Islam deserves all it gets in regard to negative press.

al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the heart of the most recent resurgence of the global jihad, warned his followers that once Westerners realised the true nature of Islam, they would face immense opposition. Concealment was absolutely necessary. The stealth jihad is growing apace. Fortunately, more and more of us 'najis kuffr' are waking up to the reality of Islam: a violent, expansionary political system, intent on world domination. Islam rejects the equality of all human beings, denies the equality of women, rejects the idea of human rights, calls for barbaric and inhumane 'punishments' for perceived trangressors, threatens death to those who attempt to leave it, forbids free speech and free inquiry and is totally incompatible with democracy and Western values. Opposing Islam is not 'racism' because Islam is not a 'race' but a dangerous ideology, founded by a 7th century Bedouin warlord, whose followers almost took Europe in 1683 on September 11th.

Part 1 of 2

Dear Mustafa... at least you have the terminology correct "Vilification of ISLAM"

No doubt I will again be attacked for "monotonous repetition of a well ground axe" but... in my defense, I offer this.
-This is a new article.
-It claims Islam is vilified, and suggests this is unfair.

Thus... some scrutiny of what "Islam" is.. clearly is justified.

He says:

<<Despite these protections, hate speech remains a powerful source of division and violence throughout the world.>>

But what he (and probably most posters here) then does, is...'nothing' to defend Islam from this very same charge. Why ? simple, because no one has said to him directly here "The Quran contains specific hate speech against Christians, and Jews"

He can get away with this, because he relies on his OLO audience being uninformed and basically compassionate for what he portrays as the underdog.."Muslims"

But while Daniel Pipes, and even my humble self are around, he cannot get away with this scott free.

Mustapha calls for dialog?

<<But where his criticisms could facilitate dialogue between Muslims and the West, Pipes instead seeks to inflame the former and inculcate a supremacist complex among the latter.>>

Well..THIS...is dialog! You (Mustapha) make a posture about Islam, and we, your readers can dialog/criticize/scrutinize your words.
You attack Pipes.. we can thus attack you.

The clearest evidence of hate speech in the Quran, and because of which much so called 'Western hate' is based is this:

<<Surah 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!>>

continued in part 2

I cannot see how bringing up Watson is anything but a fallacious attempt to smear Pipes with someone else’s words.

When our own Muslim communities leaders elect a man such as Sheik Hilali, a man so at odds with our way of life, it is hard not to assume that his point of view is widely held in the community.

I wonder does the author not accept the growing influence of pan Islamic and fundamentalist Islamic organizations. If not does he accept the total incompatibility of this type of extremism with our way of life.

It was huge news and presented as racism when Costello suggested that those who wish to live under Sharia law might find Iran or Saudi Arabia far more comfortable places to live.

Pipes says “… it is hard to recall the positive side, at a moment when backwardness, resentment, extremism and violence prevail in so much of the Muslim world”.

I wonder exactly where the Author has a problem with this? The list of least free countries on earth are dominated by Muslim entries. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html

The author says >>”This despite there being no consensus on what it means to be Western or Muslim. Moreover, many Muslims, including myself, have no qualms about being Muslim and Western.”

Interesting, he denies there is any such thing as being western or Muslim and then decides he is both. He would also be aware of the growing power and influence of Muslim lobby groups in Europe, including many Islamists. Reordering the societal landscape is most definitely on the agenda. We might not be able to define what is western but we can see what is most certainly not. Muslim communities need to have a greater focus on integration than they currently have. Social cohesion demands it for everyone’s sake,

Mustafa Qadri,

Criticism of Islam, (whether justified or not) or the beliefs or practices of Moslems is not racism, Islam is an ideology not an ethnicity. Attempts to re-define "racism" in order to stifle dissent will be counter productive. Get used to criticism, it's the democratic way.

PART 2
Usually at this point, the Muslim apologist will direct our attention to this verse:

<<5:82 Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe are the Jews and polytheists, the nearest in friendship to those who believe -those who say: We_are_Christians;>>

But this verse leave the Jews as serious "enemies"

There is another "Christian-friendly" verse:

5:69
<<Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.>>

DISCUSSION: What needs to be asked here, is this:-

QUESTION: "Why are Jews and Christians being cursed in 9:30 but 'applauded' in 5:69?"

ANSWER: This is where a rather deeper knowledge of 2 things is important.
a)History of Islams development, from Mohammads Meccan beginnings of rejection to his Medina power base and military dominance over the Arabian Peninsula.
b)Some Technical aspects of Islamic theology.

Re-'a') the 9th surah was written later,

<<The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A. H. 9 or thereabout>> (Maududi)

when he was powerful, strong, and had destroyed most Jewish tribes who did not accept his rule or Islam.

The 5th Surah was written earlier:
<<The theme of this Surah indicates, and traditions support it, that it was revealed after the treaty of Hudaibiyah at the end of 6 A. H. or in the beginning of 7 A. H>>(Maududi)

So, we have a time gap of about 3 yrs. Given that the 9th is later, and contradicts the 5th surah, the 5th is thus "Abrogated" or negated and the 9th is the valid one.

Re-'b') The 'Christians' referred to here, were Nestorian who did not believe Christ to be divine.(Thus, they were virtual "Muslims")

CONCLUSION. We are thus left with the later hateful vilification of Jews and Christians ....by name.

Yet you wonder why Islam is then vilified?

“…others seek to paint Islam as the greatest threat to contemporary society.”

It’s militant Muslims, themselves, who do this, and it’s so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims who do nothing to change our opinions of them.

Don’t worry about Daniel Pipes and others like him; the attitudes and intentions of Islam are plain to see, even for people who have never read a word written by intellectuals about Islam.

