Passy- "Red Ken is a misnomer. He is a centrist."

What a joke! If Red is a centrist I must be Kublai Khan...

Here are a few tidbits about dear ol' Ken:

Ken Livingstone described as "Far Left"
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/83805.aspx

Red Ken's links with Yusuf al-Qaradawi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4005045.stm

Red Ken tries to reconcile Socialism and Islamism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/205kdjpf.asp

UK Labour and Labour-voting immigration
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/4/18/red-ken-theres-method-in-his-vileness.html

Red Ken thrashed in a debate on militant Islam and the evils of the West
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2675

Paulr, how do you reconcile your views regarding liberal democracies and the voting into government of Hamas in Gaza? Isn't this rather like the coming to power of the National Socialists in Germany, who then eliminated all political opposition? (and put their racial policies into operation).

Many comments on this well-written article have missed a significant point.

The debate about Islam's compatibility with democracy was misconceived for various reasons.

The fact is that if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia.

But if a polity is based on Islam or any other monotheistic religion it is a theocracy. That means that all law descends from above and in theory is immutable.

SENECA writes:

"…if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia."

Secular democracy is more than merely an expression of popular will. One of the essentials of secular democracy is that the rights of minorities, even unpopular minorities such as homosexuals, are protected.

Do you really think that gays, Jews, Christians, atheists or Hindus enjoy equal protection under the law in Malaysia and Indonesia?

It must be admitted that protection of the rights of unpopular minorities is often an aspiration rather than an actuality. Until recently gays were subject to criminal prosecution in most "Western" countries. India is avowedly secular yet it can be an uncomfortable place for members of lower castes, Christians and Muslims.

But, nonetheless, in a secular democracy at least the aspiration is there.

Of course there is a fine line here. At times protection of the rights of minorities has crossed the line to oppression of the majority by a militant minority. I think we are seeing something of that happening with Islam in Australia.

It is certainly happening in the US. On the one hand we see Christian fundamentalists bent on trashing high-school biology curricula. On the other hand we see secular lefties denying that Islam is as much a malign influence as the Christians those self-same lefties despise.

PASSY,

I am an Islamophobe. I am also a "Nazi-phobe" and a "Christianity-phobe."

So what?

All three are belief systems. In a secular democracy all three are therefore legitimate targets for critique, satire, contempt and scorn. The critic is under no obligation to abide by anybody's notion of fairness or to take into account the feelings of believers.

Contempt for Islam is NOT racism.

In Australia Muslims have the right to pursue "dawa." Do you deny me the right to pursue "anti-dawa?"

Dear Steven

You are welcome to be a 'Christianity'phobe, but I'd rather it was based on some well founded reality rather than myth.

I'd prefer you used the term "Church-aphobe" where you qualify the term to mean "Those churches which hold anti semitic views"

The Christian faith was founded by Jesus, a Jew, and while you might not accept the record of his teaching, death and resurrection, nor of Pauls vivid encounter with the risen Lord, you would not be able to derive a well founded fear of Christians from anything in the New Testament.

A legal matter also. No, you cannot publically scorn or hold in contempt, or ridicule Christianity, not even in other states than Vic.
Precedent shows that to do so can mean the long arm of Victorian law can 'getcha' from other states.

If you want a phobia, be phobic about the law I just referred to the RRT2001, but not we Christians who hold Jews in deep affection. There is simply no reason to fear us.

Viking13 (or should that be Kublai Khan) says:

“I do question whether Islam is compatible with secular democracies, especially given how few Islamic nations practice democracy in any meaningful way. “

I think the same could be said for the West – it does not practice democracy in a meaningful way. There is no democracy for example in the realm of production.

Be that as it may, let’s have a look at democracy and Islam. Indonesia is a democracy (after the people overthrew Suharto). Malaysia is a democracy. Pakistan is a democracy, locked in a struggle with a US supported dictator. Iran was a democracy in 1953 when the CIA overthrew the Mossadeq Government and reinstated the Shah.

Algeria’s second round of voting in 1992 would have seen the FIS (the Islamic Salvation Front) sweep to power. The army, with the support of the West, refused to allow that to happen. Lebanon is a democracy. The Palestinian people have democratically elected Hamas to be their Government. The US supports and props up the illegitimate leadership of Fatah (and indeed supported Fatah’s attempted coup against Hamas in Gaza.)

The US also supports and props up a number of other dictatorships in the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The problem is not that democracy and Islam are incompatible. The problem is that it is not in the interests of the US ruling class to allow democracy to flourish in the Middle East.

As the bloody history of US intervention and/or support for dictatorships around the world shows, the real anti-democrats are in Washington, not Gaza.

“The fact is that if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia.”

The assertion by Seneca is contradicted almost everyday since Islam was invented by Mohammad as an excuse for all the evil done to peace-loving people. Islam and democracy are never, and can’t be compatible.

Recently (late April 2008) a group of Muslims burned the places of worship and schools of the Ahmadiyya in Indonesia. The Muslims also managed to convince the government to ban the religious movement in Indonesia because it challenges Islam in that it preaches peaceful co-existence with other religions. The Ahmadiyya, considered ‘heretics’, are banned in almost all Muslim-majority countries. They have been almost annihilated in Pakistan by the moderate Muslims.

http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/econ29.html
(The Economist: Bully pulpit)
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/an28.html
(photo of the burnt-out Ahmadiyya ‘mosque’)

In fact ‘moderate’ Muslims in Indonesia frequently burn down churches, Hindu temples and other non-Muslim places of worship.
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/jp29op.html
(persecution of minorities in Indonesia)

Indonesia had true freedom of religion under the dictatorial rule of Suharto. He understood and spoke the same language as Islam, brutality and force. Turkey and Indonesia, once held out as an example of moderate Muslim countries are showing their true Islamist colours once a secular dictator gives way to Muslim-majority rule.