To conflate, as Yusuf does, the so called cultural ‘warriors’ of the West with the religiously fanatic suicidal fanatics of al Qaeda, does not only abuse reality but also one’s intellectual integrity and honesty. Yusuf writes “the vast majority of people …are quite happy to live with people who don’t share their culture or religion”. Indeed they do, but only in the tolerant societies of the West. However, that does not mean that they are indifferent or apathetic about the achievements of their culture. No people can survive without breathing daily the achievements of their culture. And no people can be proud of these achievements if they are depicted by revisionist historians that they have been made by the “spilling of blood”.

In our case, Australia’s culture is the descendant of the great culture of Western civilization. But no culture, no matter how great, is a manifestation of Godly purity. However, the blemishes of Western culture are infinitesimal next to its “infinite” virtues, and hence this culture is ”closer” to the “realm of God”.

Yusuf wrote his piece on On Line…under the rubric of political philosophy. But with his moral equation between the “loud-mouthed cultural ‘warriors’ “and” the likes of al Qaida”, he bans himself from all philosophical discourse. As by such philosophical credentials no philosopher would ever allow him to enter his academy.

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com

This was an interesting article. Unlike most of those who have written in and abused Yusuf, I think that an analogy can be drawn between the extremists in the West and those in the Islamic world. Further I believe the US elite and its allies are a far greater danger to humanity than Al Qaeda. Conservative estimates are that 151,000 innocent civilians have died as a consequence of the Iraq invasion. A Lancet study put the figure at over 650,000.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but was an attempt by the economically declining US elite to use military force to reinforce its wolrd dominance and warn off Europe and China. It has been a complete disaster. Afghanistan is similar, and will be America's next Vietnam.

For a decade the world was a safer place after the US was defeated in Vietnam.

Passy,

Anyone knowing the history, traditional tribal networks and loyaties, important religious mores, and other disparate elements of this region would have predicted fairly accurately the outcome of any Western ( indeed other’s) intervention in that area.

The horrendous casualties that have resulted have not been due to US killing, but by the release of groups that had been "suppressed" by Saddam Hussein’s merciless regime.

To justify his position,Saddam Hussein had to prove his descendancy from the Prophet Mohammed. Saddam’s published “family tree”, showed him to be entitled to the honorific of sayyid (lord or prince) accorded to the male descendants of Prophet Mohammed. Millions of copies of these were distributed to emphasise Saddam’s religious credentials.

In late 2003, Al-Sherif Najeh Mohammed Hassan al-Faham al-Aaraji, the head of the union of Åshrafs, who protect the genealogical tree of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, admitted that Saddam had forced experts to falsify his family tree and that Saddam’s name had been removed from the list of descendants of Prophet Mohammed. Add this fact to the “mix” ...

Anyone who blindly accepts the conclusions of the Lancet study has obviously not taken the time to research the methodology that was used to reach those highly questionable conclusions, which are seriously at odds with the United Nations' own study on the same issue. If one simply takes the time to investigate numerous, and easily accessible, documented sources, it becomes manifestly clear that, in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, many Baathist soldiers who were killed were stripped of their uniforms and proclaimed to be "innocent civilians". Al-Qaeda and other insurgents who have been killed have then been stripped of their weapons by their surviving comrades, and also displayed as "innocent civilians" to the media. True civilian witnesses, captured prisoners and former Baathists have all testified that these propaganda tactics take place. Insurgents have routinely taken over the houses of civilians, and used them to launch attacks on Americans, Brits, and the troops of the elected and U.N.-approved Iraqi government. When the troops fire back, they are accused of deliberate "atrocities" against civilians who, in fact, have often been used as human shields by insurgents.
When a suicide bomber slaughters an entire crowd of women, children and shopkeepers in a marketplace, it is NOT an accident, it is NOT "collateral damage", it is NOT a "mistake" committed in the fog and chaos of war. It is PREMEDITATED. It is DELIBERATE. Those true innocents WERE the target.
For the record, as an American, I can say with certainty that the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone from being DENIED the right to run for, or to hold, political office, or be in government employment, on religious grounds. However, it should be self-evident that such a prohibition against an official religious test does not mean that individual voters cannot follow their own instinct, judgement and intuition when they are deciding if a particular candidate's theological dogma will influence that candidate's agenda if he or she is elected to office.

sonofeire

Kudos, this is a "perfect" answer in an imperfect world.

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com