"....it is difficult to say exactly what is being articulated." Really?

We could also believe what the protesters say, i.e. they're outraged by insults to their religion and really don't understand that they live in a liberal democracy. Sounds like a political demand to me.

"The Muslims who took to the streets over the weekend, however, acted in ways which suggest they believe they are in a sense excluded from the political process. The important question becomes, why do they feel that way?"

It could also mean that they don't accept the Kuffar liberal democratic political process, it's just possible that frictions with the islamic community are not all the fault of the oppressive non-Moslem majority.

Dear Chloe, I very much doubt the rioting men of the Muslim faith were demonstrating over their perceived lack of political representation but
using the supposed irreverent video to hide behind and use as an excuse to physically attack the authority of this majority christian nation whom they despise as being not of the true faith.
Its all very well to analyse their actions with academic benign interest from the secure surrounds of La Trobe University but one cannot forget the similar individuals of the Muslim faith who blew up the train in Spain, set off bombs in the crowded tube in London, crashed aeroplanes into office buildings in New York, blew up the aeroplane over Lockerbee, Scotland, all incidents resulting in the loss of innocent lives. I could cite many more such incidents probaly too numerous to mention here.
These fundamentalist Muslims who physically violently protest at the most thinnest of provocation must be nipped in the bud and must be immediately dealt with by the authorities with a heavy hand.

Their demands are not political, they're religious, clearly spelled out in their placards, their chants, and the way they run countries in which they have coercive power. They want their authoritarian cult given respect it can earn only by committing itself unequivocally to the right of dissent from its doctrines and its edicts (not merely urging the hotheads to cool it for now). Naturally they will feel frustrated at persistent displays of disobedience and defiance. It they are determined to distance themselves from our religiously free society, they need help: one way plane tickets out or the encouragement of a growing backlash against them.

These guys are acting like spoilt children. They are indoctrinated to hate non Muslims, even if they tell you otherwise. If you look into the Quran it has may hate filled comments about killing non believers. When it comes to that though so does the Bible which the Quran was based on some 600 years later. There teachings are from a time when they were having a holy war with Christians and they have simply adapted them to follow through the ages. In the end, they are doing themselves no favours because even people like myself who were willing to tolerate this sort of thing in their own countries have had enough when it comes to ours.

A typical “see no evil, hear no evil and most of all, ignore all evil” piece of rubbish from academia. For someone at an institution dedicated to understanding Muslims, she doesn’t understand them very much, if at all.

The issue of rights and citizenship was absent in the Sydney protests. It was about Muslims wanting respect for their dear prophet and about sending a message to the infidels. Ms. Patton sees a tree and says its a fish, because she wants it to be a fish, because fish, too, have a diminished experience of citizenship.

Since many of the Muslims in the protest, of all ages, were carrying “behead” sign, sign and shouting anti-democracy slogans, I would say that was political, even if Ms. Patton thinks that a manifestation of a desire to inflict barbaric murder and torture on other Australians has no political context.

Not only is this so-called expert oblivious to the hate and violence in the Quran; blind to the evil deeds in the hadith and willingly ignorant of the discrimination and oppression practiced by Muslims everywhere they dominate, she can’t even bring herself to condemn those holding the “behead” signs.

This woman has no notion of decency and no sense of morality.

Emperor Julian

"Their demands are not political, they're religious, clearly spelled out in their placards, their chants, and the way they run countries in which they have coercive power."

Exactly, that's why their agenda is in fact, clearly political.

Chloe says "The Muslims who took to the streets over the weekend, however, acted in ways which suggest they believe they are in a sense excluded from the political process".

What utter rubbish. What they were saying is they refuse to comply with our laws, standards & attitudes. Obviously it is not a matter of being excluded, but of wanting to dictate to us how we must live.

This piece is one of the best arguments I have seen for a major reduction in academia funding. If this is what we get by funding these fools, it is time to defund them, & let them find a job.

Who knows, with a bit of experience in the real world, even the Chloes of this world might become rational.

Hi Chloe, Infidel here. Did we witness the same protest last weekend? Judging by the gulf between our views (I wrote for OLO on Tuesday), one would think not. Rather than second the majority of views posted to date, may I make one suggestion: before you pen another article please read While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer. You'll be surprised how the facts will conflict with your opinion.

OUR Riots?\

Fully sick, mate!

Hasbeen,

Yes, the article seems remarkably naive.

Johnathan J Ariel,

It's the kind of article someone writes when wearing very large multi-culti blinkers.

Guys wearing "Sixth Pillar" T-shirts are making a political statement, Islam is a religion, political system, moral code and chivalric military doctrine all rolled into one, everything these guys do is political at the same time as being a religious and chivalric act, they don't need anything from Liberal democracy.
Call it a guy thing, I know exactly where they're coming from, their actions are perfectly comprehensible to a political soldier, not so easily understood by, well...a girl.

Chloe,

Not "excluded from" but "above" the political process, beyond it, striving for a world in which "the political process" is irrelevant, i.e. the Khilafa, the Caliphate, the rule of the word of Allah over all people, whether they like it or not.

Perhaps it's easier for an atheist such as myself to conceptually distinguish between the rule of law, temporal law, the orderly management of day-to-day issues in a society - and some supposed 'rule by the word of God'. For me, there is no god or gos, and so nothing to separate from.

On the other hand, I suppose all devout believers - including many Marxists by the way - must feel that, if every word in their Book is true, then it should be the rule over all people, over all governments, over all the earth: the church should rule the state, not be separate from it, each with their own jurisdiction.