Muslims in the West are their own worst enemies. In its present form, Islam is definitely incompatible with democracy.

This freelance scribbler has nothing new to offer: he even makes the same old mistake of classing anti-Islam as ‘racism’

Divid and gibo. I was all wrong in thinking that religion was\is destroying mankind! What was I thinking.

I think Id better run down and pick a side.lol

Dude Mustafa

Dude, one minor US journalist does not a "mainstream" make. You would do well to listen to the racist bile that spews forth from the Arab world 24/7. It has become like poisoned muzak pumped through the immature minds of the hundreds of millions raped by religion.

The large numbers of Moslems in Europe is certainly creating very complex problems, to say the least.

And yes Pipes would be very much at home in the 1984 Ministry of "Truth"---as its director even.

Meanwhile I came across this superb essay in my travels around the internet yesterday. I was not browsing on the topic.

Please check out SCAPEGOAT Islam.

http://correspondences-martin.blogspot.com/2008/03/scapegoat-islam.html

I would like to draw your attention to the post by Graham Young on Keysar Trad's article, also published today:

"I was approached by Keysar to publish a response to Bronwyn Winter's article, and I was happy to do so. Whatever anyone's personal views of him are, he has gone to the trouble to engage in this debate, and I think deserves to be treated on the merits of his arguments. If you want to insult him, that says more about you than it does about him.

"It gets difficult to convince people to write for OLO if posters are just going to call them names. If this thread doesn't pick-up its act we will start deleting any responses that are even vaguely a flame. Some of the above are perilously close to being just that, and perhaps cross the line - we have that under consideration at the moment."
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 9 May 2008 12:12:14 PM

I would just like to point out that his comment goes for all threads including this one.
Susan Prior - editor

1. Hate speech or propaganda is used frequently by all sides in War or Confrontation. As a insulting names. Gocernments do it brainwash the people.

2. Isalm AND Christianity have committed many atrocities over the centuries to each other, but largely against the Jews. In the latter case enthniv cleaning was used to clear the debts or the popes and monarchary on the continent. [The Vhristian Knights Templar were killed by Papal edict under false accusation, because they operated the world's first transnation enterprises and become too rich.

3. Mohammed needed to unit people as did Moses. The Persians and fundamentalist Christians could be seen a common enermy.

4. Islam, Judaism and Christrian all place significance on profits. Islam recocognizes Abraham and Jesus as significant figures inn history and religion.

5. Christians are respected as "people of The Book"

6. When I have spoken with Arab university students, they say they are not against Christianity but, opposed to England cutting the Middle East into peices, in the 1940s.

7. Factions in Islam are based on quarrels over genaeology. For Christians, it is interpretation of obscure texts that don't translaten well into Vulgat Latin or Koine Greek. The motives are often political not religious.

8. Spain is very significant in the cross-transfer of technology between Islam and Christianity. The Muslims generally were the more advanced and presumably understood the higher Attic Greek, whilst we in the West dealt with a cruel Catholic Church, Feifdoms and a Dark Ages.

9. Hard the Chinese Mophists not been supresses and more contact sustained with China. China would have left both the Middle East and the West behind. Pethaps, the Great Dovergence would have occured in 1360 not 1760. hmmm?

10. To understand a religion one needs go back to the first decades of its founding, rather than the Lore and imaginings afterwards.

All religions are merely opiates for the masses too dumb to think for themselves.

For example, by what right does a parent have to brainwash their children about old books and the so-called people in those old books that have never been proven to have actually existed.

It is as lunatic as someone finding a copy of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books and a copy of Harry Potter and claiming they were real worlds in conflict and going to war over them.

They are old books. It is the interpretation of those old books that cause the troubles of the world and that needs to be recognised by all these people who believe in their imaginary friends.

"All religions are merely opiates for the masses too dumb to think for themselves." - M

But like tobacco it is addictive. Only 44% of people voted for Hilter in 1930, after-which he wormed assession to Chancellorship, upon the death of Hindenburg. Though a near-atheist* myself I recognise relion has given us templates of design important to science, laws and organisation principles. Look under Shamanism we were little more thean ferrel animals, after priesthood of UR, Sumer, we developed and developed.

Yet, after the Great Divergence, we should have started seeing the truth, and stared to caste aside our training wheels. Perhaps, in 2500, we will have globalised democratic secular humised societies. "Wouldn't it be wonderful" - Eliza Doolittle

Today, I agree with the "righties". Iran is potentially very danagerous and must be stopped developing ERWs. Chamberlain didn't recognise he missed the point of appeasement and probably should have arranged an accident for Hilter, to save millions of lives. Churchill, whom I find lived in the wrong century [he didn't understand physics rather than chemicals could produce a nuclear weapon and he ordered trench diggers for WWII!], was correct about Hilter, but was ignored.

*Absolute Theism or Absolute Atheism suggest human infallability. We can't know ourselves to correct to that absolute degree.

I have to agree that there are elements of racisim in the current debate about the effects of radical Islamisim and its incursions into Western countries especially Europe and Britian. Daniel Pipes is formost in this discussion and his Zionist stance is obvious in much of his writing. However 9/11 has changed the perception of Islam in Australia and hightened the view that there is infact a war between the moderate, traditional Muslims faithful many who have lived in this country for many years and a more radicalised element that identifies with a Suadi based radical Islam. I for one am very sensitive to any push for changes to Australian law that accomodates elements of Sharia law. All citizens need to be judged under the same system of law. The formation of what are Muslim ghettoes in France and other Euorpean countries has the potential for huge social dislocation and division. Australia is a long way from this occuring and I believe our natural success at giving all an opportunity to be successful and intergrate will stop this occuring. The issues however can not be stifled by cries of racisim.

