I think I have a understanding of Islam.
It is a a religion of peace, but only on their terms.
Peace according to Islam is.
Sharia courts which victimise women.
Beheading for apostates and other minor crimes.
Marriage of girls as young as 9 years of age.
Forcing women to wear tents, they are beaten if they don't.
Forced circumcision of females.
Death for blasphemy.
Yes I agree, Islam is a religion of peace.

Mohamad,
You say,"If, however, it had simply been explained to the public that here were a bunch of youth who are angry at certain governments – and not the public – for carrying out oppressive policies, the anxiety would have likely subsided. These facts illustrate that we need to change course. We need to engage with the problems rather than deny them. We need dialogue".

You do not say which governments are carrying out oppressive policies. I don't see any in the western world, certainly not in Aus. Muslim youth have the same opportunities as anyone else.

The need for dialogue is past, the time now is for action. The problem is that we do understand Islam and its desire to dominate by violence and fear. 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. Even in muslim countries they continue to blow each other up which clearly shows muslims are not prepared to compromise at all.

No, the time has come for us to stop further muslim immigration if we want a cohesive community. The more muslims we have here the worse the problems will be.

This bloke has it right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9uUcjx5LD4

There's nothing to discuss with islam; it's a religion; it's nobodies business what the practitioners do; AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT BREAK THE LAW; or TRY TO INTRODUCE THEIR OWN LAW.

There, fixed; now the author and every other muslim can buzz off.

Having said that, I see the author is a PhD candidate in law, no less, studying discrimination against islam in the West.

What discrimination?

I feel very much like an objective observer in these debates.
As a country boy, I have never really been exposed to “multiculturalism”. The only, how shall I say, ethnics? I have been exposed to are the obligatory Chinese restaurant, and the traditional now almost extinct Greek or Italian fish and chip shop or green grocer, and of course my Koori friends.
None of these folk offered any real sense of 'Culture'. They were all almost fully assimilated -at least in public. As a child, I certainly don't recall any Greek or Italian offerings in the fish 'n chip shop menu for instance; more's the pity.
Anyway, my observation is that multiculturalism is a crock. Great in theory, bad in practice.
It seems clear the majority of Australians don't want to be swamped by boat people.
Most Aussies like Aussie culture just fine, thanks (although a bit of that foreign tucker doesn't go astray).
I think the only way to discourage boat people, and end the cultural problem we have here already is to insist on our secular rights; that all people wishing to live in Oz must agree Australian Law is supreme, and must take precedence over personal religious beliefs.
A little ironically, I can quote the Bible to support this position.
“Give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Give unto God...”
I wonder if radical Muslims would be so keen to come here if they understood that Australian Law was supreme, and no deviations or exceptions would be tolerated under any circumstances.
People should be free to practice their religion, but not in public, and not if their religion in any way conflicts with secular law.

"we need to ask: what are Muslims so angry about?; why have Muslims chosen to express themselves in this manner?; and what exactly is making the public so anxious?"

You also need to ask: "Why do we believe in this absurd nonsense when we have absolutely no reason to think that it is true, and it involves us in so much effort and distress?"

Nobody riots when films are made pointing out that the flat-earth theory is wrong, because (nearly) everyone agrees there is no reason to think the flat-earth theory is right. Perhaps you need to consider the possibility that the reason people are ridiculing your beliefs are because your beliefs are ridiculous.

"What are Moslems so angry about?" Let's see a list of Moslems' grievances.

"....and what exactly is making the public so anxious?"...That's easy, Islam.

<<Leaders on all sides have been articulately playing down the genuine tensions and anxieties which exist between different communities in an attempt to maintain an image of social cohesion and harmony. This has not worked>>

What an indictment of our multicultural and immigration programs,ay.