This is a dilemma that took a long time to come to terms with in the West, formally in the twelfth century in the arrangement between the Pope (Gregory?) and the German (i.e. Holy Roman) Emperor, and in practice over the next few hundred years. The Russian Orthodox Church seems to have 'resolved' the issue by recognising the Tsar as head of the Church, which of course didn't resolve the issue at all. [Hence Putin, I guess]. In China, somethign similar has been the rule, with the Emperor/Central Committee claiming the Mandate of Heaven, forever.

But without that resolution, the Enlightenment could not have occurred - to the extent that it has: notions of human equality, equality before the law, democratic processes, the rights of citizens to expect probity and competence from their governments, etc. - basically, the notion that power derives from the people, equally, and that one religious beliefs were a private affair, into which the state did not intrude - but niether would those beliefs be allowed to interfere with the running of the state.

TBC]

[cont.]

So the separation of 'church' and state, which is so vital in any modern society, has been a hard-fought achievement. It has many enemies, especially among honest, sincere and devout believers in some religions and some ideologies. Many of those believers not only spurn Enlightenment principles but are horrified and disgusted that there could be any separation of church and state, belief and power: that ultimately, if the Book is true, then it should rule the world, by force if necessary.

Hence, the bursting out of Islam from one small part of the Arabian Peninsula, across the entire Middle East, across North Africa, across Central Asia, down into India, into spain, conquering by the sword. Yes, Christianity, Crusades, yada yada, but Islam surely beats it hands down for sheer aggression and brutality, all in the name of a mythical god and his spruiker.

One reporter got it right earlier this week when he called followers of the Caliphate "ultra-conservative". But there would be sections of the child-Left who would tail after them, since, after all, they are anti-US. Yes, indeed they are, as Marx would have agreed - more reactionary, more backward, representing more of a retreat from civilization.

Perhaps what that 'Left' and the adherents to the Khalifate have in common - that we ignore at our peril - is their common desire to see Western society destroyed from within - Gramsci's 'march through the institutions'.

It's going to be a brutal century. I'm somewhat relieved that I won't see all that much more of it.

Cheers,

Joe

This terrible article by an academic should be read in conjunction with this other article by another academic:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4270342.html

Despite all the prostestations that the rioters do not represent Islam or moderate muslims it is the actions of these people which determines the relationship between Islam and its host nation, Australia. People who are law abiding do not have to be reacted to; those who do break the law and want to change the law must be reacted to.

The linked article by Morsi, in my opinion, shows 2 things.

Firstly once again a prominent spokesperson for Islam threatens the Australian social structure; and secondly, this spokesperson reveals either the impotence of the moderate spokespersons, or their perfidy [Taqiyya and Kitman].

For the author of this article, a women, to defend this atavistic theology, marks her either as a dupe or a quisling.

Once again Australia has been sorely let down by its academics and politicians.

A look at the website for the so-called “International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding (MnM)”, of which Dr Patton is an acclaimed member, shows a jumble of the usual cheap, meaningless words that mark academia today.

http://w3.unisa.edu.au/muslim-understanding/default.asp

This so-called “Centre” is all about Muslims and the need to be nice to them without ever questioning their theology, values or actions. It is 99% about “understanding (and not criticizing) Muslims) and 1% (if that) about Muslims respecting those evil, racist non-Muslims. This so-called ‘educational’ organization is a sorry, sick joke.

Here is the MnM’s goal: to understand the root causes of the differences between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities and to pioneer ways of bridging the divide that these differences seem to produce.

Since these differences are about moral values, individual freedoms (speech, religion, political) and separation of state and religion, it should be obvious that there is no way to bridge this disparity, except to shut up and accept Muslim intolerance and hate (the basic idea behind MnM).

A comment on her article about “Fearing the burqa”,also found on MNM, I would like to inform Dr. Patton the reason that I dislike (fear? I think not!) it is because the Islamic garment immediately tells me that this person accepts the hate and violence in Islam (as doe Dr. Patton). It tells that this person loves and respects a person known for declaring “I am made victorious with terror”. These words are from Islam’s own writings and just that one line would trouble a normal, moral person, but not a wearer of the burka or Dr. Patton.

I wonder if she is going to check the comments left about her intellectual masterpiece

Given Chloe's position, it is understandable that she would be reluctant to say anything negative about these riots or the rioters - but then she is left only making lame excuses for this bad, and totally unacceptable behaviour. Political correctness run rampant. The poor sods are just misunderstood, hey?

Any religion or culture which says I will kill you if you say anything bad about my religion or my beliefs or how I conduct myself, is a religion/culture which should be banned and banished from this Earth.

My, we live in a strange world, replete with truly archaic and horrendously belligerent ideologies. (And now off with my head, I suppose?) Whatever happened to the enlightened Golden Age of Islam, embracing and developing mathematics, philosophy, science, astronomy, language, etc, etc? Brought low perhaps, and hence rebounding with a destructive and near-demonic fervour?

Some oddball religio-cultures hide themselves away in seclusive enclaves or ghettos, forbidding any intrusion or entry by outsiders, and carrying on strange or mystical behaviours in their private solitude - almost like some form of self-imposed refugee camps. Lord only knows how they survive. (Probably with much surreptitious help from the 'outside'.) But some even practice strange behaviours in public - as a show of commitment, and possibly of defiance?

Have to feel sorry for all fanatical fundamentalists, waiting for 'Goddo' - as long as they don't try to impose their ideologies on the rest of us, and particularly if that attempted imposition comes with threats of violence against all detractors or naysayers.

