation - and this man, of this character, is the leader?) but shockingly, that was to replace him with a more radical cleric as apparently Hilali is too soft.

Times don't look good at all. I just hope that things don't get worse because I don't believe that Australians would sit back while their paradise is torn apart from uncivilised, backward, intolerant blistering purple-necks, not rednecks, purple-necks.

Attitudes need to change. People shouldn't feel that they are becoming more western if they get rid of racist practices or traditions based in Islam.

It's about becoming human, getting beyond a tribal allegiance. We are all one, and must abide by those universal principles upon which we can all agree.

No backward belief system like imposing Sharia will work, it must be a situation that all people, of all colours, religions, can agree upon, for everybody should be considered equal.

One mustn't be looked at as inferior for not being Muslim. This attitude must go in order for the very survival of Islam.

But as for Al-Qaeda on the wane, Ali is either using taqqiya or burying his head in the sand.

Think critically, this is a war. We are fighting it blindfolded with our hands behind our backs, against cowards who, despite wanting to live in a 7th century hellhole use western technology to achieve their aims.

In the article you refer to "Deep Muslim grievances". I have heard a lot of people say that muslims have legitamate grievances but I have yet to hear what they are. Can someone please tell me what muslims really want?