<<The questions which have emerged from recent events are serious and require genuine consideration. Rather than denying the obvious, we need to ask: what are Muslims so angry about?; why have Muslims chosen to express themselves in this manner?; and what exactly is making the public so anxious?>>

And I notice that Mohamad does not use the qualifies the PC crowd always insist on “some” or "a few"--It's "Muslims [are] angry"

A respected psychiatrist put it well ‘our family owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, he responded 'Very few people were true Nazis, but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. I just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, My family lost everything.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. Although this assertion may be true, it is irrelevant. It is meaningless, meant to diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging in the name of Islam.

The fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march, who slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill, taking over mosque after mosque and who zealously stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill 70 million people.

History lessons are incredibly simple and blunt, yet we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy because they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them.

Millions of the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts ‘the fanatics who threaten our way of life’.

Well said Geoff.

Quoting Mohamed: "If, however, it had simply been explained to the public that here were a bunch of youth who are angry at certain governments – and not the public – for carrying out oppressive policies, the anxiety would have likely subsided."

If that were the case, why would the howling wannabe putschists not have identified the oppressive policies they were supposedly angry at, rather than demanding sanctions for insulting their "prophet"? Mohamed's call for discussion omits discussion of the right to unbelief, apostasy, blasphemy, impiety - the rights Islam doesn't recognise and which it withdraws wherever it has the power to do so?

Geoff of Perth has it right -- it is the street bullies (temporarily shushed in Australia by the imams), and the rulers of Islamic countries, that speak for Islam.

If Mohamed seeks a reasoned discussion, how about a reasoned discussion of Islam and the freedom to dissent? It could include a discussion of whether a condition for admittance of foreigners to Australia should be firm commitment to freedom for dissent, since this is the freedom which the street demonstrators speaking for Islam reject.

(Of course freedom for dissent can't be confused with immunity for dissenting voices from challenge to the content of what they say).

I follow with interest the current debate re Islam and 'the West' My current reading may be a bit insufficient, but as I understand it, the Q'ran is a collection of sayings/teachings which grew over the time of Muhammed's life. Therefore some of his teachings vary according to circumstances. Likewise, there are the Hadiths which are non- Q'ranic teachings of the Prophet. Within all of these there are different 'strands' one can follow, and some can be/have been used to justify particular Islamic treatments of non-believers (i.e. those who have not made submission to the teachings of the Prophet) From what I understand, the non-Muslim is always in an inferior position, even when they have sought protection from the Muslim conqueror and can maintain their religious practises(dhimmitude?)'under protection.'
If this understanding is correct, there does seem to lie within Islam the seeds of a particular 'them/us' dichotomy. Sometimes this is much harsher than others, depending upon the country, rulers, etc. While a lot of talk occurs about the various meanings of 'jihad' perhaps a more open discussion would be helpful concerning the internal dichotomy which exists in Islamic teaching regarding 'the other' the non-Muslim, etc?
We Westerners who function in a privatised and individualistic world where beliefs are concerned often cannot make sense of a system of understanding in which the personal and the communal are so interconnected via a religious system. For the West, the last vestiges of this existed in the Mediaeval through to the Pre-Modern world following the Reformation and development of nation states.
Anyway, some helpful comment, rather than diatribe, would be good.

DBGP

Agree with Grim. The riots are symptomatic with what is wrong with Islamic belief and or teachings; i.e., Islam is supreme!
Even though its spiritual nature was set aside; and or, turned into something codified and legalistic.
That there is only one true God! But all others, who also believe in a one true God have to be condemned, put to the sword; and their wealth and possessions forfeited; because their one true God is known by another name. {Schematics, rather than infidel disbelief!]
Albeit, their name for a one true God, preceded Islam and or its foundation.
[The Hi'jab sprang from legalistic codification, the nomadic Arab culture/desert dress, not Islam?]
The trouble with any unproven and entirely unprovable belief system, is the fact that it is usually founded on myth and legend, or transmitted to the rest of us by someone like us, flesh and blood, who claims to have seen visions or heard the voice of God. And there are a plethora of often very different regional variations, depending on what was popular or part of the native culture before the arrival of this or that religion or codified legal system?
Today we medicate or lock those, who see or hear God, away.
Moreover, many religious belief will only allow so much prophesy?
[In Christian theology it ended with Christ, with persons like Joan Of Arc, burnt at the stake for daring to be both a female and see the future, accurately!?]
With any credible new prophets simply labelled nuts, cranks and bolts?
Even those sent/tasked to clear up the mess created by the endless revision and editing of the, so-called holy word?
Revision that has turned what once was Idealistic God worship; into political institutions, fighting everyone else and themselves for domination and the dollar?
Faith and belief as was once taught has morphed into hate of all things different, be it colour or culture etc/etc?
And where once the poor the sick/intellectually challenged and the disadvantaged, were assisted unconditionally, now they are preyed on or used as ignorant political pawns?
Deportation beckons!?
Rhrosty.

