When even the powerful politicians of our own country Australia, also the poiliticians of Britian, France, Denmark, and other European nations are afraid to take a stand against the radical Muslims in their midst for fear of being violently targeted in some way, why should the ordinary powerless moderate muslim in the street be game to speak out.

These radical ratbags have got us all by the short and curlies and they know it.

I don't think for a minute that speaking out will suffice. Muslim academics I know how been speaking out against the elements for years but its not their views that the Murdoch media will publish or televise.

Reporting and creating fear is BIG business for media empires and their corporate kinships.

If moderate Muslims s (a term I loathe -it implies that moderate Muslimism is only a recent political stance) should speak out - who should decide who is moderate and who or what is radical?

This might seem like a silly question but it is not.

Why? Until we decide what is moderate or radical in our own political culture who are we to decide for others.

John Howard for instance is to me the most radical conservative and destructive man ever to be PM.

To others he is a moderate.

The so called "moderate" platform within our own political machinery needs to be developed around bipartisan agreements about what is not in the national interest.

As the word “moderate” suggests, moderation requires sustainable dialogue to occur, not just react to extreme measures.

Going to war in Iraq would not be considered a moderate imperative, but it is one that many here readily supported.

I recall many of these so called “moderates”, (many of them academics who could not get a job in our defunded universities) who were obviously peace loving speaking out and marching in the streets with others against this war. Remember that?

They were dismissed as radicals back them or called “deluded” for declaring that the US, UK and OZ going to war in Iraq would not fix squat.

But now everyone wants these same moderate Muslims to stand up and speak?

That said, I think the author needs to re-explore his own community.

And on another tangent, as an Indigenous academic the reception I and others get in our community for our moderate views are sometimes the same anti intellectual rebuttals that all academics have copped since Howard’s brand of blamegame conservatism became a popular political fashion accessory for the great unwashed in this nation

I have always taken the view that the West carries its ideas of civil libertaryitism, and Freedom of the press too far when it comes to matters of national security and one day would find that it had actually shot itself in the foot with those noble ideas. Well that day has come.

That is why we can not deal effectively with the likes of radicals like Shiek Hilali.

And one other thing. A majority of nations within the United Nations, being of black and Arab origin do not have the best interests of the West at heart ( and that is putting it nicely). The West should not put the wishes of the United Nations and so called world opinion ahead of the security of it’s own civilization and people

A lot of recent events tell us that Islam cannot survive scrutiny. The basic support system of this religion must be very weak. The demonising of Rushdie and the response to the Danish cartoons indicates insecurity and blind faith in some sort of illusion. The death sentence handed out to backsliders does not indicate faith in the strength of their religion. The 72 virgins waiting in paradise for “defenders of the faith”; is surely too fanciful for the most devout to believe. If the faith needs to be nurtured in a bed of cotton wool to survive it certainly has no answers for today’s problems.

sharkfin. the West is not a white utopian hegemony dripping with liberal democracy as you imagine it to be.

I tend to agree with Ranier about the Murdoch press and the reporting of fear rather than moderation is more effective in creating advertising revenue.

The real problem is, separating out the media motivation, and the real central core issue confronting us.

MODERATES vs RADICALS.

Sille suggested there is an issue of 'insecurity' at work. I can see how this could be perceived but have to differ in the other direction. I see the radical Islamists as supremely confident.
Here is the classic example. How the people holding ideas of this web site (such as Abu Izzadeen akaOmar Brooks)is beyond my comprehension.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

Read that bit first, then click the 'previous' section to see how this killing of those who insult or find fault with the Prophet is tied directly to Sharia law, which Hizb Ut Tahrir would certainly advocate for Australia if Muslims are powerful enough.

Imagine it, democratic freedom is used to establish something so horrific and diabolical, like the Inquisition on Steroid AND Turbo, where there would NEVER again be any hint of democratic freedom.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

The man shown in that story (Brooks) charged into Regents Park mosque and berated a British government rep for coming into 'Muslim Areas'.
He also berated the Regents Park Mosque mob for being slack Muslims and promised Islam would take over UK ...like it or not. (and reporting this means we are Islamophobic ?)

THE CYCLE. For the benefit of CJ Morgan who cannot differentiate between legitimate warning and Islamophobia. I'll go step by step.

1/ Muslim Community exists.
2/ Foreign Policy or social policy of their host country does not 'fit' with Islam.
3/ Idealistic youth are alienated and disgruntled.
4/ Radicism which already existed in a small way, seizes this opportunity to promote their interests.
5/ This brings a backlash, intervention, arrests and a 'Victim' mentality ensues.
6/ This then further creates radicalism and so on.

The current polling suggests 50% of UK muslim youth want to live under Sharia Law. That probably represents over a million people.... and THAT.. is cause for serious concern.