It is certainly a fascinating glimpse of Mr Pipes, who is quite clearly the role model for more than one contributor to these threads.

The parallels between Mr Pipes and Sir Oswald Mosley haven't been made very strongly so far, but that is possibly because Mosley is so far back in history that few have heard of him.

A quick history lesson for those in the dark.

Sir Oswald led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and was a highly intelligent man and a powerful orator. He consistently denied that he was anti-Semitic, claiming he was simply being "patriotic".

Mosley's most famous defence of his anti-Semitism sounds so much like Boaz Pipes, they might be channelling the man:

"We will not tolerate within the State a minority organized against the interests of the State. Jews must either put the interests of Britain before the interests of Jewry or they will be deported from Britain."

Uncanny, eh?

What is being peddled here in the slightly hysterical opposition to a very moderate and well-reasoned piece, is the fiction that all the bad bits of the Qur'an are not only gospel, but are driving the agenda of Muslims everywhere. It's a tired argument, but it's proponents keep on keeping on.

At some point they will realize that they are the problem, not the solution.

Like Mosley.

Pericles, I don't recall the Jews calling for "Jewish" law to be introduced in pre-WWII Britain. Jews fought honourably on both sides (particularly the Central Powers) during WWI. There is a world of difference between the treatment of Jews leading up and during to WWII and the alleged "ill-treatment" of Muslims. Jews were merely "perceived" as enemies, and their actions were merely those of a tiny minority trying to get on in a Gentile world. How many civilians were blown up by Jews in terrorist bombings?

Contrast this situation with that of Muslims in the West. They call for a great many things to be changed in their favour, from the law of the land to what's available in school canteens. In some areas they are concentrated in such numbers that the authorities cave into their demands. On top of which, most terrorist actions (and casualties) around the world today involve... well, not Jehovah's Witnesses.

In other words, the actions and words of Muslims brought a reaction upon themselves, while attacks both verbal and physical on Jews were a form of scapegoating.

Qadri's article looks suspect from the first few lines. Any discussion of Islam which mentions "racism" is on shaky ground (and it shouldn't be forgotten that true racism is pervasive in Islam, including in passages in Quran, their actions (eg slave trade, foreign workers in Swordy Wahhabia) and language (God speaks only Arabic)).

Qadri also mentions Ahmedinehad of Iran, and while mildly condemning the Holocaust denial gabfest held there, fails to mention the Iranian president's repeated boasts that "Israel will be wiped off the map".

Frankly, I'd like to hear about something positive Muslims have brought to the West. I'm sick of their whining and perpetual state of victimhood.

All religion calls for special treatment for its beliefs and their proponents; that's what makes it religion. We don't need special treatment for Islam, all we need is to assert the predominance of the secular humanist values of reason and democracy. In a democracy we have a duty to obey the decisions of our duly elected representatives: in return they have a duty to explain the basis on which they make those decisions. If they can't explain why, we can get rid of them. None of this applies to religion: authorities who claim to have a hotline to God are not obliged to explain or justify their actions and commands. This is clearly incompatible with justice, tolerance and progress.

Any critique of Islam must recognise that it is just doing what Christianity would do if it had the power -- and still does, when it can. Both Blair and Bush have asserted their Christian beliefs played a part in the invasion of Iraq. If they had admitted to it before the invasion then we could have made an informed decision about their rationality, and many thousands of lives might have been spared.

Actually Marilyn, what Marx wrote was:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

So it is not a question of being "too dumb to think for themselves." It is a question of the material conditions of life that people find themselves in and their relationship as a memebr of one class to other classes.

Religion performs a dual function. It gives hope to the oppressed that there can be a better life (not just in the hereafter, but in the here and now) and reassures the oppressors that that hope will not amount to an overthrow of the established social order which benefits those oppressors.

The article started of adequately enough but was mainly a diatribe against Pipes. He's not much chop academically but has developed a following among certain sections of society who went to continue to create some form of fear of the other for their own political or economic purposes.

It will come as no surprise that The Australian printed an article of his today defending brave little Israel against the nasty Arabs. Of course this totally ignores the fact israel was built on the bones of the Palestinians.

I think the article's title might have been a little misleading because it is not just Pipes who fits into this xenophobic model. Much of the media, many politicians (including ex PM John Winston Howard and the rabble who used to be in government with him) and even the ALP with its attacks on Aborigines all manufacture an enemy to draw "us" closer together (and hopefully they reason, vote for them - either tweedle dee or tweedle dum).

The author writes: "...an essentialist, monolithic portrayal of Islam as the single greatest threat to democracy and the West"

Western civilization (read: Western European Christian civilization and its offshoots) has historically been in conflict with the Islamic world. They are clearly separate civilizations with different belief systems, values, histories and ways of life. To deny the differences between Islamic and Western civilizations is to deny their very existence as distinct civilizations.

"...masked within the euphemisms and indirect speech is a classically racist argument: blacks (or Muslims, or whomsoever is targeted) are not just inferior to us in the West, but inherently so."

And, according the same tests, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than people of European ancestry.

So, does that mean that people of European ancestry are not just inferior to East Asians and Jews, but inherently so?

Would be 'racist' against European and European-descended people if an Israeli or Japanese scientist examined the same studies and noted the results?

Pericles,

Like the author, Qadri, you seem entirely unable to take issue with Pipes comments so you indulge yourself in ad hominem attacks. Mosely is entirely irrelevant. It is obviously possible for Moseley to have been wrong and Pipes to be right.

You say >> “the fiction that all the bad bits of the Qur'an are not only gospel, but are driving the agenda of Muslims everywhere.”