Graham Richardson dealt quite adequately with this nonesense paper last week in the Australian.

Further it might help as a budding academic if he did some better research on his topic, before postulating any theories and advice.

One source of good analytical material on Islam would be this site.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/islam-is-not-part-of-our-civilization/

Lets face it, the trylogy of books underpinning this primitive ideology, shows that Islam is largely:

1. Anti Kaffir,...thats you and me

2. Anti semitic, in way that is more outrageous than Hitlers Mein Kampf

3. Tribal and primtive, and well over due for a reformation

Make sure you scan the two Bulletins put out on a regular basis;viz

Bulletin of Christian Persecution, and

Bulletin on the Oppression of women

Sydney was just the portents of whats to come..unless we more strenuously defend ourselves and our freedoms from this ideology of mad mullahs

Mohamad, your non-confrontational article is welcome; however could you go a little further and answer your own question--"what are Muslims angry about?'. If they are angry about things that happen in places other than Australia; so am I, and there is little I can do about them, certainly not violently protesting in the streets. ( I don't like animals being tortured so I support WSPA)

I do agree with the previous comments about accepting the laws of the country in which one choose to live. Personally I am disappointed that when once there was no country which I would not feel safe to visit, that is now no longer the case.

Hooray! Finally we can talk honestly about Islam! Let's go...

Sam Harris The Problem with Islamic Fundamentalism are the Fundamentals of Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U

Islam: What the West Needs to Know - Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-GBMUqRU8#t=21s

David Wood: Three Stages of Jihad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Andrew Bostom: Jihad - Academic View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz4UPiueXE

Fitna the Movie
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

A Rational Study of Radical Islam, by Dr. Bill Warner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9sYgqRtZGg

Can't wait for the honest discussion to begin.

"we need to ask: what are Muslims so angry about?"

So this is another article asking non-Muslims to be more understanding and to accept Muslim hate and anger.

Not once does the author suggest that Muslims may be wrong. Not once does he suggest that non-Muslims and Australia deserve respect.

Actually, it is time for Muslims to come clean and admit they follow a god that encourages hate and violence and follow a prophet who himself said "I am made victorious with terror".

It should be clear by now that Muslims cannot live in peace with non-Muslims. Their values are those of Mohammed, a man that attacked others dozens of times, plundered, raped, lied, tortured, and enslaved men women and children (well, that is what Islam's own hadith say).

That line about "Honest, sincere, and genuine discussion" is precious.

Since when do Muslims want a discussion about the hate and violence in the Quran? Since when do they want to talk about the vile actions of their prophet recorded in their own traditions? Since when do they want to talk about how they treat others where they dominate?

If they wanted a discussion, they could calmly take a silly video like the "Innocence of Muslims" (the latest outrage) and refute point by point the narrative (if any) in that film, since it supposedly is about Mohammed taking little girls to his bed and attacking others (I did not, will not watch it).

The problem, of course, is that these things come from Islam's own writings, so they can't debate, so they go violent.

See what happens when one talks about these things...
http://americanbedu.com/2012/09/20/saudi-arabiagccmuslim-world-where-do-we-go-from-here/

At least the Muslims there on American Bedu try to justify their opinions, Mr Tabbaa can only ask for "understanding" in a one-way, no fault configuration, insinuating that non-Muslims are wrong and must change (and accept Muslim hate and rage as normal and justified).