Some may interpret head scarves and burqas as just a form of identification and even of modesty (as Chloe appears to suggest), but to me they represent a deep seated repression of women, pure and simple. (Men just can't be relied upon to control their baser animal instincts when confronted by a female exposing even the slightest bit of skin, hey? Heaven, such men must have a very diminished moral compass, one would have to suspect? If they can't trust themselves, how then can they trust any other man?)

Can Islam 'modernise'? One can only hope.

They're just the religious version of our unions.

Well, given the rant chanting rioters, numbered just a couple of hundred, with a combined IQ roughly equal to the ambient temperature; and, there are over a half million Muslims in Australia? It's hard to lay blame for the disturbance, at the feet of law abiding Islam!
Not every Muslim is a hate filled brain-washed fanatic!
If one looks through inquisitorial eyes, one sees that the oldest version of Islam, is the Sofie tradition, with the least revised version of the original teachings!
A Jihad is a purely internal struggle against one's own baser nature and or instincts. The Prophet taught that the holy book should be read with the heart as well as the head, meaning, not to take everything as literal or carved in stone; but, flexible enough in interpretation, to move with the times, current social mores; and or, expanded knowledge?
If those rioters, were to learn that the source of the derogatory film, came from an extremely manipulative Muslim, who was born outside the USA?
Would they then turn and demand the ritual beheading of every Muslim, the way they seem to lump a shared blame on America and Americans
There is no example in recorded history, where violence proved effective as an answer.
Violence only ever begets violence!
Sure, one can still audible dissent, but is is only ever amplified by prohibition!
Yes, a firm but fair iron hand may be a good thing, but only if it is contained inside a velvet glove!
Moreover, brainwashing, [repetitive highly flawed or downright suspect, religious teaching] only ever works on those with extremely low IQ's!]
One can and does empathise with those who "suggest," a one way ticket to the ancestral homeland, would be true justice for those, who come here, and then try and change us into a pale shadow of the misogynist cult, with its human rights hell, they were trying to escape from, ALLEGEDLY!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, you are a real hit and miss with your comments; this one is a big miss; you say:

"Moreover, brainwashing, [repetitive highly flawed or downright suspect, religious teaching] only ever works on those with extremely low IQ's!]"

That is just junk! Many of the suicide bombers are well educated, doctors, engineers, teachers.

You say this:

"Well, given the rant chanting rioters, numbered just a couple of hundred, with a combined IQ roughly equal to the ambient temperature; and, there are over a half million Muslims in Australia? It's hard to lay blame for the disturbance, at the feet of law abiding Islam!"

This is a complete furphy; I have answered it above; the rioters and the fanatics are the visible face of islam; they determine the interaction with the values of the host nation; the disclaimers from other 'moderate' muslim spokespersons cannot be believed because they NEVER change anything.

Look up Taqiyya and Kitman and stop writing gullible garbage.

Cohenite,
This excuse making is the same as saying that the Waffen SS "didn't really represent National Socialism" or that the Bolsheviks didn't really represent Marxist Socialism, the "Sixth Pillar" guys and mujahideen are seen as the distillation of Islam, the pure of heart, the vanguard, the heroic, chivalric elite soldiers of God.

kactuz,

The website says it all, just more propaganda and of course, the Kuffars must be "educated".

Very informative.

RH,

So Jihad is a "purely internal struggle against one's own baser nature and or instincts". Kind of like a diet, then?

I am old enough to remember jihad before this new definition (you know, the 'greater' jihad vs the 'lesser' jihad) came out, about 40 years ago. Some Muslims can up with this and, of course, academia and the media now constantly tell us that jihad is not about holy war.

Too bad that Muslims didn't get the news. They still think it is all about killing infidels for the glory of Allah and Islam.

Then there is the Quran... It seems that there is Surah (chapter) called "the spoils or war". Now I wonder where the plunder comes from.... Donations?

Also, note that in this struggle (jihad) the Muslim has to leave home. Note also it says that he could be killed. Those diets are really dangerous.

No, not every Muslim is a hate filled brain-washed fanatic, but every Muslim accepts the hate and violence in the Quran. Every Muslim considers Mohammad to be a great moral example, and we know from Islam's own traditions that their prophet did many evil, vile things. So can you figure out what that means?

All comments on this article assume an essentialist view of Islam and Muslims as inherently violent, sexist, incapable of democracy or political self-rule. Note the number of times people posting comments use "they" and "them" against "us" and "our laws".
This essentialist view of Islam as a monolithic religion and the myths created around it by influential intellectuals is unfortunately what shapes islamophobia today.
Thank you Chloe Patton for a very interesting read

Jihad as a holy war against infidels, is the "new" interpretation.
In older less revised books, it is clearly stated as an internal struggle.
Moreover, suicide is condemned; as is the spilling of a single drop of innocent blood! There is no place in paradise for either!
Just because this or that self promoted control freak, changed the text a few centuries ago; and or interpretation? Doesn't mean that the fanatic's view or revision, is the correct one!
In fact, the prophet was forced to correct his 2IC, when returning from one of his many battles with the crusaders, when said lieutenant, compared war against the crusaders, to a holy war or Jihad.
Yes, some terrible acts of violence were perpetrated, none worse than the murder of around six million Muslims by the crusaders; all in the name of their God; coupled with, all manner of medieval torture to force the Muslims to recant their religious beliefs.
There are plenty of historical examples that call into question the so-called superior moral values of Medieval Christians?
And so-called holy books, so revised and edited, that they bear little if any resemblance to the originals teachings or evocations of the founding father(s)!
Those that hate, need to find reasons or justification for their hate! Be they the Waffen SS or Jew hating Arab?
Sure, some highly disillusioned or mentally ill suicide bombers, were once doctors or lawyers or some such! But the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers/terrorists, were and are created in the religious madras, with its endless repetition of a religious message, that may have little or nothing in common with the original text or teachings?
Might one suggest, some of the Islamiphobia exampled here, is only possible because ignorant proponents hang on to their largely unjustifiable hate of all things Islam?
The rioters do not represent the face of Islam, just a highly revised extreme version, that has almost nothing in common with the original teachings or sanity? Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

