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.