Another fallacy. No one is suggesting that fundamentalist Islam is driving the agenda of Muslims everywhere. What Pipes and many others are pointing out is the increasing influence that fundamentalist groups are attaining across the Islamic world. Your contention that somehow those who are pointing out this dangerous development are causing the problem is infantile and beneath contempt. Since the formation of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the Saudi Petro-dollar export of fundamentalist Islam, the prevalence of moderate Islam has been on the decline. Fundamentalist Islam is a project which has firm roots in a literalist reading of the Koran and associated hadith etc. To suggest that by somehow not offending their sensibilities we might be better placed to stem the tide, entirely misunderstands the problem.

Many of the violent extremists have moved to non Muslim countries because of their treatment by Muslim governments. Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahir are banned in most countries in the middle east, yet in Britain and Australia they are free to operate in mosques, community centres and University campuses. Muslim students organisations are being over run by these radicals who promote sharia, Islamists states and the return of the caliphate.

I think at some point you soft lefties are going to realise that you are the problem, that the Islamists are playing upon your dislike of western conservatives to help them hide their ultra conservative agenda.

I’m not against muslim immigration. I’m not interested in a white Australia. What I am opposed to is the insane and ongoing tolerance of the intolerant. Multiculturalism is the main culprit. What I am in favour of is a return to Assimilation/Integration as the explicit model for immigration

Paul L

I seem to remember a survey of 35,000 Muslims across most Islamic majority nations which showed 93 per cent abhorred fundamentalism and its suicidal actions.

That means fundamentalism has a very small base in Islam, much smaller than the base Christian fundamentalism has in George Bush's America. Why all the flapping about Muslims? if you want to be really scared remember those Christian wackos in the US have the ear of a man who could destroy life on this planet with one command.

Every 3rd week the Bush led invasion of Iraq results in the equivalent of one September 11. That is a crime against humanity. It's time Howard, Bush, Blair and now Rudd were tried for their crimes.

They could be tried alongside Osama bin Laden, whose crimes are nowhere near the same magnitude of Bush's.

Passy,

What rot. First I would like to see the survey. It sounds like the sort of absolute nonsense that a communist would throw about with abandon. Lets just start with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Tell me do you honestly believe 93% of their populations are “moderate”. It doesn’t matter anyway because the gov’t imposes strict Islamist law. In Palestine they voted in the head hackers and human bombs to represent them.

So the rest of your argument is rubbish because it is based upon an entirely flawed position.

Those Christian wackos have so little influence in the republican party that they couldn’t even prevent John McCain getting the nomination. Anyway, the Christian wackos scare me as well, although we aren’t seeing them self detonate in a room full of children at the moment. When they do I will be writing about them as well.

The deaths in Iraq are mostly being caused by inter sect violence and have been for a long time. That you refuse to recognise this is a pointer to your unwillingness to modify your dogmatic approach. Do you honestly think the violence will go away if the Americans leave?

Your comparison of Bush with Bin laden is a ridiculous notion that shows the complete departure from reality that you have taken. It is a sign of the moral and cultural relativism which has so thoroughly infected the left.

I really don’t know how a westerner can avoid being extremely apprehensive about Islam. If this author wants to persuade us that Pipes is mistaken, then he needs to provide a positive argument.

Mustafa Qadri, Please explain why Islam is compatible with democracy. Please convince me that Islam is not a threat. Please take into consideration what Muslims are doing in Britain and Europe, because that’s the precedent that is causing much of the apprehension. If your point is that, while Muslims have caused terrible strife in Britain and Europe, but will not do so in Australia, please explain what is different about Australia that will make it safe.

Please don’t waste my time bad-mouthing people like Pipes who are caught in a very natural state of apprehension.

If you have a benign interpretation of the Qur’an to offer (good luck), please convince me that it is the prevalent interpretation and that it will be followed by Muslims in Australia. If you cannot convince me of this, then there’s no point offering the benign interpretation.

I realise this apprehensiveness will lead to over-reaction, but how is it to be helped? My main concern is that, all the time we’re focusing on Islam we are ignoring greater threats like climate change and China. These are far more threatening and far more pressing. However, this doesn’t mean Islam is benign: it clearly isn’t.

SusanP, What is a flame? I know the rules prohibit it, but they don’t tell me what it is. Please excuse my ignorance.

Pax,

There is an alarming amount of either ignorance or denial here about the imsidious influence the Islamists are having on our universities. We have the appalling situation at Griffith University where the Vice Chancellor is prepared not only to plagiarise from Wikipedia, but to print the academic nonsense of so-called "Islmaic Science" "scholars." Come on! What on earth would Griffith University know about medieval history, or Theology of any religion, let alone Islam? http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/queenslands-professors-of-terror-or.html

Now, we have Islamists interfering in university Literature courses. http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/radical-imans-pressure-uws-for-control.html

And finally, we have Islamic imams - with barely any academic peer-reviewed publishing record being held out as a "leading scholar."
http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/griffith-unis-professor-of-unity-needs.html

Wake up people!

ANZAC.....thanx for that link to the memo of the Council of Imams(read "Censorship board of Australian education")

Here is an interesting snippit from it (the memo)

<<The two major sources for Islam are the Quran (Divine revelation) and Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) neither of these will convey their complete meaning if they are taken out of context or taken literally without appropriate explanation.>>

APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION?
What pray tell is.."appropriate explanation". These are THE original and founding documents of Islam, the appropriate 'explanation' is..what they say about themselves, and Islam, and Mohammad.. and the context IS...those documents themselves.

There is little to 'explain' as these ARE the earliest sources and all other 'explanations' rely on these documents.