Your write that

".... the prophet was forced to correct his 2IC, when returning from one of his many battles with the crusaders, when said lieutenant, compared war against the crusaders, to a holy war or Jihad."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the first Crusades didn't get under way until well into the eleventh century, four hundred years after Muhammed's death, and those first Crusades were organised to get back territory which had been Christian for many hundreds of years, in Egypt, Syria and Palestine.

So .... we are going to have to fight the Crusades all over again, in a never-ending game of Nyah-Nyah ? Or are we going to bite the bullet and talk about the complex issues of the 21st century ?

Joe

Rhrosty,

Jihad, schmihad! The name is irrelevant, the fact remains that Islam was spread by the sword from the beginning.
Europe was under continual Moslem attack for a thousand years from the 7th to the eighteenth century, the Crusades, as Loudmouth indicated, were a minor and ultimately unsuccessful counter attack. Arguing over the definition of "jihad" is a diversion.

Those Moslems and their apologists who whine about the Crusades don't mention the far more devastating Mongol attacks in the 13th century and the destruction caused by Timur's armies in the early 15th. Timur was a Moslem BTW. Western guilt is an easy instrument to play.

Squirrel,
That makes no sense, you criticise us for essentialism and then blanket us as "Islamophobic", you're too funny. It's always amused me how you people falsely pathologise us as Xenophobes when you are suffering from extreme Xenophilia yourselves, maybe you're really not in a position to judge others due to your own frame of mind. People who are a little bit too interested in other people's children are more of a worry for a parent than people who have no interest in children at all, right? I'd say we have more to fear from Xenophiles than people who don't want anything to do with people of other races.

Opposing Islam isn't a pathology, neither is being fearful or distrustful of people of other races, let's be frank, until we're honest and frame this as a racial issue we get nowhere.
All the things we value in our 21st century society come from Europe, all the things we hold in contempt come from the orient, it's Occidental civilisation versus Oriental barbarism, West vs East, we should defend the West against attack from the Orient because it's good for Europeans and as Europeans we must always do what's best for our families.

individual writes - "They're just the religious version of our unions."

Bravo individual! LOL.

Naturally, for most posters here, it seems they hold the idea that "my evils are nicer than your evils" or to put it another way, "of course my bottom doesn't smell".

Cheers all.

Well, as others have indicated, the official crusade didn't kick off until the thirteenth century?
However, there were a number of fighting, dark age Popes, who were actually generals heading up armies, engaged in ongoing wars against so-called barbarians?
Amongst those barbarians, were many Muslim nations?
And, bless his name, the Prophet Mohammed!
Given passive Sofie tradition is the oldest Islamic tradition and arguably the least revised!
It is reasonable to also believe that was the tradition that the Prophet founded?
And given genuine inquisitorial inspection, the least revised or amended!
Central to traditional Sofie beliefs, is meditation, which is a universal pathway to ancient wisdom!
Given the truly passive nature of traditional Islam, only the abysmally ignorant, would ever believe that the rioters represented the face of Islam?
Almost without exception, virtually all of the world's major religions, had founders deeply immersed in meditative practise. Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jew and Muslim, with Buddhist, Hindu and esoteric Christian believing in and teaching reincarnation.
In the Christian tradition, it is expressed, to reach unto the kingdom of heaven, ye must be born again.
And, so as you sow, so also shall you reap.
Or, the sins of the father will be visited on the children.
Imagine for just a minute, reincarnation, were actually true, and that at some future point, we returned and inherited a world and traditions, we in greater or lesser part, helped create?
It would also rationalise some of the extreme inequities, we now see in our world?
If we accepted reincarnation as real or possible? Perhaps we would be far less hostile; and or, take care of; or, treat others as we would be treated, were we stood in their shoes?
And perhaps we might take more care not to despoil the planet or our home?
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

Thank you for responding. I was intrigued by your comment about "the truly passive nature of traditional Islam".

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong but Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia - indeed Palestine too - were Christian long,long before Muhammed was born. The Muslims bust out of Arabia and conquered Mesopotamia and Syria by the sword in the late seventh century, then Egypt by the sword around 700 AD, then swept across North Africa, entering Spain in about 711 and conquering it by the sword, at least up to the Cantabrian Mountains. For the next four or five hundred years, they ravaged all the lands across the northern Mediterranean, even up into Switzerland, if the great historian Marc Bloch is to be believed.

And when was the Ottoman (Muslim) seige of Vienna ? 1699 or so ?

But I guess we all can go against our 'truly passive nature' from time to time. Even for a thousand years :)

And after all, to get back to the Middle East: where did the disciples go after Jesus was strung up ? I think it might have been Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Greece: they set up churches across the entire Roman Empire, when it is all said and done.

When did the Chaldean and Assyrian Christian churches get set up in what is now Iraq ? Around 330 AD or so, if not earlier. There were Christians in Arabia, even down in the Yemen, long before Muhammed.

