The question is not whether ISIS would fail the most basic test of Islam according to Max Abrahams, a "terrorism expert" from Northeastern University; but according to Mohammed, the Koran, and hadith.

As Muslims by definition consider Mohammed to be the apostle of God, it is not "un-Australian" or "extremist", but only obvious, to inquire whether any given Muslim including Junaid rejects and condemns the moral example of Mohammed in practising and authorising slavery, killing people for not believing his religious opinions, killing people for not agreeing with his sexual opinions, armed robbery, mass murder, and having sex with little children; or not?

Junaid: So do you? Or not?

JKJ, that's some of the most specious "reasoning" I've ever seen. Even runner would be ashamed of it - actually, that's unfair, runner would love it...

The article makes a very strong point; that there is a class of people - not just Moslems - who are so disengaged from what we think of as the social norms that they have no meaning in framing behaviour.

This has always been a part of society and it was glorified by Hollywood for years in the form of Westerns, not to mention being the basis of our own bushranger mythologising. So what's different?

I'd suggest a few major things and a couple of less important but still significant ones.

The most important thing is that we now have no frontier where marginalised people, especially young men without prospects, can go to seek a better outcome living on their wits.

Also important is that we have a social model that is increasingly restrictive and conformative, so that behaviours that would once have been acceptable hijinks among young men are now subject to rigorous enforcement action and constant social disapprobation, with the best of intentions.

A third important factor is that the opportunities for low-skilled industrial employment are simply not there for young men. Even driving a forklift, one of the most basic of tasks, requires completion of a week long course costing $1000 dollars. Driving a truck requires a lengthy period of holding a lesser license and then spending up to several thousand dollars. To put it in perspective, I drove a forklift at 17 in one of my first jobs, with no license and I first drove a truck at 19. I'm only in my early fifties, so that's just 30 years ago.

Less important is the cultural change that has seen us devalue individuality in almost every aspect of life. A young man is rebellious and needs to establish his own boundaries. If small rebellions are not possible, the old "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking occurs.

And finally, we have become a society which reflexively devalues religion, of any kind. Devout observance is seen as not merely suspect, but deluded, thanks to St Richard of the Gene.

We need to seriously reconsider our social structures and our cultural norms in the light of what we might consider to be Australian values.

That wonderful non existent being of the imagination "God" is always there, especially in wars and peoples problems, time to throw God to the wind and admit it is your own imagination that is causing the problem not because of a God who doesn't exist. Germany, God on our side, England, God on our side, USA, God on our side, Muslims God on our side, God must be so busy trying to work out who to favour.
Running to church to pray for all of those men & women you yourself have caused to have an early death, but of course I didn't, they were fighting for our democracy , lay a wreath for others as long as it is not me dead.

ojnab, I'm an atheist, but whether I believe in a god is irrelevant, because the people in question do and have every right to do so if they wish.

If you want them to have a good reason to ignore you as irrelevant, then you're going the right way about it.

I think you'll find that has never ended well, wherever its been tried and whichever god happens to be the subject of the belief.

I'm not good at Political Correctness & my answers are usually short & to the point. I will, though, attempt to critique Junaid's article fairly.

Junaid: We are a nation built on immigration, a nation of second chances.

Yes, Australia is, but it must be remembered that those immigrants were in the main, Christian, holding the same values as Australia. Those who came from Asia also held similar values in Budhism.

Junaid: We are a people of community, of equal rights and believers in a fair go.

Yes Australians are, but they get pretty Pi$$ed off when that is taken advantage of by people who refuse to hold our values as equal to theirs.

Junaid: The Prime Ministers's security statement promised to clamp down on those "who incite religious or racial hatred" and those who participate in "blatantly spreading discord and division".

This is usually taken to mean by the Politically Correct, Greenies & Do-Gooders that the Prime minister's Statement only refers to any criticism of moslems . Not any condemnation of Australian values by moslems.
Junaid: Such hate speech disrupts the community, spreads Xenophobia.

Yes it does, so why is it deemed that only Australians who are not moslems, called Xenophobic & any moslems who are caught out, explained away as only being "individuals." This luxury isn't afforded to Australian non-moslems. (Infidels)

Junaid: an article titled "It's absurd to deny Jihadist act in the name of Islam" concluding extremism is inherent to Islam.

1400 years of invasions & infighting tells me that the article is inherently correct. I haven't read the article only the statement here. Christianity had its share of violence & has moved on. But for a very few here & there. Americans in the Bible Belt mostly. (weird lot)
Cont.