HUMAN CARNAGE.
Thus..there is little to 'explain' when a hadith says that Mohammad arranged systematic mass killings of a surrendered Jewish tribe, (Qurayza)or..that he ordered the hacking off of hands and feet and destroying of eyes with hot rods of prisoners in his power. There is nothing to 'explain'...he did it..or he did not.

The 'explanation' usually takes the form of "In Islam we believe in equal justice" then..the hacking off of limbs and blinding of eyes is said to be "what the prisoners did to Mohammads shepherds".
Of course, you don't need to have the intellect of Stephen Hawking to realize that if a man rapes his daughter in a cellar and keeps her there for 20 yrs.. Islam would thus have us "rape the man and keep him in a cellar for 20 yrs"

So, clearly, the 'appropriate explanation' is not very appropriate.

There is no escaping the fact that the history of Islams prophet is littered with human carnage, death and the loss of property and wives and daughters. (who are then subjected to the 'sensitivities' of surah 23:5-6 which allows their new masters to use them for sexual pleasure.

The only reason Islam is attacked so vehemently, by thinking non Muslims, is that it has so much wrong with it... at the 'foundation' level.

Boaz my Friend,

The Christian Church has the same History of wars, invasions and changing doctrines centuries after-the-fact. After Nicaea until at least Constantinople Christtian behalfed in a manner similiar to Taliban today,

I mentioned thse in earlier posts.

Both religions should go back to the first decade of their respeice foundings.

O.

Hi goodthief,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming
Flaming (Internet), the act of posting deliberately hostile messages on the Internet.
Hope that helps.
Susan Prior - editor

Too right, Mustafa. Attitudes towards moderate Islam are often conflated with extremism and militant Islam while all the Muslims I know are very peaceable, if a little peeved at being caricatured as potential terrorists. “Nuance” plays a great role in how figures like Pipes influence the general audience. As mac has underscored, criticizing a faith is not racism but I think it leads to the same behaviour.

A pity DB you didn’t get the gist of the article. No-one’s calling Muslims ‘underdogs’. As for duelling dogmas - the bible says this, the Qaran says that - well, good luck. Anyone convinced by such reasoning can contact me and I’ll sell them a bridge. It’s in Sydney, right on the harbour…

Personally I’m sick of being approached by strangers who, apropos of nothing at all really, launch into criticizing all the foreigners and especially Muslims taking our jobs, threatening our way of life yada yada. That this happened three times in three days suggests Daniel Pipes is halfway to realising his dream - rejection of all ‘foreign’ cultures in deference to our inherently superior ways. Of life, of thinking, of praying.

Has anyone ever listened to American evangelist radio? It’s just as objectionable as the stuff broadcast my Muslim extremists. The ‘West’ has no monopoly on temperance, John Greenfield.

I’m going out on a limb here to mention viking13’s reference to Iran’s president saying “Israel will be wiped off the map”. The source of that quote was the New York Times, which referred to the sentence “Israel’s regime will be removed from the pages of history”. The “wiped off the map” version plays much better however in fora such as this. It’s a bit like the dogma wars, eh DB? Propaganda for the bigoted, packaged and ready to fire.

Finally, thankyou to SusanP for trying to put a little perspective into this debate. OLO posts can be informative but some here should be subscribing to other sites. Y’know, the ones with a flag in the top left corner and a gun on the right.

Bennie, the translation of "removed from the pages of history" into "wiped off the map" came from the Iranian newsagency IRIB, and was an attempt to translate the Farsi term into idiomatic English. The situation is not new, if you remember Keating's "recalcitrant", describing Mahathir, translated into Malay as "coarse, uneducated".

While I concur with your comments about "stangers approaching you about immigrants" (having an immigrant, non-European wife myself) I object to wandering the Islamic sections of Sydney and being (along with my wife) subjected to evil glares from people in flowing robes.

As for evangelistic radio (and TV) we at least have the ability to not tune in. Even "moderate" Muslims, if they attend mosques regularly, are exposed to "fundamentalist" sermons from ill-educated imams (in the sense that a major prerequisite is the ability to memorise most or all of a book in an language not even spoken today, and certainly remote from many adherents' native tongues) and furthermore are exposed to high-handed judgementalism from neighbours as well as (in many places) raucous, reverberating "calls to prayer" from loudspeakers. So what I am saying is, that non-Christians in a Christian (if one exists) country can ignore overt Christian representations, while Muslims in an Islamic (or Islamised area) often cannot, especially when the laws of the land are also Islamised (even "moderate" Islamic nations often have "religious police").

If it is "racism" for westerners to discuss Islam in an objective fashion, what is it when western symbols like the Cross of St George (or the Swiss Cross!) are banned, demands are made for halal menus, and women are told to "cover up" to protect hyper-sensitive Muslims from affront (or to protect over-sexed males from temptation)?

Good that you've corroborated that quote. Whatever its origins it gets regurgitated over and over.

I've never been subjected to evil stares from people in flowing robes myself. It's no consolation I suppose to endure what they see every day. I've heard similar stories and can't help wondering how widespread it is, but usually it's teenagers causing the trouble.

I think the great difference between Muslim countries and our own is that we're secular and can tell the government where to go in religious matters. It's none of their business. Then again, think America where abortions are often denied, childish moralising abounds, and patriotic americans carry a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

It's not racist to discuss religion but this is where the author points out they're often interchanged by people like Daniel Pipes. It gets lots of traction as it's something people everywhere can relate to.

Dear Oliver (and Bennie)

<<going back to the first 10 yrs of each faith?>> :) I kinda like it.

But, if I may, I'll call your 10 yrs and raise you 20 more.. lets make it 30.

That covers the life of the founders, and also the lives of their immediate followers.

In the Lord Jesus' case, they are called the "Apostles"

In MOhammads case, they are called 'The Companions'

Looking at that period (30 yrs) the starkest difference emerges immediately.