So please don't try this 'hard-done-by' trick: Muslims invaded peaceful Christian territory - admit that and we can move on :)

As an atheist, I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but I'm certainly concerned that the truth and fairness can prevail.

Cheers,

Joe

It was Christian slaves which powered alot of Muslim boats, if you
go back a few hundred years. So this notion that religion was
all about peace, is a furphy.

Guys, don't get caught up in scientific and materialistic debates, it's a diversion, Islam makes people uncomfortable, it's a gut feeling and for most people the more exposure they have to Muslims the quicker that gut feeling becomes a strong conviction. People like the author just push that feeling down because they see opinions based on "feelings" as bad and dirty, their opinions are formed by nice clean sheets of paper covered in graphs and statistical tables and the crisp, new book smell of approval from other academics.

Well Rhrosty, it's almost as though we're talking about two different religions/belief-systems. Your passive meditational order seems somewhat at odds with what has been happening in Pakistan (and elsewhere) - and with a Pakistani Minister's offer of a large reward for the killing of the maker of the referenced video/movie.

Did Muhammad perform any miracles? Or, was he just a great general who conquered many nations and was responsible for killing or enslaving a great many people? Given the latter, a strong example has been set for a belligerent and militant view of Islam (which appears to have a great many followers). By the way, what is the origin of the term Islam? (Can it be part of the name for God - Allah 'Islam'?)

Muhammad is supposed to have received a copy of the Holy Qur'an, but how is it that this text has a great many similarities to the Bible? And, what accounts for the apparent contradiction of Muhammad as a man of peace and yet also a conquering general? The difference in the eye of the beholder perhaps? (Or of ulterior motive and vested interest perhaps?)

It has been a fair while since any Christian movement promoted the idea of a holy war or proposed the killing of opponents or detractors, but in parts of the world passive missionaries may be sentenced to imprisonment or death for endeavouring to convey a Christian message. There accordingly appears to be a clear contrast between current Christian teachings and those expounded by a significant portion of the Muslim world.

Jesus a man of peace; Muhammad a man of war? I fear there is a segment of the Islamic world which would relish the idea of a holy war as payback for the misdeeds of the West, and possibly with visions of a new Islamic Golden Age. (Another Dark Age before a new Age of Wisdom?)

I doubt Allah would be well pleased with the way a great many followers are currently behaving - but this is only my opinion of course. (And now, off with my head?)

Well, Christianity was hijacked by atheist Emperor Constantine, around 350AD?
There was serious disagreement between the "Appointed" Roman Pope and the Byzantium one not all that long after, which effectively split the church into two camps, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
Given Islam, was formed around a thousand or so years ago, it's hard to lay blame for much of the earlier conflict on them or it?
The Ottoman empire was hardly Muslim but largely secular? Many of the Mosques were former Christian Cathedrals! Who knows beyond doubt, exactly when they changed hands or or religions?
Moreover, just as esoteric Christianity was hijacked for political ends, it might be also argued that Islam suffered a similar fate, with the "so-called descendants" of the Prophet, issuing edits that had very little in common with Islam's core or founding principles? Children often have views that are in extreme variance with their parents or forbears beliefs?
Why, even the Sofies were attacked and reviled, almost as if they were hated Christians, and for no better reason, than they counselled against violence and or violent reprisals.
From their perspective, the Prophet, by his living example, believed in peaceful coexistence; and was a person of very modest means?
Sure Islam was involved in various conflicts, some reactive some proactive?
So also was everybody else!
Much of what are now international borders were won with the blood of millions, and hardly any religion is entirely blameless or outside?
And yes, the spread of massively revised or extreme versions of Islam, has been often extremely coercive.
Particularly, those patriarchal misogynist offshoots of offshoots, that morphed into blame-shifting blood-thirsty cults, born of an acquired victim mentality and a lunatic blood-lust?
At some point, we all need to understand that everything that happened was for a reason; and, we really do need to stop with the blame shifting; [enough already,] and take personal responsibility for everything that happen(s)(ed) to us, and or, the positive or negative decisions that cause(d)(s)/precede(d)(s) almost every event or outcome? Not for nothing is it written, we are co-creators of our own universe?
Rhrosty.

Wow, Rhosty ! So many 'inaccuracies' !

The Eastern and Western Roman Empires were differentiated around 330 AD. Muhammed was strutting his stuff across western Arabia in about 622-632 AD. Catholicism and Orthodoxy split around 1000 AD. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with any dates.

That's a straw man about Muhammed causing a division in the Roman Empire - but that differentiation predated the Little Baby Muhammed by some 250 years.

The Ottomans were Muslims. The last Caliph was, I think, an Ottoman. Yes, indeed, it was an Albanian Muslim, Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Caliphate (not the West, and certainly not the nasty US). A Muslim abolished the Caliphate in order to set up secular dominance in Turkey, the state separate from, and over, the mosque.

Yes, a common tactic of Muslim invaders was to either destroy churches or temples - remember Ayodhya ? - or to take them over as Muslim centres, to obliterate the previous owners one way or the other.

I don't know to what extent fundamentalist Muslims exterminated Sufis and other sects - you may know far more than most of us on that score. Most of us out here would take your word for any extermination by peaceful Muslims of other peaceful Muslims.

You may also know certainly more than me when you write, " .... those patriarchal misogynist offshoots of offshoots, that morphed into blame-shifting blood-thirsty cults, born of an acquired victim mentality and a lunatic blood-lust ..." I'll take your word for that too.

And yes, we must "take personal responsibility for everything that happen(s)(ed) to us ...."

