Pete Islamic scholars were saying exactly that in 2013, if Obama had acted sooner and nipped ISIS in the bud instead of following his mad democratic imperialist dream the Caliphate would never have been established.
If there's no Caliphate in Raqqa and no Caliph the rest of the Islamic prophecy of the end times can't happen because there's a strict order of events which must occur before Muslims will accept that it's the real thing.
There have been these apocalyptic panics in Islam many times, how many wars have been fought because some Muslim holy man has declared himself to be the Imam Mahdi returned?
The Sudan crisis of the 1880's comes to mind as one such example.

This contributor wonders if the "public discourse" plays a role in the radicalisation of "Muslim youth" and the rise of "far-right groups" in Australia.

Hang on! Islam plays the ONLY role in Muslim radicalisation: it's all there in the Koran. They don't need help! Any demonstrations or speeches from the 'far-right', or "discourse" by the rest of us, who object to Islamic terrorism and murder of our fellow Australians, is merely REACTION to radical Islam which, in fact, is just true Islam, despite the lies told.

Mr. King doesn't know culture from race, or ethnicity from culture. 'Ethnicity' does is not "short" for race, nationality and/or religion, as he claims. 'Ethnicity' refers to RACE only. Most Australians might very well "wish to defend the ideal(?) of a multi-ETHNIC democracy (although evidence of this would be nice) - and official immigration policy eschews racial discrimination (or ethnic discrimination). But CULTURE is the concern here: in particular, the Islamic culture, which seems to be incompatible with any other culture on Earth.

Nobody should have problems with race or ethnicity (even though they are entitled to in a democracy). The author talks about "ethnic communities" other than in the particular spot referred to because he doesn't know the difference between race and culture or religion.

Small wonder the Richard King gets very few responses his website.

Well, thank you Richard King, for admitting that multiculturalism "has a few problems." Although, it is getting to be a lot harder to deny the obvious anymore.

Why don't you just come right out and admit that the "racists" and "extremists" who opposed multiculturalism and Muslim immigration were right all along? I suppose that having to admit that the "progressives" got it wrong again, and that the Bogans got it right again, would be a particularly unpleasant piece of crow to eat. Better for you to just grudgingly concede a point while still tossing a sneer at the Bogans. That way you don't entirely trash your social progressive credentials.

You are now waffling about most Muslims being "moderate", and only a tiny minority being radicals. Excuse me, could you tell me what a "moderate" Muslim is? And what do "moderate" Muslims believe?

Do "moderate" Muslims reject Allah's instruction to kill infidels and spread Islam through Jihad? ? Do they renounce Sharia Law? Do they accept that people who criticise Islam should not be murdered? Do they accept that people who renounce their Muslim faith for another should not be killed? Well, if they do, Richard, then they are not Muslims at all.

We have brought people into our peaceful country who's values are not only diametrically opposed to our own, but who see nothing wrong with some of their members using violence to promote their medieval value systems. And they are winning, Richard. They have tested our resolve on our own core values like free speech, and found that we can be intimidated through terrorism into accepting their demand that their culture and their people's behaviour must never be criticised.

Lefties are lining up to support the implementation of laws against "hate speech", which is a euphemism for "never criticise a minority", especially Islam, which really does need some informed criticism. Like battered wives who claim that the beatings from their husbands were all their own fault, the Muslims are succeeding in making western society blame ourselves for their own violence.

Western democracy today is now Islam's bitch.

Richard King, Rhosty, Jay Of Melbourne, diver dan, onthebeach, Chek & plantagenet,

have any of you guys ever had the chance to discuss Multi Culti with a Trotskyist? A few years ago i was in a well known communist cell discussing all these issues including migrants living separately in ghettos, FGM, migrants not speaking English, girls being groomed, raped, terrorism, sexual assault, honour killings, the entire nation divided into separate tribes, who no longer co-operate together for the greater good of the nation, etc, etc, etc.

At the end of this little talk the response was "but that was exactly what we wanted, how else can we smash the capitalist patriarchy? stir the proletariat into revolution?"

Lego,

On the subject of 'moderate' Muslims, you might be intrested in this: in August 2007, the Turkish PM, Recept Erdogan, took umbrage at the term 'moderate Muslim', saying that such a description of Muslims is "very ugly"; and, "it is offensive and an insult to our religion".

He finished by saying, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's that." Makes the apologists here look a bit silly does it not?

Thank you, LEGO.

In the uncritical view of Muslims, the Koran was handed down - never to be modified - to Mohamed by Allah. Of course, it WAS modified, quickly an often, by the useful method of 'abrogation', by which later verses, and hadiths, etc., written long after Mohamed, overrule earlier verses.

Faithful Muslims follow the Koran to the letter. Some of those faithful join Da'esh.

I'm just working through an old book (1946) on Colonial Land Law and Custom: in most African colonies up to then (and Cyprus, Malaya, and even Ceylon), Muhammadan (Muslim) law applied to any property owned by Muslims. Most land was agricultural. But all law evolves, and land law in the British dependencies was evolving very rapidly.

Farmers need to borrow, to mortgage their land, in order to finance improvements. But Muslim law, the Koran, forbids usury, making money on loans. So, ever-inventive, abiding by Koranic law yet profiting from making loans, Muslim kadis and imams devised what they called a 'conditional sale', whereby the borrower's property was technically 'bought' by the money-lender, for the amount sought, who then charged the farmer-borrower rent for it. Brilliant: no interest, but rent, which was probably higher than interest payments might have been - and required the 'tenant', rather than the 'owner' to maintain the property. So one can abide by the Koran AND make money at the same time.

It struck me that 'good Muslims' would probably keep living like that, 'modifying' (very inventively) their lifestyle in, and responses to, a rapidly changing world, while abiding by the 1400-year-old rules of the Koran. But there must produce enormous, and growing, stresses: to reconcile how one actually lives in a modern world while abiding by a set of pre-modern rules.

Ultimately, it may be matter of two irreconcilable ethics, civilization ethics, rubbing up against each other, one evolving with social and economic change, the other 'modifying' or elaborating its basic principles to keep pace with those changes - but not really evolving, and so really its tenets clashing more and more with people's actual practice.

Cheers,

Joe