1/ Jesus gave his life willingly, for us, and His apostles also did likewise. They did not take up arms.. form armies..attack anyone...
The progress of the faith during that time is summarized in the following quote from Acts.
<<Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went>>

2/ Mohammad, not only carried out violence, armed his men, raided innocent caravans and took booty and spoil, including women and children.... have I said enuf? :) I could mention LOADS more of contrasts.

Given this initial and foundational contrast/comparison, it should be abundantly clear, that if each founder is regarded as the 'Best of all mankind'... it follows that their actions are also seen in that light.

So, when Mohammad systematically has all the surrendered males of the Jewish Qurayza tribe beheaded in groups, (sounds a bit like the Nazi treatment of the Jews when the trains arrived at Aushwitz) one is forced to ask, "If this is the action of the 'best' of all mankind...then it must be morally acceptable for Muslims now?"

Bennie.. r u with me here? Is my reasoning faulty ?

Oliver quite rightly observes that in the history of Christendom (that's the preferred term for this discussion) some pretty grisly things were done. AGREED.. never disputed that. What I DO dispute, is whether those miserable acts can be connected to our Lord's teaching or life, or the life of his Apostles.
They cannot...but in the case of Islam and MOhammad..they absolutely can.

Mustafa destroys his own argument by his own major premise. If Islam IS PEACEFUL, as he insinuates, then the greatest vilifiers of Islam, second to none, are Muslims themselves. The jihadist-terrorists and their mentors like al Banna, who influence millions of Muslims, being universal murderers incontestably hold the scepter of vilification of Islam in their own hands.

Poor Mustafa! With the flood of reasoning of most of the posts above he is drowning in the sweet waters of reason. But I guess it’s better to take leave of this world with a sweet taste than with the bitter taste of being both a muslim and a westerner which is the “bitterest” oxymoron.

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.com

"an educated racist has the capacity to lend credibility and nuance to fear.."May of us don't like the philosophy of Islam,how is this construed as racism?

This piece lacks intellectual honesty.Could this be an intrenched flaw with Islam?All the other religions cop a ribbing,especially the Catholic Church.Why should Islam be the exception?

Islamists and their apologists like to claim that once science, mathematics, learning flourished under an Islamic caliphate. The truth that was overlooked was that many ‘Muslim’ scholars were Byzantines, Persians, etc. and were forcibly converted into Islam by Mohammad’s followers. It was these men (Byzantines..) who produced the works in science and mathematics.

For logic tells us that warring nomads from Arabia were only good at plundering, raping, cutting off heads and bullying their women. There is no way Islam is able to inspire works in the fine arts, science and mathematics. They were able to come up with a long list of dietary prohibitions and ‘dos and don’ts’ plaigarised from the Jewish scriptures.

In 2006 a Malaysian Muslim, Syed Akbar Ali (he calls himself a ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim) wrote a book “Malaysia and the Club of Doom -- The Collapse of the Islamic Countries”. In chapter 5 he wrote.

“ A lot of Muslims people will most likely get upset with this book. This is a certainty. This is because they are in a state of denial. They feel embarrassed to admit that the problem lies in their religion”

http://www.thai-blogs.com/index.php/2006/12/03/malaysia_and_the_club_of_doom_the_collap?blog=17

He had to call himself ‘fundamentalist’ because he wanted his book published. The reality is that he is a secular Muslim. Not surprisingly, he was recently arrested by the Malaysian government for speaking against Arabs and Islam and charged under the Sedition Act.

http://aarvidi.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/syed-akbar-ali-an-author-of-two-books/

Bennie,

It’s interesting that a country which refuses to recognise Israels right to exist, which is racing to build nuclear weapons, and which bankrolls terrorism in Israel/Palestine and Lebanon, finds itself being misunderstood. Iran doesn’t need to actually nuke Israel to do untold damage with an Islamic bomb. They could repeatedly threaten to launch, which would bring Israel to a complete standstill. Destroying the economy. But we in the west will be powerless to stop them if that occurs. Israel will then find itself in a situation where it feels it needs to use its own weapons.

You say” I've never been subjected to evil stares from people in flowing robes myself. It's no consolation I suppose to endure what they see every day. I've heard similar stories and can't help wondering how widespread it is, but usually it's teenagers causing the trouble. ‘

WTF does “It's no consolation I suppose to endure what they see every day” mean?
Secondly it is our point that it is largely the young, born in the west generation, who are causing most of the trouble. The problem for us is that the Muslim populations in the west are much younger on average than their host societies.

The author doesn’t ever point out where Pipes get criticism of Islamist movements confused with racism. He never does. Nor do most of us who see the threat that militant islam poses. None of us think all Muslims are bad. I don’t want to end Muslim immigration. What I want is tighter control of the type of people who enter the country, with expulsion for those immigrants who foment violence and unrest. I also want the policy of Multiculturalism thrown out in favour of Assimilation. I am not interested in white Australia. I am interested in a community that want to be known as Australians first and foremost. I don’t think that’s too much to ask of the people who take our hospitality.

I don’t think we should be importing fundamentalists of any stripe. Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

It's the 75th anniversary of the Nazis burning books.

I get the feeling some Australians would be happy to burn the Koran.

The creation of "the other" as enemy suits the ruling elite's purposes. It divides the working class and diverts them away from the economic and political struggle against capital.

Pauline Hanson's greatest support came from the middle class and lumpen proletariat, as well as less unionised and more rural workers on the outskirts of regional towns.