But when Muslims proclaim that they wish to beat their swords into ploughshares, unequivocally, I will take it more seriously as a civilized ideology, my friend :)

Cheers,

Joe

Rhrosty,

There's no polite way to say this--you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
Your comments could have been written by a third-rate Islamic propagandist, or are you really winding us up?

This preoccupation with the historical minuta of islam and christianity is nuts; it empowers the loons of islam; all wars are inherently crazy but religious conflict is just insane; read Swift and the conflict between Lilliput and Blefuscu and the principle of Endianness; that's all religious conflict is.

When you talk about the past it just provides a context and justification for islam to confront the secular West; at law the reason for violence is not exculpatory unless it is in self defence; muslims claim they are protecting their religion which must be given priority over the secular legal structure; but at law the defence of self-defence cannot be invoked to protect an idea, which is what islam is; all treatment of muslims should flow from that; and all possible criminality should be invoked, assault, conspiracy, intimidation against muslims who break the law; the failure to do so is nothing less than a capitulation.

Arab culture preceded Islam! Clearly these are two very different and inherently opposing systems? Islam began in 570AD, with the birth of Mohammed. With his death in 632AD, it morphed into something quite different from the original teachings? With competing Sunni and Shi'ite versions battling for superiority; and, both clearly interpreting the Qur'an, very differently? The emphasis seems to have concentrated on war and material wealth, with the spiritual side only being revived, with the re-emergence of Sufism, as promulgated by the famous scholar Al-Chazali, around a thousand years ago? Sufism was and remains the most influential in the peaceful spread of Islam, in its most spiritual aspect. Offshoots include The Baha'i, who believe that their religion incorporates all religion, or if you will, that all religions are one? Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

From the little I know, Muhamed started his preaching after about 610 AD and got chased out of Medina for it in 622.

I suspect that the Sunni would not regard the Shia as properly Muslim and vice versa. They would each put the other to the sword for it. Then they would both get stuck into the Sufis. And then the Bahai'i.

Yes, indeed, the many faces of a religion of peace.

I was trying to remember the outcry at the release of the film The Life of Brian - I do recall a couple of Christian ministers suggesting that it was a bit disrespectful, but not advising their flocks not to see it. Or maybe my memory is faulty and many of them came out onto the streets, punching themselves in the face, screaming, burning British flags and demanding the beheading of John Cleese. Perhap you can help me there, I was too heavily into the red wine at the time.

Allen Gershowiz made a good point in today's paper, that people growing up in authoritarian societies actually EXPECT their regimes to come down very hard on dissent, on what they don't agree with, on freedom of expression - and so get angry with governments like ours who don't. As they may see it, one surmises, they think our government is WEAK, spineless, if not outright anti-(in this case)-Islam.

We take our freedoms, of expression, speech, dress, etc. for granted, but they have been very hard- and bitterly fought for, since the first steps to separate church and state, to separate different powers within the state, the judiciary and bureaucracy from the government, to extend democratic rights from a male, property-owning elite to all citizens over 18.

One of those freedoms enables us to express ourselves in ways which may anger, offend or disgust others - using terms such as 'the Mad Monk', or 'Bananaby' (which I heard last night, good one), or 'Juliar'. Perhaps it even includes burning people in effigy, although this is getting too close to incitement to violence for my liking.

[TBC]

[continued]

But as has been noted over and over, and as Salman Rushdie has pointed out, the right of free speech is worthless if it doesn't include the right to offend. This means the right of Leftists to outrage and offend those on the Right, and vice versa.

But it does not extend to shouting 'Fire !' in a crowded theatre, or calling for somebody's beheading, and certainly not pelting police with bottles, or calling for them to be put in a potato bag and taken out to sea. There's freedom of speech, and there's incitement. The state has a role in protecting people, everybody, from incitement, but it must stay out of people's right to express themselves.

Of course, ideally, we should be able to talk issues through - without anybody raising issues of offense or cultural safety. Ultimately, that's what has to happen, here and around the world, perhaps for the rest of this century and beyond.

Best of luck,

Joe

Good essay:

Muslims do not have a strong national identity. Their nations are a hodgepodge of military dictators, colonial leftovers and tribal alliances. Their societies are "multicultural" in the sense that they are composed of numerous hostile ethnic groups, tribes and families who are united only by a common religion. This unity is fragile, but it is the most common form of unity that they have and they value it far more than national identity.

To the Muslim, his nation is a fleeting thing, a historical accident by a colonial mapmaker digging up ancient names and drawing lines that cut across the lines of ethnic and tribal migrations…

Even Muslims in moderate countries poll as identifying more with Islam than with a political faction or national identity.

…The Muslim immigrant does not trade one national identity for another. What he does is bring along his local ethnic identity and his global religious identity, and unpacks them in Sydney or London…

The left destroyed Western national identity and brought back the holy war… (now) it's Muslims rioting in the streets and demanding an Islamic theocracy to rule them. And why not? If rule no longer derives from the people or the nation, but panels of judges and rooms of bureaucrats, then the Islamic version is as legitimate as the Socialist version.

Most people… do not find an identity based on celebrating every possible identity particularly meaningful or rewarding. It is self-nullifying void, the jaded palate of a decadent society constantly searching for novel experiences and exotic flavors. The native elites find touring cultures and sexual identities to be a rewarding experience, but the immigrants are not so bored and jaded, so decadent and comfortable, that they want to play tourist….

The West can return to national identity or it can fight a holy war between Islamist Multiculturalism and Progressive Multiculturalism. What it cannot do is avoid the conflict. That is a lesson that Gillard and all the Gillards of the West still haven't learned and by the time they do realize it, it may be too late.