This is the result of the "islam is perfect" and "Muslims are the best of peoples" mentality that is the core of this ideology. To them, it is never their fault (after all, Islam is perfect and Muslims are the best of people). With that mentality, Mr Tabbaa's argument makes sense, in a perverted, twisted way.

There is no hope.

Why isn't the author responding to the issues being raised at this forum? Why isn't he discussing?

There really is only one question: is islam capable of abiding by the [secular] laws of this land?

It's interesting that Turkey was for nearly a century a secular society which had a majority of the population as muslims.

Now the army leaders, who enforced secularity in Turkey, have been arrested, sharia law is being introduced and Turkey is leading the charge to have islamophobia declared a crime against humanity.

The point here, as a corollary to the question above, is can we believe islam even if it does say it will abide by the [secular] laws, or will it be the case that islam merely waits until it is numerically or otherwise dominant in a nation and then introduces sharia?

'[The Hi'jab sprang from legalistic codification, the nomadic Arab culture/desert dress'

yes rhosty and Arab Islam sprang from the same source. However Arabs make up only 15-18% of Muslims.
I suspect you will find little belief in violence among non arab muslims. It's worth investigating. The effect of different cultures on Islam. I wonder what you'd make of the non violent Muslim communities that have been in Australia for more than 100 years?
The non violent cultural Muslim communities in south Asia. And the diversity of non violent cultural communities across the Muslim mid east and Nth africa ... particularly the Palestinians, Iranians, Turks and Egyptians?

Research would probably show propensity to violence is more a cultural issue rather than a religious issue.

With all respect Big Mal I think the Muslim communities of Brisbane and North Qld are more likely portends of things to come. Sydney and NSW is hardly representative of greater Australia any longer. aka, Cronulla, violent MUA riots and the origin of Union attacks on our parliament and with regular drive by shootings. I see NSW and particularly Sydney as a rogue bigoted, violent, brokew state within the Australian Federation. If it is a portend of things to come ... well it won't be. Too many of us reject it's stupid premises of hate and intolerence. And NSW cannot even win at rugby league.

Good afternoon to you Mr Mohamad Tabbaa...

An interesting article I believe. You would have us Aussies to be more understanding and conciliatory of Muslims. Rather than denouncing and condemning them, for their display of anger and frustration ?

Is that it in essence, the basis of your request ?

And what specifically has Australia done to inspire this anger and frustration Mr Tabbaa ?

I don't believe Australia or Australians have done anything, anything at all.

I will share something with you though. These young men who displayed such violence the other day, they may be of the Muslim faith, but I'll tell you something for nothing though, Sir !

There are many young blokes, who enjoy acting like 'Boofheads', who like nothing more than hanging around the Cross looking for, and finding trouble on any given Saturday night.

Fact is, I've probably 'locked up' hundreds in my time. Most are nothing more than young punks who get a bit of 'piss and mad manners' on board, get into a decent 'stink' and act like 'Bill the goose' !

I got to tell you Sir, I've got more respect for these idiots, then I'll ever have for your Muslim brethren, who HIDE behind their Muslim faith, in order to commit crimes of violence, causing serious alarm and affront to the general public at large.

If it's these types of young Muslim men, that you ask for understanding, I gotta tell you, you'll get bugger all from me.

In conclusion, you can warn these young Muslim punks (seeking our understanding), not to push the coppers too far, for they'll rue the day, if they do ? You can be assured of that.

It's indeed a pity, that this extraordinary display of violent behaviour from a few, demeans the reputation of the many decent and law abiding Muslims, residing peacefully in Australia.

Good afternoon to you Mr TABBAA

I found this on GoV, yes, I know, it's a right-wing pro-Israel site, however, stories like these are very rarely reported on the MSM here in Australia. I have to say that the article seemed unbelievable when I first read it

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/south-yorkshire-police-and-rotherham.html

If the story is accurate, the real culprits are the 'multiculturalists', they can only be described as "useful idiots". Are the UK police so infected with pc that they're unable or unwilling to enforce the law?

