The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No one Muslim fits all > Comments

No one Muslim fits all : Comments

By Waleed Aly, published 2/9/2005

Waleed Aly argues John Howard's meeting with Muslim leaders ended up pleasing no one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. 26
  11. All
Yep, totally agree Waleed,

on the flip side,

One size does fit all for xenophobic anti muslim, mono culturalist, true blue vein, redneck aussies.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The claim that the Muslim community “as a homogenous, coherent entity, simply does not exist” and that it is “a very diverse set of communities hailing from about 70 different nations and featuring a mind-boggling number of different cultures and languages” is undoubtedly true. It is also true of all other Australians. The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do and, if we do adhere to a religion it is a personal matter which does not clash with our secular policies of law and order, democracy and the rights of individuals. We don’t belong to a “Christian Australia” and, we do not recognise a “Muslim Australia”.

This “Muslim Australia” has, according to Waleed Aly, become concerned by some “negative images” such as the Tampa incident and mandatory detention of people illegally entering Australia; ASIO carrying out its lawful duty to combat terrorism, and “draconian” legislation with regard to terrorism. On the one hand we are told that Muslims in Australia are diverse just like the rest of us, but Waleed Aly claims to speak for “Muslim Australia”. I suggest that we are being told what Waleed Aly thinks.

“Wars with Afghanistan and Iraq” are also of concern to “Muslim Australia”. It’s strange that while many, if not most, of the people still prepared to stick with their countries welcomed the Taliban and Saddam being ousted, Muslim Australians, some of whom would have escaped these countries, have concerns about military action against the murderers still lurking there and deliberately (not accidentally) killing civilians.

I suspect that ordinary Muslims in Australia might just be getting on with their lives like the rest of us. I’d like to hear from some of them for a change instead of from so-called “community representatives” and self-styled experts.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do"

Just because you define yourself as a Muslim does not mean it dominates every facet of you life.

For instance, I define myself as a Christian, but have never been to church and couldn't even tell you what the 10 commandments are. There are plenty of Muslim equivalents.

"The difference is that the rest of us are not dominated by religion in everything we do and, if we do adhere to a religion it is a personal matter which does not clash with our secular policies of law and order, democracy and the rights of individuals."

And if you read Cameron Riley's piece http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=216 you might want to reconsider you comment given the fact that there are democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia which have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments even though approximately 80% of their population defines themself as Muslim.
Posted by strayan, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:42:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When did Waleed Aly claim to speak for all Australian Muslims? The most I've ever hear him say is that he speaks on behalf of his members that elected him. Sounds like a fair enough claim to me. Hardly self-appointed.

If anything, he's only ever said nobody can be the sole voice of Australian Muslims. In fact that's what this article is all about.

I think the identification of Muslim Australia is something that comes not from Muslims, but from government and society. The categorisation of Australian Muslims as one block is something that comes externally, not internally.

Sounds a bit rich to me to say we should just demand that Australian Muslims get on with it like everyone else. That would be fine, if - like with everyone else - we weren't demanding anything of Australian Muslims. I'm sure they'd love to move on, but it's a little difficult when you're being ordered to do the government's own security work for them (a task which is not in their power anyway). I think it's a good point that if the government's going to demand assistance, at the very least it can show a willingness to listen to Muslims.

And can we please stop asking Muslims to dob in terrorists. Like terrorists come with neon signs that point them out to other Muslims. Anyway, Australian Muslims have been providing intelligence to Australian authorities for ages. And that's more than people making demands of Muslims have usually done.
Posted by Jasper, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waleed, another post for your 'nutbags' file.

My only problem with Islam is "Islam"...

I'm struggling to understand the psychology of how a person might, in today's world glorify National Socialism. Connection? simple, its founder did many wonderful things, had a lot of good ideas, swayed masses of people, was idolized by a generation, there was just one small matter ... the 'Jewish final solution' and a matter of 'master race'.

So, people look back today, and if they wish to persue NS. they must do some serious psychological re-alignment. They must first 'justify and rationalize' the 'liquidation of a few million people'. Then they must accept the underlying doctrines.

With Islam, I truly wonder at you and others state of mind, which has to do the same thing for the various documented (In Islamic sources) acts of atrocity, genocide, rape,torture and theft by Mohamed, which I might add will never go away. You must also adjust to the ideas of the 'eternal Quran' and its outlining of behavior of 'The Believers' which includes 'sex with those your right hand possesses'....

You also have to adjust to the idea of having up to 4 wives. This must be a struggle in the West where it is only legal to have one.

To expect thinking people to have any other than a realistic view of Islam and its spokespeople is optimistic in the extreme. Sure, there will be some on the left who are in denial about these things, but it doesn't change that they happened.

To describe such statements of history as 'vilification' is ludicrous.
I welcome any such statements about the sins of 'The Church' and have no thought whatsover to deny or rationalize them. I just point to Christ, and ask "compare... what do u see"? its easy.

But with Islam, there is no place to point to deflect the guilt and blame from your supposed prophet. The buck stops with him.

Look to Christ Jesus Waleed.. seek his forgiveness, His renewal, and you will discover life. When He returns, will you be ready ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fundamental misconception here was that Howard had a clear purpose when he set up the meeting. He didn't, he was simply paying lip-service to the need to be seen to "be doing something about domestic terrorism". In this way, he cannot be criticised for picking this person over that, since there was no real basis for selection or non-selection in the first place.

Think about it for a moment. If the objective is to "talk sense" to people who might do us harm, first you must identify them. Since it is unlikely you will be able to identify them, you have to select from people who by definition have no intention of harming anyone.

If there were the local Muslim equivalent of Sinn Fein, the IRA's so-called "political wing", talking with them might make some sense - he would be talking, if not to the organ-grinder, at least to the organ-grinder's monkey. But just to pick a few random civilians off the street for a chat seems particularly pointless.

So it was pure tokenism, and will continue to be so.

These meaningless gabfests have no more chance of improving our safety in the face of terrorist activity than would the simple enforcement of existing laws. It is pure public hand-wringing, nothing more, nothing less. Bush does it, Blair does it, so Howard does it too.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 2 September 2005 5:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. 26
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy