“But such a primitive outlook is not unique to Islam.”

Perhaps not. But Islam is the problem in Australia. And to say that the Islamic Council of Victoria has “criticised him (Halali) strongly” is nonsense in light of Waleed Aly’s attitude. The dust has settled, and Halali will be back amongst his very strong supporters soon.

Halali is merely one of the extremists we hear most from. The silence of all other Muslims – and those few with “qualified” criticism of him – is the real problem in Australia. Halali at least we know about

We urge different cultures to bring parts of that culture with them when they come here. Such differences might be a quadrigamist who represents a particular 'value' in a particular ethnic group. At one time that was against our laws and customs so we are capable of change. Another difference might be the celebration of some 'National Day' of a distinct ethnic group. The celebrations might involve the wearing of a national costume and customary dance. Such activities usually attract the Minister for Very Broad Smiles who tells us how uplifting such celebrations are. Some who participate at such activities admit that ‘Australian’ values attracted them to our country.

However, when we decide to restate our values it’s seen as being inimical to the broad Australian society. Suddenly the values which attracted migrants to our shores are unpalatable.

And if we are speaking of one particular group we should look beyond pansophist Georgiou to help us distinguish a moderate muslim from a fundamental muslim. Would a moderate muslim be one of the estimated 5000 who supported the sheik’s misogynistic sermon or would it be one of the 20 or so muslims who publicly condemned him? Is a fundamentalist muslim one who would set a bomb and a moderate muslim one who says…’well, these things wouldn’t happen if you changed your foreign policy…or…yes, it’s a tragedy but if Palestine were free….’

Buddhist , Hindu ,pagan and wiccan sermons have managed to be conducted for decades without any grievience caused in this country.

There's religion and then there is the philosophy of faith and the search of enlightenment. Religion demands a shared belief. An Us versus Them. Faith ask for nothing but being open to possibilities beyond our immediate comprehension thus being enlightened. It isn't for the glory of God or social control but, rather for personal spiritual achievement outside the ritual, rhetoric, and dogma of Religion. It doesn't involve any other person so is never threatening to established norms or maneuvering to dominate social opinion and law.
The big three rule and rule is contentious

Baldino's article is a contribution of UNORIGINALITY in the spheres of culture, ideology, and political dominance. It's merely a regurgitation of academic musings about the above three spheres, in the run-of-the-mill parlance of academics.

For example, he considers it to be a profound statement to say, that in all cultures there are different attitudes and interpretations among their peoples. Of course there are! Even in monolithic cultures-ideologies, there are profound differences and interpretations among their votaries. One has only to be reminded of Stalinist Russia, where Stalin eliminated all those who differed with him in the interpretation of Communism.

Baldino totally disregards, and by this he exposes his academic shallowness, that in any "clash between progressives and fundamentalist forces", to quote him, it's the activists and the ruthless who are victorious. In our case, it's the fundamentalist Muslims, such as Sheiks Hilali and Omran that have the PARAMOUNT influence in their communities. As the "moderate" Muslims are either too scared or too "quittists" to take up the fight against the fanatics, and finish up, most often than not, as APOLOGISTS of the latter. This is why it falls upon the GENERAL community of this country to take up the fight against the Muslim fundamentalists in our midst.

For more:http://www.con.observationdeck.org

The author says of Hilali’s rant that "this latest provocation can be interpreted as not a clash between civilisations but one that signals the clash between progressive and fundamentalist forces within one great civilisation" I agree.

It is heartbreaking to see how bigots and extremists within the Islamic community and anti-Islamic bigots and extremists outside it are working together to fuel the spiral of mutual distrust, stereotyping, antagonism and misunderstanding between Islamic and white Australia

West says that the Buddist, Hindu, Pagan and Wiccan Sermons have managed to be conducted for decades without any grievances caused in this country. My answer to that is "not yet" but give it time.
Remember the bloody clash between the Hindus and Sieks in India.
These things can sometimes take a few generations to manifest themselves.

Rhian talks about antagonism and misunderstanding between Islamic and White Australia. There should be no Islamic and White Australia. There should be only one united Australian people.

As long as Islamists refuse to marry outside of Islam and White Australians wont marry Islamists there can never be one united Australian people.

Islamism has dominated these pages for quite some time - it is curious how deeply the trenches have been dug and how clearly thelines have been drawn - particualrly by the opponents of Islamism and indeed multiculturalism in any of its manifestations.

I dont know that the debate has informed too many minds and am wondering if this is a fools errand - posting on this site - I dont intend to change my mind - now there is a stubborn assertion - No one has convinced me of any inherent evil in Islamism - or of the veracity of a Pan Arabic conspiracy to take over the world
- terrorism does exist however so long as we continue to over value the life of a westerners over all other species our reactions will remain disproportionate, paranoid and consequently wrong.

I have to ask myself when I read some of the anti Islam rants herein - what is the plan? Does any one really believe that by bagging the sh** out of the beliefs underpinning a religion of some 22% of the world they will all of a sudden - go AHA! - those guys were right! Mohammed was a ponce - I wish to convert!.

Or if they are so inherently evil as so many whakos here contend - how do we get rid of them - which, lets face it is the covert message - that people are just to gutless to articulate.

Sneeky

"No one has convinced me of any inherent evil in Islamism"

clearly I have failed. Have a look at "Obsession: the Threat of Radical Islam" on Fox news if you have it.

"We ruled the world once, we will do it again, from the White house and Downing street"

You will never see the inherant evil unless you go deeper than the 'Screen Saver' sugar coated web sites which promote it.
You will see it when you actually look mate.. Sunni's believe the Quran+Hadith+Histories/biographies = 'Sunnah' the way/path.

Shia believe the Quran is eternal and along with some Hadith, the unchanging Sharia.

If by this point you have not picked up on the justification of:

-Taking female captive slaves as war booty.
-Keeping them in servitude.
-Using them for sexual convenience.

in Surah 23:5-6 ..where the heck have you been ?

I'm sure you would not suggest such things are 'good' ?

Have you followed my many posts from the earliest sources about the behavior of MOhammed and connected this to the concept of 'Sunnah' ?
and that in turn to Radical (true) Islam of today ?

Have you not seen the report in the hadith of Mohammed poking the eyes of criminals out with hot irons ? If you have.. this fails to convince you of his vengeful cruelty ? His actions were way worse than AbuGraib ... yet you don't consider them 'evil' ?

I'm astounded by your 'not yet convinced' remark.

Does it not trouble you that Mohammed would marry 13 or more women ? that he was described by his favorite wife Ayesha as loving 3 things
"Women, Scents and good food" ? Does this sound 'Holy' and 'Godly' to you ? If it does, then I suggest that your concept of God is a product of your own carnal desires! Haven't you heard that saying "If it sounds too good 2b true, it probably is"
Mohammed killed Saffiya Binti Huyay's father and husband and took her as wife. Good ?

jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au for further convincing.

One wonders if this author has even read "the Clash of Civilisations" because he seems to completely miss the point. The book has nothing or almost nothing to say about cultures with nations but is a broad brush examination of the post Cold War world. The basic idea is that the world will dissolve into competing groups broadly formed based on shared cultures including shared religion. But is specifically not a book about the competition between cultures and using it to talk about the place (out-of-place?) of Islam within Australia completely misses the point. To further suggest that the book is about an "attempt to create a monstrous global threat" (ie Islam) is simply wrong. Sure it suggests that the Islamic bloc will be at the centre of many of the coming conflicts but he doesn't pin Islam as the cause. He talks of fault lines across which cultures and civilisations will fracture and fight and merely observes that many of the fault lines boarder the Islamic world.

I never doubt your sincerity BD -

However if we look at Surah 23 5-6 it just says sex with slave girls is lawful - and in the 7th Century it probably was and agood time was had by all.

Ya cant take a century old text an use bits of it to suit as one pleases - Christians do it all the time - and anti christians with an axe to grind can find endless bits of the bible prey offensive to women as well

The point I am trying to make is we a looking at Islamism through the prism of 9/11 - we have a distorted perception - and people are scrambling around to find reasonds to hate them - not unlike Bush scrambling around to find reasons to hammer Hussein - his perception of the truth about WMDs and the Al Queada link to Iraq was distorted by revenge - and we all know who is the rightful owner of revenge -

if are rotten now they were rotten in 1964 and 1914 and 1923 - where were we then.

And in the realisation they are evil what do we clammor for?their? ..their what - their destruction?, incarceration?, conversion? Marooning on their own various parts of the world? Fling them into space maybe -

they are here. they walk amongst us. If they are so rotten why has no one proffered a final solution to deal with 22% of the worlds population - all of whom seem hell bent to place their religious heel on our necks.

that is what gets me no one who rails against these guys comes up with any ideas - which leads me to suspect that the outrage is a veneer, a temporay reaction to an unsual set of circumstances - their extremism is fuelled by our foolsih behaviour - there will always be extremists and the same can be said of Christians and Jews

Sneeke Pete, What you are not considering is that if a significant enough number of Muslims reside in a non Muslim country, problems will always arise. This is because it is the nature of this particular religion to 'conquer'. These people are not happy to live in a land of 'infidels' thanks mostly to the "Book of hate" as I like to call it, and the charming gentlemen who spout evil 5 times a day. Therefore it is absolutely inevitable, that given a significant enough community, problems or clashes will occur.
Sneekepete you asked about solutions. To begin with you seemed to think that Muslims in their own country are part of the problem? Realistically there are two solutions for Australia. 1) Create the Islamic republic of Australia or 2) Stop immigration and clamp down on 'worship' even to the point where it is not tolerated. (It works in Saudi!) See the thing is, Sneekepete, it is the religion and worship that corrupts.

What sneekeepete needs to do is go live in a Muslim country as an unbeliever for a couple of years. Obviously he can't distinguish between societies from this distance or comprehend what is transpiring in the other democratic countries of the world, or Islams violent expansion throughout Africa.

Sneeeky....
I've made lots of suggestions about solving the problem of growing Islamic influence.

-Limited numbers (Migration Policy)
-Settlement policy (to prevent ghettos)
-Cultural introduction and assessment of compatibility for migrants.

Re 9/11 yes and no... That event probably highlighted an increasing trend. But.. bear in mind the other bombings.. Beruit, Kenya etc.. all before 9/11. Then there was Bali 1 and 2 London, Madrid.. I mean.. gee.. its not like 9/11 was the only thing.

But your mention of that suits my purpose.. which is.. we need a THOUGHTFUL well worked out, non knee jerk, soundly based social policy which counters any movement such as these.

Look at this for an example of Islamic political influence in Europe.

<"In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, a Muslim swing vote is already having a critical impact. Consider the electoral push that newly enfranchised “German Turks” gave to Germany’s incumbent Social Democrat (SPD)-Green coalition in last September’s down-to-the-wire election. These Muslim Germans punished the anti-immigrant Christian Democrats, who oppose Turkey’s membership to the EU. And they expressed their gratitude for efforts by the SPD-Green coalition to change the archaic laws of German citizenship. The bad news for the German Christian Democrats is that in the next general elections in 2006, roughly 1 million German Turks will be eager to cast their votes.>"
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm

cheers

And this guy is collecting a paycheck for lecturing on US national security!? If he has read Huntington, he has failed to comprehend the argument and become acquainted with what goes on in the Islamic world. Well put aqvarivs. Many of the bleeding hearts that blog away have no first-hand experience of terrorism in action. Do we really have to wait until suicide bombers hit us before a sharp dose of reality is injected into this apathetic nation's bloodstream?

Dear Perikles... probably... YES....

Just like rail crossings need some 'victims' before boom gates are installed.

Today Al Queda announced it's goal to blow up the White House, and you can imagine so many American democrats foaming at the mouth with namby pamby "But..its probably our fault.. and .. what did we do to annoy them, and lets talk with them, or if they look too fericious, we can always send them a 'strongly worded letter of dissapproval' (thanx Southpark, Team America for that bit).

I chatted with some Yank today on 'Christiandebate' (dalnet) on IRC and for the life of me.... he just does not 'get' it.

This is the difficulty dealing with the masses. They have very little broad historical perspective. They know Safeways is where you shop, and the freeway is the way to work, and dinner with the kids etc..but seldom do they stop to connect the historical dots which gave them this privilege.

Hence.. I am a strong advocate of very focused history teaching in our schools.
We should honour the following (among many others)

-Charles Martel (battle of Tours 732) stopped the Muslim slash and burn hoardes from taking France.)

-Count Strobiesky (1643 Battle of Vienna..same thing but Turks instead of Moors.)

We also need to understand how things can turn on a sixpence. One of the generals of the Byzantine Army at Yarmuk defected in front of the whole army to Mohammed. That battle was the major launch pad of Islamic aggression in the world.

At the same time, we need to have a spiritual foundation for our lives. I find it hard to imagine an atheist or agnostic freely and confidently giving his life for a cause he has no belief in. (if survival is the cause, the only type which will be of interest to him is 'his')
The Crusades were based partly on 'Holy' ideas but mostly on greed and territory. and they surely did NOT "love their enemies" once they took Jerusalem. (bloodbath).....but they could have, and won the peace as well as the war.