There are similar reports from Sweden-can it happen here?

There's nothing to discuss. Carrying signs claiming 'behead all those who insult the prophet' is not welcome here.
The Western world, of which Australia is part, has spent considerable time separating church and state. Islam has no such separation. Its ideology is all-encompassing.
Not only that, the Western world has a strong culture of criticism (in fact, a lot of high culture is predicated on this phenomenon) dating back to at least the Enlightenment. Why should Islam be excluded from this phenomenon? Why should, for example, Christianity be subjected to relentless criticism but can Islam walk free?
Academics have spent decades pouring scorn on Christianity, but will foster political Islam under the banner of 'multiculturalism,' 'equality,' and 'tolerance.'
As Mac stated above, Islamists are only half the problem, the academic left with their slogans of 'tolerance' have allowed such a riot to take place by allowing such a toxic mix of cultures to live side by side.
The battle against political Islam then takes two fronts: The Islamic fundamentalists themselves and the academic Left. Both must be confronted to defeat radical Islam.

I'm not surprised the Mohamad doesn't engage on this thread. Some of you seem just as angry as the protesters. Why this is so is worth a discussion in itself. Afterall, I don't remember this level of anger when unions committed acts of violence, for example during the waterside dispute, or the S11 protesters did the same thing. And we are all members of the relatively powerful groups in society.

Anyway, putting that to one side I suggested to Mohamad that he write a follow-up piece listing the grievances of the protesters and Islam in general.

I seem to be seeing a lot of protest actions in the west which occur without any clear list of demands, such as the Occupy movement, or the UK riots. Perhaps the Islamic riots are part of a more general social trend.

I've just read a fascinating -and very relevant to this thread- article on New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528831.900-warmonger-or-idealist-the-roots-of-human-conflict.html?page=2

The article suggests that in collective cultures, pain felt by anyone identified as being of the same 'tribe' will be felt by others in that tribe, more strongly than in more independent, Western cultures.
Imposed rituals also appear to reinforce and exaggerate this affect.
Frighteningly, these things appear to be, or become, hard wired into the brain:
“...statements such as "I believe in god" or "I am not willing to kill an innocent human being" activated areas (in the brain) that play a role in retrieving rules. This supports the idea that sacred values are processed in the brain as absolute and binding moral commandments...”
As a school child, I remember being astonished to learn of American kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. We only dragged out the Australian flag on ANZAC day.
Perhaps we could use more secular rituals, to counter the religious ones; particularly for “new” Australians (both immigrants and the young).
While Americans have always struck me as being excessively patriotic, they have never appeared to be excessively law-abiding or peaceful.
Clearly the wording of any ritualistic pledge needs to be considered carefully.

"I suggested to Mohamad that he write a follow-up piece listing the grievances of the protesters and Islam in general."

Good. Because I am bemused as to what they can be since there is no impediment against any religion being practiced in Australia.

The only constraint against any religion is that it should not stop other religions being practiced, including the practice of no religion.

This condition is constitutionally protected in Australia by virtue of S.116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

The section says:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

That is as good as it can get for religions; Australia is nonpareil in respect of giving religious freedom.

Given this, any discussion with the author of this article should be predicated on his heartfelt and genuine gratitude for this right

Thanks for the responses.

I have to say I'm not terribly surprised at the tone of the comments, neither in this forum nor on others, which is a shame.

Given the content of the majority of the comments, I think the following suffcies: "There is an opportunity here for discussion. Not the superficial type where everybody comes to the table in the full knowledge that they are absolutely correct and that everybody else must therefore be wrong; not the type where we fill our minds with hysteria about the other side prior to attending the meeting. No. What’s required here is precisely what has been missing for so long in these discussions: honesty"

I set this as the condition for discussion, so there's little point trying to discuss with me while very obviously ignoring that very first step. I suggest you re-read the article with a bit more of an open mind towards difference.