Howard defeated Hansonism by incorporating it and was helped by the political naivety of the hansonites and the fact that labour and capital are not polarised at the moment in Australia in the way they were in Germany in 1928 and onwards. This means the middle classes can't at the moment unite in Australia against big capital and big labour in the way the German middle classes did around the Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. This was before the ruling elite saw its chance to smash the defensive organisations of the workers movement (such as labor parties, Communist parties and trade unions) and thus drive wages down and restore profit rates.

While being anti-Islam covers a multitude of sins, it seems to me to express that fear of the other that the Nazis used to great effect to mobilise many in the German population to support them and which enabled them to carry through their assaults on the working class and then on Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and the like.

There is a poem by a 19 th Century German poet which says basically that those who start by burning books will end by burning humans.

Keyser,

I assume you can direct me to your responses to these questions, which is what you should have done in the first place. I accept that you shouldn’t have to answer the same question one hundred times, but it is simple thing to point to previous responses to the questions I asked.

I think it very interesting that you should use the surah describing the fall of societies immediately before you say “ In a way, they (Australians) feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?”

Is there any connection there is or that just a misunderstanding.

In response I might ask you what you think might happen when the majority of Australians start to feel as though our laws are being ignored and our way of life is under threat. I think the French are beginning to get to that point with their “youth” problem.

Passy,

Who are these people who want to burn all the Korans? You have merely created a straw man. Your, and others, unwillingness to accept that those who are criticising radical islam are not criticising all muslims speaks volumes. Seems you think all muslims are radical islamists. Or else you are deliberately obfuscating to fit your own highly rigid viewpoint. I suppose it must take a lot of contortion to be able to see everything in terms of “Class”.

viking13, you are understandably confused.

>>There is a world of difference between the treatment of Jews leading up and during to WWII and the alleged "ill-treatment" of Muslims.<<

My references to the uncanny similarity of the Pipes' rabble-rousing and that of Oswald Mosley had nothing to do with their target, merely the process by which they pursue their quarry. Mosley targetted Jews; Pipes targets Muslims; the methodology, which is to whip up one's audience's prejudices using inflammatory rhetoric, is identical.

It is irrelevant to me whether the target is Jewry or Islam. Being secure in my lack of religious bias, I tend to see these aspects more clearly than rabid religionists. I feel obliged therefore to point out that these tactics, employed equally enthusiastically by Oswald Mosley and Boaz Pipes, indicate a high level of hatred on the one hand, and desperation on the other.

In the 1930s, Britain was still recovering from the economic impact of WWI, and was deep in recession. The "average working man" was faced with a constant struggle to find work, and then to earn enough to support a family. By providing a convenient (economic) target, Mosley was able to engender considerable hatred against his chosen enemy.

Today, those Christians who feel threatened by Islam adopt the same tactics, quoting obscure texts and demonizing entire countries in order to fan the flames of their hatred.

(The biggest irony of course is that the Islam they fight against shares many of the goals of fundamental christianity: subservience of women, an insistence upon female chastity and so on.)

Pipes is just another rabble-rouser, using the same tactics as many before him: half-truths, obfuscation and blind prejudice.

In my last post I left out,in a mental lapse, the tasty bit.
Here is the zinger.

Mustafa asserts that "despite there being no consensus on what it means to be Western or Muslim...many Muslims, including myself, have no qualms about being Muslim and Western". Indeed, Mustafa may not have any "intellectual qualms" about committing this intellectual "felony" for which PAUL. i. put the handcuffs on him. But if he was offered PORK what would he be, more Muslim or less Western or vice versa? And whatever the choice he would knock off his own proposition.

Mustafa, like so many other educated Muslims, Waleed Ali is another one, make an intellectual mockery of their own education and of themselves.

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.com

Good old Neville_Pericles:)

He can always be relied on to speak from ignorance of both Islam and Christianity.. as evidenced by this little gem.

<<Today, those Christians who feel threatened by Islam adopt the same tactics, quoting obscure texts and demonizing entire countries in order to fan the flames of their hatred.>>

IGNORANCE of CHRISTIANITY. Is demonstrated in the above, by not realizing that Jesus spoke with great compassion AND with stern rebuke.

Math 23:33 "THE STERN REBUKE"

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

<<11:20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!>>

MATT 11:28 "THE LOVING WELCOME" "Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"

Jesus clearly condemned the ideas of his 'enemies' and he even condemned THEM... as long as they retained that willfully ignorant attitude.

IGNORANCE OF ISLAM. Pericles shows how little he knows about this faith also, by claiming the verses I often quote are 'obscure'.

But does that accord with: "may Allah destroy them" ? (Jews and Christians who believe in the Son of God) from 9:30

Neville_Pericles... the verse I cited is not obscure, it is KEY.

It is so ABSOLUTELY key, that is defines the 'line' between Islam and Christianity. "Did God reveal Himself in Christ..the Son"

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a 1000 times "Do not associate partners with Allah" (the sin of Shirk) It is ALSO the one sin which cannot be forgiven in Islam. Thus.. it is KEY not obscure.
Neville P also is 'sloppy'... claiming we write off entire 'countries' .. HUH?
No Pericles, its about ideas... you know...those things which sent millions to gas chambers.. 'ideas'.

After reading the koran I have concluded that GOD EXISTS. (Take note BOAZ and other God botherers)

God exists and has a marvellous sense of humour.

Who else but a DIVINE COMEDIAN could create a group of sentient beings and then get them to believe that this is the creator of the universe speaking?

"[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,"

Islam is a tragicomedy.

It is a comedy because the sight of grown men and women trying to make sense of the product of the febrile imagination of a seventh century psychopath is inherently funny. Imagine the mental contortions necessary to reconcile the following with what we now know about human physiology.

[86.6] He is created of water pouring forth,
[86.7] Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Yet Islam is also a tragedy. Many of those self same men and women are prepared to kill for their "faith." And many do.

