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