For the few who did ask genuine questions, thank you. The first thing to keep in mind is that I've simply outlined the questions which I feel are important here; I never claimed to have all the answers. I'm simply suggesting that we ask the right questions, and that this might lead to a greater understanding of our current climate. I have my own views on my questions, some of which are found here:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/hes-my-brother--why-angry-muslim-youth-are-protesting-in-sydney-20120918-264l1.html

http://newmatilda.com/2012/09/20/whos-afraid-terrorists

http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/Podcasts/radionews/episode/233744/-Address-the-reason-for-disaffected-Muslim-youth

Others have also joined the discussion and given their views: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/muslim-western-philosophies-perceptions-are-worlds-apart-20120919-266x7.html?fb_action_ids=509046872458590&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/western-freedom-to-insult-can-look-a-lot-like-hypocrisy-20120924-26haw.html

(cont)

You could check them out (with an open mind) as a way to start. Again, one doesn't have to necessarily agree with the grievances, but at least make an attempt to understand why people are unhappy, rather than throwing insults around. As to the third question of why the public is anxious, I know the popular view, which is being regurgitated here: because Muslims blow things up. I'm asking people to explore a less-simplistic approach as to why they might be anxious (and why Muslims blow things up), especially as a balanced investigation of the issue of terrorism will show that such a fear quickly becomes irrational in light of the figures (Most terror attacks aren't carried out by Muslims). Perhaps there is another reason for the fear and anxciety? Let's explore that possibility.

And it seems some people are confused, which is why they're bringing in things like 'freedom of speech', 'multiculturalism' 'human rights' etc thinking that it defeats my argument. Please don't try to lock me into the left-right divide, you'll only confuse yourself. Questioning the reality of concepts such as multiculturalism is exactly what I'm alluding to; not only of whether it works, but whether we actually had it in the first place. Whether freedom of religion actually protects religion, or instead protects secularism. Whether freedom of speech/expression/protest empowers people against the state, or whether it instead allows the state to appropriate resistance and thus render it ineffective.

I'm basically asking that people do their own research and investigate these questions rather than accept populist theories about evil hate-filled creatures coming to take over the western world. There's probably a little more to it than rage and hate.

Perhaps one of the things that make 'western' people anxious about Muslims, is not that they 'blow things up', but some of the everyday, banal interactions that they have with them.

I myself came across this when I was confronted by a small group of Arabic boys in a public park. The eldest, probably about 12 or so told me on no uncertain terms that I could not near a public building within that park. "It's our culture' he said, 'that's where their women and children are, no men allowed, the womens faces aren't allowed to be seen in public by men'. He firmly planted himself in front of me and was basically giving me orders, in a public park. What a nice little culture warrior. I wondered to myself, what would have happened if I didn't listen and barged through, would he run off with the boys and tell their dads perhaps? What then?

Anyway, I decided not to go further, but the whole incident left a bad taste in my mouth. I respected their cultural practices, but didn't quite feel right to me then and still makes me a little upset when I think about it. That's only a very small incident, which didn't involve blowing things up, but these little things are happening every day to a lot of people, and they add up.

And when a bunch of thugs hold up signs in a public space calling for beheading those who offend their beliefs, well I think it just becomes a bit too much.

Bugsy,

The situation you described is very confronting and far more threatening than a small minority of violent demonstrators-if we allowed that bullying to continue non-Moslems are in danger of becoming an underclass. It appears that the ancient idea of dividing the world into inferior Kuffars and superior Moslems has been brought here. There's already enough pressure from the multiculturalists towards "accommodation and inclusion".

(I'm certainly not suggesting you should have behaved differently, I wasn't there.)

That's why I suggested Moslems should provide a list of grievances, it would be to their advantage as well as ours to see where the line is drawn. Otherwise some Moslems will continue to assume that they can set the agenda in liberal democratic societies.

Thanks Mohammed; from one of your links:

"To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them. So, when a Muslim woman is killed collecting firewood in Afghanistan, these youth are angered at the fact that their sister was murdered. When a Muslim man is crushed to death in Palestine, they lament the loss of their brother. It may not make sense to a Western audience, but that doesn't matter."