From”
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/09/muslim-multiculturalism-and-western.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29

I wonder if Ms Patton is reading these comments. I also wonder if she has finally figured out what those 'behead" signs were really saying..

Her "the sign says behead" but what they really mean is "We feel so excluded" explanation really needs work.

On the other hand, maybe if we go to graduate school, get a PHd, write fancy clichéd meaningless essays, we too could understand that a call to decapitate is really just a plea for recognition -- but that is too intellectual for most of us buffoons

Good post kactuz:

"The left destroyed Western national identity and brought back the holy war… (now) it's Muslims rioting in the streets and demanding an Islamic theocracy to rule them. And why not? If rule no longer derives from the people or the nation, but panels of judges and rooms of bureaucrats, then the Islamic version is as legitimate as the Socialist version."

And the left have been white-anting the society which feeds the bludgers for a long time; a lot of the left's apologetic incomprehension of islam stems from Boulainvillier's simpering interpretation of Muhammad; this influenced Voltaire, Gibbons and a host of other leftish morons upto Foulcalt and the modern era.

It is inexplicable to me that the so-called left intelligentsia can fawn over a crude, thuggish cult like system of chaos which is a blight on humanity; it indicates a fundamental dissasociation, a cognitive dissonance for a bunch of left wing people who extol freedoms to support a theology which implacably preys on freedom.

Anyone here old enough to remember the outrage re the film "The life of Brian" ?

Cohenite.
Oh the contradictions, how to support Gay rights AND Women's rights AND the rights of Muslims to practice their faith AND continue to wage their war on Christianity and democracy, the Left have a lot of balls in the air don't they?.
As Ned Flanders would say "That's a dilly of a pickle!"

Hey in light of yesterday's little teen sock hop outside the state library in Melbourne I'm moved to make the following observations:
-Muslims and Communists listen to their group leaders and elders when told to stay away from a rally promoted by dodgy text messages, White teenyboppers and twentysomething would be "White Nationalists" clearly don't.

The above leads to the conclusion that the Islamic community is far more cohesive and well disciplined than we are led to expect, this is a relief in one way but a worry in another since it's clearly the word of the Imam which carries the most weight in that milieu.
We could also reasonably assume , as we have all along that the quality and integrity of the leadership group is crucial to the orderly operation of a Muslim congregation.
So much for the slur of essentialism.

"the outrage re the film "The life of Brian"

What, Malcolm Muggeridge going red in the face? Is that what you mean by outrage?

Essentialism was raised by the troll, squirrel; it no doubt is referring to the claim that rich diversity, or some such strangulation of semantics, exists within Islam.

It doesn't. Islam may exist in many different cultures and nations but it's point is the same and its text is the same and its intention is the same.

People who argue otherwise are either stupid or muslims, or both.

Cohenite.
I wonder if the author has asked a person of Dayak or West Papuan heritage what happens when one's homeland is flooded with Muslim immigrants?
I've only been to Java and Lombok and I didn't really get out into the sticks but there seems to be precious little in the way of "culture" in either locale, contrast that with Bali where out in the hinterland I ran into several elaborate looking processions of locals all dressed up and carrying great garlands of flowers to the temples for some festival or other.

Jay; the Balinese seem to be one of the few cultures which have not been smothered by the Islamic cult. They are a bit like Hong Kong; Bali makes too much tourist dollar perhaps to have islam enforced there?

I enjoyed the life of Brian! Particularly where his naked lover places her body between Brian and his endlessly dictatorial bug-eyed confronted Mother.
But then, All Jewish Mothers are like that aren't they, starting with enforced circumcision; that means that the men, are more or less in the hands of a woman, for all their sexual satisfaction?
And if that isn't ultimate almost absolute control, what else could it be, where we have water on demand and daily hygiene? [Maybe that was responsible for all the frustration and the riot? Led by young men, at the height of their sexual prowess/virility?]
I also enjoyed the end scene and the ironic humour, of always looking on the bright side of life, even when nailed to a cross!
Where to from there, particularly for the incorrigible recidivist criminal?
And yes, I do so enjoy taking the hiss out of and winding up those, who take themselves and a completely unproven and unprovable belief system, and the words of a serially revised and endlessly edited book, far too seriously?
Rhrosty.

Yes, you're right, Rhosty,

All religions make a virtue out of ignorance ('wonder', 'awe', etc.), and should be laughed at, just as Monty Python did with the Life of Brian.

In many ways, though, this situation has gone far beyond all that - from religion to politics - to conflicting views on freedom of expression, on free speech, on the notion of equality before the law, and law on a national level, equality of men and women, the right to question received authority (which the Left used to be good at, but has got a bit out of practice), the acceptance of change and progress and the realisation that humans make their own life-purpose, it's not laid out for them.

On the one hand, I'm full of foreboding at what might be a coming cataclysm, of ignorance sweeping the world and converting the rest of us to its reactionary cause by force - but on the other, I'm excited by the possibility that, at last, a couple of billion people may, just may, have the opportunity to open their eyes and, no doubt after much painful struggle, throw off their chains and join the rest of the world in the constant pursuit of truth and knowledge. A lot of it will be up to them to sort out - which path to take ?

I hope you can be part of that awakening, Rhosty :)

All the Muslims need to do is make a stupid movie about our fable. Even ! Bingo !
No thrashing things, no violence etc.

Individual,

OR just watch some of 'our' own films and videos, poking fun at outmoded Christian beliefs and sanctimoniousness, etc.

