"Throw in a large ambiguous holy book, with enough contradictions and ambiguity to be read any way you want, and you have a licence for bloodshed and mayhem."

Posted by Jon J, Monday, 12 January 2015 8:17:22

Fortunately this doesn't apply to followers of the Christ.

I thought i would have a read of the holy quoran. Right at the top it said "love for all hatred for none" That is all i read.

Have to agree mostly with JKJ!
We need to stop pussy footing around this issue, but instead ask, how was it the gatekeepers let these people in? And do we really need these people?

And if the present system and those paid to manage it failed with a capital F, then both must be changed, given they're dismal failures.

We need to use fail safe space-age lie detection and people fully familiar with their usage at the gate, to keep the extremists out.

And then create a number of seemingly sympathetic secret police units, tasked with infiltrating and exposing those hiding in our midst!

Be they Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hari Chrishna or Burmese belly dancers/sun worshiping nudists dancing groups and expose all those who harbor extremist attitudes, but particularly those active in radicalizing youth.

One notes that not all of the hijackers who flew hijacked planes into tall building, 9/11, were Muslims, but alleged Christians as well.

Perhaps the real problem is anti western sentiment, and or what creates it?

In any event, we need to send these folk back where they came from, even if that means giving third and forth generation extremists a choice between interment for the duration of the conflict, or repatriation, even if that means they travel as tourists, then have their Australian passports revoked, so they are denied any possibility of a legal return!

And if that means certain ethnic communities believe they are selectively targeted; it's because they must be!?
Sorry, but if there were any other way now?
Rhrosty.

Roses, your scholar misses the point where he says "...Had the shooters in Paris actually bothered opening the Quran, they would have known about 'repel evil with something that is lovelier.' Had they sought to embody the Quran, they wouldn't have shot down cartoonists but made sure to shoot down prejudice by embodying luminous qualities that would transform the society..."

Some scholar. He either won't acknowledge the Quran's exhortations of followers to violence, or, hasn't read it.

There are two Islams, one violent and one not. Their followers label each other unbelievers and hypocrites (i.e. not rigid followers of the Quran). There is no hope of a reconciliation, while they follow the same book, but it'd be nice to see an attempt.

Egyptian President, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's speech (in the article) calls for enlightenment, appealing, "You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move....". While waiting for an age of reason to overcome the Islamic world we must look at how to meet the menace at home. As the "I'm Charlie" glow subsides, hard thinking is needed on what can practically be done.

Seeking to have Australian Muslims put the state before Allah, with a commitment to secular democracy, is disagreeable as I am told by their supposedly moderate representatives on another thread. This leaves the Muslim community to combat the problem or having it harshly dealt with by the State. I am concerned that our current leadership is not up to the task and that parties will arise and gain traction with extremist solutions, and other undesirable agenda items.

Quick comments.

1. What has been written here about Islam in 2015 could easily have been written about Catholicism right up to the Thirty Years War.

2. There is no "Islam" just as there is no "Christianity" in the sense that there are very different denominations. Even "sharia" has very different meanings...indeed sharia as practiced in Iran is more akin to English common law, while as practiced in Saudi Arabia it is more "feudal"...they execute people in Saudi Arabia for sorcery.

3. No one "let these people in" (response to a comment). There were Mohammedans(as they used to be called) on the First Fleet!

4. We should not respond to Islam by being more Christian. We should respond to Islam by requiring all groups that claim to be "religions" to preach tolerance and preach for a secular state...and political parties should be prohibited from being aligned to religions. Only religions that meet the requirement of tolerance and secularism should be able to get any benefit from the state - including charitable status and any grant funding.

The author closes with

"This is more than newspaper editors and journalists have had the guts to do, but we hope that now that so many more of their own profession have been slaughtered, besides those decapitated by Islamic State, they will stop focusing on imaginary "Islamophobia", will read the Koran and analyse Islam itself. It is not phobic to be afraid of having one's head cut off".

Does she really think journalists will acquaint themselves with the facts before passing opinions? Get real. Most journalists (aping the public they serve) are at best clueless and at worst sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists.

Just look at the two recently minted and most stupid of twitter hashtags created to appease Muslims who may be offended by us standing up for Christian values: #Illridewithyou and #Illridewithvouz