I see a chasm there because Australia, and all Western nations are based on the "liberal idea of individualism"; this principle is the cornerstone of our legal and political system. Given this the pertinent question is:

Do Muslims obey the laws of a liberal, individual rights based society or strive to replace them with Sharia?

Corollary questions:

Is there any acceptable criticism of Islam? Can satire be used; sarcasm; irony? Or is Islam beyond reproach?

Why should a crime or incident involving Muslims overseas be an issue in Australia? Should not the laws of where that incident took place prevail?

Do you support the moves to introduce through the UN a crime of Islamophobia

Now I am confused. First you say:
“...some people are confused, which is why they're bringing in things like 'freedom of speech', 'multiculturalism' 'human rights' etc thinking that it defeats my argument. Please don't try to lock me into the left-right divide, you'll only confuse yourself.”
Not only is this statement rather patronising, but then you go on to say:
“Questioning the reality of concepts such as multiculturalism is exactly what I'm alluding to; not only of whether it works...”
Is it just me, or do these 2 statements seem at odds with each other?
It seems you would be more comfortable asking your own questions of yourself, Mr Tabbaa.
If I may be allowed to question multiculturalism, it has always seemed to me that modern racism is a misnomer. Although I've known a number of 'rednecks', most of them were concerned more with cultural differences than racial ones.
A couple of years working on a citrus farm taught me that while racial generalising must be abhorrent, there were very real cultural differences in the various groups of backpackers and seasonal workers.
Some of their toilet and sanitary habits were most distasteful.
This most definitely isn't racial; after all, we've been bagging the Poms for their bathing habits for decades.
I think sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' should give way to common sense. At some point, we have to explain to our children that Santa doesn't really exist. Fairies aren't real. If you're sick, see a doctor.
Through centuries of trial and error, 21st century western culture is demonstrably more peaceful, more tolerant and more mannerly than 6th century culture.
So why on Earth should we be tolerant of 6th century beliefs, or for that matter, year dot beliefs, when they clash with 21st century beliefs?
Madness.

It is good that Mohamad Tabbaa has chosen to respond to the demonstrably angry rebukes that have appeared in our comments. Noticeably, he launched his remarks with a lament about tone, and throughout his response ducks the question of content.

To summarise the content. For many centuries, humanity was in conflict with ecclesiastical authorities and their hangers-on who brutally suppressed the right of individuals and groups to dissent.

The characteristic weapon of the European ecclesiastics was burning at the stake (beheading was more the weapon of their aristocratic allies). They can’t get away with that now so it’s fallen into disuse.

The weapons of choice for the Moslem ecclesiastics have been, and remain, stoning dissenters to death or beheading them. Over much of the world they can still get away with it and they do it. Outside their area of control they howl angrily or bleat piteously for the restored power to do it. As in Martin Place.

Truly apocalyptic struggles have taken place in Europe and America and now much more widely to establish, consolidate and defend the right to dissent. It’s what the Enlightenment is about. Dissent is the route to knowledge as opposed to mere assertion (think of Galileo).

The right to dissent governs life in Australia, and it is not surprising that as Australians are made aware of serious threats to the right of dissent we will identify the threats as alien and will become confrontational. If those who in the words of Geoff of Perth (above) speak for Islam had not been constrained by their imams (“cool it, boys - not yet”) from mounting a second attack on freedom last weekend they might well have met not only police batons but also civilian fists. As Winston Churchill famously proclaimed: “We will fight them.”

[To be concluded with a short paragraph]

[conclusion]

Mohamed seeks reasoned argument, but there can be no reasoned argument against the very right to reasoned argument, which he refers to as secularism as if secularism was just another cult like Islam. Instead, he should address the challenges in these reader responses, starting with a clear statement (shorn of taqiyya) of whether he endorses the right to dissent in the form of unbelief, apostasy, blasphemy and impiety.

