Irfan,

Very good piece. I remember the early 80s when many arab and western governments backed BinLaden ideology. No one saw the long term danger of cross breeding the ideology and what would the 'mad dog' do after the soviets left Afghanistan.

"...David Belfield). In real life Belfield, himself a convert, had his own journey through radical Islam, attracted to the Iranian revolution..."

Dawud Salahuddin (originally David Belfield), the Muslim, murdered an Iranian man in the US and found refuge is a Muslim-majority country. Beffield, or Salahuddin admitted to the murder.

"...In an interview with The New Yorker [3] he admitted to killing Tabatabai. He described the killing as, not "murderous" but as, "an act of war and a religious duty. He said that, "In Islamic religious terms, taking a life is sometimes sanctioned and even highly praised, and I thought that event was just such a time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Belfield

The Muslim's world-view is a violent one, advocating the killing, forced conversion of non-Muslims. The world is divided into Dar-ul-Islam (House or land of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harab (land of the enemy or enemy nation).
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_061130.htm

The case of Dawud give us a true face of Islam and Muslims. They can commit a crime and seek refuge in a Muslim-majority country. The excuse they give is that they fight for the cause of Islam.

So according to Islamic teaching, Muslims are forever at war with non-Muslims. They do not mean just a spiritual warfare, they mean they are here to kill non-Muslims if they have to in the cause of Islam.

The silly thing about Western countries is that they are welcoming Muslims to come into their countries with open arms. They then allow and encourage the building of mosques and madrassahs which will groom the next generation of jihadist to kill, rape and commit acts of terror; all of this is justified because they are in Dar-ul-Harab, land of the enemy (non-Muslim) and, they further the cause of Islam.

One of the most knowledgeable people about understanding the terror of Islam are the Hindus of India. They have fought them for over a 1200 years. In recent years, Pakistan and Bangladesh have almost killed-off or evicted the Hindu population in their countries.

http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_061130.htm

FELLOW HUMAN....welcome back!

Irfan makes an interesting point.. mentioning Afghanistan.

"they went there to find God.. fighting the infidel" kind of thing.

But lets take stock of a verry..VERY important issue in all this.

Radical or.. 'enthusiastic/passionate' Muslims will view ANY Western intrusion into "Muslim lands" as cause for 'Jihad' even if it is to clear out training camps being used to prepare Jihadis for attacks on the West.

Tracy Grimshaw tried.. tried.. TRIED (3 times) to get Wassim Dhouri to answer the question "Is Australia an enemy of Islam"..and he squirmed, ducked weaved, denied, obfuscated, beat around the bush and tried to deflect the question..ANYthing but answer 'yes'...or 'no'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5atTSICmyI&feature=related

In the end.. he had NOT said "no".

Hizb Ut Tahrir... (wassim's group) was quick to jump onto the Danish Cartoon mark II saga.. (happening right now) and try to capitalize on the disruption.

Westerners who convert to Islam.. tend to be like people in a 'cult'.. very difficult to bring them to reason..and some also act like 'reformed smokers' to others.

So.. THE CHALLENGE as far as I see it, is to implement educational requirements, which specifically address the issue of

1/ legitimate Western invasions of Muslim areas.

2/ Make Illegal (sedition) for any religious leader (of any faith) to suggest/persuade/promote/disseminate any material or in person, which undermines the democratically based objectives of the government in dealing with national security threats.. here or overseas.

SPEAKING of RADICALS....

The current trial is worth a look for any in Melbourne.

But.. I think the Daily Telegraph has overstepped the mark with this headline:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23241025-5001021,00.html

MEMBERS of a Melbourne-based terrorist group discussed killing former Australian prime minister John Howard, the Victorian Supreme Court heard today.

They didn't use the word 'Alleged'..... they have pre-empted the outcome of the trial and already put out a 'guilty' verdict.

Mistrial ?

I think "Men on trial for alleged terrorism discussed killing the former prime minister" would be the more appropriate construction.

Irf, you make four errors here:

1. I have seen no studies as to the tendency for converts to become "radicals" as compared to "born" Muslims. It seems that both groups can and do often decide that killing infidels is what their religion teaches them.

This takes us to point 2.

2. You say that much of the modern "political radicalism in Muslim communities" is rooted in contemporary political conflicts in the nominally Muslim countries due to (and because of) "little exposure to mainstream Islamic theology." Terror is not the same as "political radicalism" and it is not just a "modern" problem. Killing people and preaching hate can be incorporated into a political agenda, but it is more of a personal attitude and ideology. The problem is not "Political radicalism", it is terror. People don't "fall into" terror, they make choices based upon their beliefs -- the question is where these beliefs and values come from.

Which takes us to point 3:

... the part about "mainstream Islamic theology." Unfortunately mainstream islamic theology is a big part of the problem. This is often where these people learn about religious extremism and the eternal struggle in Allah's way (jihad) to conquer the infidel. This is not a small fringe group -- much to the contrary.

And point 4.

Most Muslims do NOT treat Islam as "intensely personal" or deeply religious issue. It is public, it is ritualized and it places demands on society, even if non-Muslim. If Islam were "personal" there would be no problem, but it demands special rules, privileges and it sanctions non-Muslims. The current cartoon issue is nothing more than an attempt to impose a part of sharia on Non-Muslims.

FH, good to see you here. I was wondering about you...

Kactuz

PS: "Nominally Muslim world"? hummmm?

Fellow Human what a surprise! Good to have you back. I too have been away for a while...and the day I decide to drop by – there you are.

Irfan you still don't get it mate - it is not the CIA that corrupted Bin Laden besause he was already up to no good. As a good Moslem he was acting on the teachings of his religion – a fugitive in exile from his own homeland of Saudi following a failed attempt to dethrone his own "un-Islamic" royal family.

The real corruptor has always been Islam itself - a religion that clearly teaches that "Muslems" are a superior people and jihad is Allah’s prescription to convert, or kill all non-Moslems until Islam is the only religion on earth.

The two sheilas were not innocent victims of circumstances; they were very articulate and truly entrenched in Islamic teachings. I don’t see why you even mention them when speaking of new converts living on the fringes of Islamic society. Unless we both watched a different show, they were very well integrated into very enviable upper echelons of Islamic circles.

People with these kind of distorted mindsets and dangerous connections have no place in this country.

Next you will tell us that David Hicks was also another victim of failed Islamic hospitality.