Maybe that's part of the problem - that people raised in authoritarian countries, with authoritarian religions which mandate 'submission', expect all governments to come down hard on ANY films or videos that ridicule ANY religion, especially their own. People may not be clamouring to watch anti-Christian films so much as wanting authorities to ban ANY ridicule of religions.

Still, the Enlightenment cat is out of the bag and is cutting its swathe through the pigeons of reaction, and their useful idiots.

Interesting times !

Joe

Loudmouth,
It may yet turn out that the producer's sole aim was to incite the ensuing trouble. Just give him to a mob of fanatics & let them deal with him rather than causing problems on a global basis. he could not possibly have been so ignorant as to not foresee the reaction. He is just as bad as those he supposedly insulted. What about the internet provider who permitted that movie to be broadcast ? Just as much an idiot. One can not argue freedom of speech with an idiot. If one does then one's no better.

Individual,

Can't let you get away with this one: >>"Just give him to a mob of fanatics & let them deal with him..."<<

The writer/director/producer may have been ill-advised (or an 'idiot', as you suggest), and the internet distributor likewise, but he/they have done a service in bringing some things to a head. It is certainly to be abhorred that people have been killed and injured and property etc damaged/destroyed, but the reality is that the types of reaction chosen (Yes, chosen) by these mobs is what is at fault, and it is indeed necessary for all, on both sides, to realise the significance of such potential reactions to any possibilities for future world peace and harmonious relations.

Who was it said: "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." (Or similar.)

Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of free and democratic societies, and the airing of differences in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, in the interest of genuine understanding, is healthy and even essential to promoting the advancement of civilisation and civil/political relations. What we don't need is irresponsible and fanatical hotheads who throw all reason to the wind in fits of rage at the least questioning of their version of truth or reality, no matter how staunchly held.

Do we see physicists coming to blows over Theories of Everything, or critics of AGW theories taking to the streets in furious frenzy, or even Creationists attacking universities for expounding 'evolution theory'? No. How would it be if differences in the political arena were settled by the fielding of 'champions' in the prize ring or on the battle field? War, physical conflict and mental strangulation of all kinds are to be abhorred, and their root causes exposed for the evil they really are - if our civilisation is to rise above the dog-eat-dog mentality and immaturity so evident in so many quarters the world today.

Time for the lion to lay down with the lamb, and all swords beaten into ploughshares, to never re-emerge.

Saltpetre,
You are perfectly right. The dilemma is how to deal with those who want to be difficult & those who are difficult because they're simply blotto.
That's why I'm so much in favour of social guidelines. I'm probably one of the worst for having to abide by guidelines but there simply is no other option. If there is I'd like to know about it yesterday.
Freedom of speech or expression opens more cans of worms than it closes. You can not deal with idiots by affording them equal rights. People who can not get through the day without causing some grief forfeit their equal rights.
Put the protesters & the film maker on an uninhabited island & leave them there for good. Let the laws of nature take their course. The time has come to put a stop to this nonsense, put a stop to the do-gooders, put a stop to religion in public places.
We know that our Laws do not protects us. On the contrary by abiding the law you're actually breaking it in many instances. I say work on creating practical common sense.

Individual,

There is one major stumbling block to humanity moving forwards to become a type-2 civilisation - fanaticism/extremism, from whatever cause, be it religious, capitalist, greed or insanity. True progress necessitates the whole of humanity moving forwards, not just a gated Western or selective portion, so a way must be found. You cannot simply lock away all the 'looney-tunes', for whilst ever the causes for extremist views prevail there will continue to be an endless supply of such extremely bigoted individuals and groups. One must treat the disease(s), rather than focusing on the symptoms.

We in the affluent world may not have a direct responsibility to 'save' all of humanity from itself, and in the absence of the West's addiction to middle-eastern oil we might be tempted to just walk away and let all hell break loose. However, this is lifeboat Earth, and it is in everyone's interest for differences and disagreements to be amicably resolved, and disparities between peoples ameliorated. The days of physical and intellectual conquest should be put away, relegated to history, and never revisited. How, is a big ask, but without the effort we can only continue to have a second-class world.

Affluence has its obligations, and not just for bears or tigers, elephants, rhinos and the Tassie Devil.

This greatest of all challenges may only be achieved with the velvet glove and the olive branch, and for all liberated and emancipated individuals this has to be our most pressing responsibility, else we are not Humanity but only a scattering of backward, bigoted tribes.

Dedication to the realisation of a peaceful and productive globe must be the prime objective and directive, and, as with resolving world population and expansionist issues, education and improved quality of life for all is the key. Time for all the world's religious leaders to get their heads together and resolve their differences, for benefit of all their respective congregations and all of humanity.

True progress necessitates the whole of humanity moving forwards, not just a gated Western or selective portion, so a way must be found.
Saltpetre,
Yes, but that way is the way you object to. As the whole of humanity, in fact the majority of humanity, does not have the experience/background to have sufficient foresight it has to be done step by step so that those who can't yet see will gradually get the idea & hopefully join in.
Lack of vision is on par with lack of common sense, therein lies the problem. It is up to a handful of benevolent leaders to dictate sense & good will. It can't be done democratically because democracy does not take into account the variations of humanity. The only true equal rights/equal opportunity is when the playing field is not on the same level. Those who aspire to the higher level can go there on their own account & those who are quite happy on the lower levels must not be forced to go to higher levels if they do not so desire.
We have an obligation to show people other ways & options but we have no right to force them. Just as nobody has a right to force themselves onto others for help & then expect the involuntary hosts to change their ways or lower their standards. The more enlightened have a duty to enlighten others for the common good.