Mohamad,

Algerian president Houari Boumedienne"One day millions of men will leave Arabia to go to Europe. And they will not go there as friends. They will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

former President H B 1932--1978

This is what is taking place in Europe today and is earmarked for Aus as well. For 30 years we have given in to muslim demands, without muslims compromising on anything. We have put up with muslims being critical of our society, critical of the way our women dress, claiming offence at nativity scenes in shopping malls, anti social behaviour and even demands that lingere and liqour shops cease trading. Hey, muslims even tried to stop guide dogs from riding in taxis, so why should muslims now want dialogue.

Are muslims likely to compromise on their attitudes and cultural beliefs? I think not, muslims here see themselves as pioneers for Islam.

It is beyond time we began selective immigration and refused entry to those groups that hold us in contempt.

Important note not to fail,
How to explain this ?
More islamophobia more conveted to islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue3_I6Mvpi4&feature=g-all-u

I keep coming back to this paradox. We are continually harangued by the PC crowd that we cannot lump all Muslims together. Yet isnt that exactly what Mohamad Tabbaa : <<what are Muslims so angry about?; why have Muslims chosen to express themselves in this manner?>>

And the sources he cites do: <<The argument put forward by the liberal-secularist is …The Muslim argues…>>
[Amjid Muhammad] http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/western-freedom-to-insult-can-look-a-lot-like-hypocrisy-20120924-26haw.html

They presume to hold the master franchise to/for the Muslim identity--and perhaps they do?

If I had to bet on who was viewing the world through rose coloured glasses I'd wager it is more likely to be our PC commissars.

Houser; is there a point to your linking to this incoherent video about how Westerners are converting to islam?

SPQR; one of the forms of apology for islam made by the "PC commissars" is indeed how varied and diverse islam is.

The opposite is true; how could it be otherwise; islam is based on a rigid text and its purpose is to homogenise the host societies; that these host societies are diverse initially is where the basis of this lie that islam is diverse comes from.

But there is no difference; just shades of grey.

Another canard is the moderate muslim; islam is not a moderate religion; how can a practitioner be moderate when their faith is fundamentalist? They can't; what happens, as with the riots, is that a minority are physically active against the legal and social framework of the host country while the majority of islam are seen to be peaceful.

Does this mean that majority do not share the same beliefs as the violent majority; does it mean the majority do not want sharia to be introduced; does it mean the majority want interaction with non-believers?

Our "PC commissars" are betraying the Western values which prevail in Australia because they cannot or won't accept the truth of islam. At the risk of being dramatic, the next 5 years in Australia are going to be very tough.

Graham Y
"Some of you seem just as angry as the protesters. Why this is so is worth a discussion in itself. Afterall, I don't remember this level of anger when unions committed acts of violence, for example during the waterside dispute, or the S11 protesters did the same thing. And we are all members of the relatively powerful groups in society."

My hypotheses on this is twofold:
Firstly, the feeling of belonging to Australia is stronger than the feeling of belonging to a class. In short, national sentiments override class sentiments. (This gets proved often in wartime where people will forget their class and join in the national effort to defeat the enemy, much to the chagrin of the Marxists).

Secondly, (this point is actually connected to the first) political Islam is deemed as foreign to the culture, whereas class struggle is deemed internal to the culture. As much as the ordinary folk may dislike violent union protests, they can actually see the rationale behind it; that of better working conditions. With Islam it is totally different, it desires submission to Allah. Ordinary folk have no time for submission to a god from another culture.

What the 'outrage' from Australians shows is that the instinct of belonging (commonly referred to as nationalism) is still alive and well. This instinct is deeply instantiated in humans, because it constitutes one of our most fundamental needs: the need for belonging, the need for a home, the need to be wanted, to be loved etc. No amount of social engineering will eradicate this instinct. All that changes is the group association, not the instinct itself.

How come we have this problem ?
We have never had a problem like this with other migrant groups.
Some criminal problems such as the Griffith mafia but generally no
hint that we are the problem.

Why should we bother ? If they don't like the way we are go away !