It is the terrible seriousness with which Muslims take KORANIC CLAPTRAP which makes Islam simultaneously funny and deadly.

If you think the koran is bizarre try the ahadith. Here is a mild example:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamental ... pp1_2.html

Mustafa, contempt for Islam is NOT racism.

Islam is a belief system. EVERY belief system, every system of thought, every theory including but not restricted to agnosticism, atheism, Buddhism, capitalism, Christianity, communism, Darwinism, democracy, fascism, general relativity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Nazism, political correctness, secularism, socialism, Sufism, Zionism and Zoroastrianism is A LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

The critic is under no obligation to abide by anybody's definition of fairness or to take account of the feelings of the faithful.

Odd argument, Themistocles.

>>Mustafa asserts that "despite there being no consensus on what it means to be Western or Muslim...many Muslims, including myself, have no qualms about being Muslim and Western". Indeed, Mustafa may not have any "intellectual qualms" about committing this intellectual "felony" for which PAUL. i. put the handcuffs on him. But if he was offered PORK what would he be, more Muslim or less Western or vice versa? And whatever the choice he would knock off his own proposition.<<

Where would that leave vegetarian "Westerners"? Those of my acquaintance would shudder at the idea of being told to eat meat of any description, but that would not change one iota their religious leanings.

I think the most staggering hypocrisy of all this is the contemplation of generations of Christian missionaries who, over many decades, changed the social habits of countless hapless "heathens", without so much as a by-your-leave. Now, of course, it is all about "assimilation" - where was "assimilation" when the objective of Christianity was to enslave its opponents?

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property... and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery" Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas 1472

The language here is clearly that of a fanatical religious leader, obsessed with wiping out any opposition to his own interpretation of "divine will".

In what dimension, I would be interested to hear from our resident apologists, does this differ from what we are hearing today?

I know that two wrongs do not make a right. But it is easy to see how the present protestations of Christians ring somewhat hollow in the context of religious fanaticism down the ages.

Religions were created to discipline people by different prophets at
different periods and at different regions.History tells us that religions have been the cause for repeated wars and calamities.Religions have miserably failed to enlighten people and usher in peace.Today religions are practiced in a ritualistic fashion and religious tenets are not followed at all by the majority. Let us not worry about religions any more. Let us think of humans and their welfare.Mankind does not need so many religions in the present scenario. Let us analyse the ways and means of unifying people.Let us not distinguish ourselves from one another by the peculiar way of dressing or lifestyles.It leads only to immeditae alienation.
Let us practice HUMANISM to reduce the evil influence of religious fundamentalism and save the world from further calamities.Let us identify ourselves as human beings and not as muslims,christians, hindus, sikhs etc

Pericles, I don't see Pipes, or Spencer for that matter as rabble-rousers, and I certainly don't see any similarities between the positions of Jews pre-WWII and Muslims now. Jews weren't saying anything like this Jordanian cleric, for a start:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1761.htm

Jews were near the top of learned society at the time (and still are), given their propensity for learning. Muslims are the exact opposite. The "youths" rioting and burning cars in Paris have no analogue in European Jewish history.

Whatever "bad press" Muslims have gained has been brought about by their own actions. It is not just Christians who feel threatened by the utterances and actions of Muslims.

Whatever "goals" Christianity has they are not being violently enforced, with the sole exception of a tiny minority attacking abortionists. The numbers are minute when compared to daily attacks on Hindus, Animists, Christians and Buddhists by Muslims, typified in the following:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=111710

To summarise: Mosely's campaign was against an imagined enemy. Pipes' is against one of a group of possible future enemies (some might say a "clear and present danger") who are in large numbers in the west (again, a clear difference with the small numbers of Jews at any time).

HOORAY :) Pericles is getting close!

Steven first.

It should be noted by all, that to utter what Steven did here:

"a seventh century psychopath" (referring to Mohammad) is without a word of exaggeration, enough to get him torn apart and killed by an angry mob...such as ...this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1xhmJ4DDmY

It is with this in mind, that all of us who are opposed to the political and social advancement of Islam, whether we share the same outlook or not, work toward the same goal.

I have no objection to Steven's (Or Ginx's)sometimes colorful descriptions of me, because I desire the same freedom myself.
If however that which we oppose ever gained sufficient power, we can see where it would lead in living color.

Now..best 4 last.. Pericles.

He quotes a Pope.. well done. Then, he asks 'what is the difference between what we are quoting from the Quran and Hadith..and what the POPE said?
ANSWER.. 'very little'

SO...WHAT? here we must ask the ALL important question.

Stevens quote from the Quran shows clearly what must happen to those vilifiying Mohammad in the here and now.......from mohammad's own lips.

Now..I challenge ANYone to show anything even remotely like it from the lips of our Lord, (where it is intended to be literally carried out in this life)

Kaysar pulled the old 'part of a parable' trick in the other thread.
(Luke 19:11-27) he quoted only v27
The disciples thought the kingdom was coming IMMEDIATELY, Jesus told the parable to show it was NOT, but in the end it would..and judgement would be done. For this life, he did not command even a feather to be used in anger against anyone, even his own mockers and murderers.
Neville_P ..do you get it...'yet'?

Where are you, Mustafa? There is a great deal here for you to address. Unless your article was intended to be no more than a cat thrown among the pigeons, you should be engaging with some of the points being made.

For example, please demonstrate from a credible survey of Qur’anic verses that Islam is benign – interested in peace, compatible with a secular democracy such as Australia – and that the vast majority of Muslims in Australia see it this way.

bennie, I love your posts. No irony intended. I really wish you were right.

Ezhil, you recommend humanism. I tried that, in a couple of posts. Generally speaking, I could not get the atheists on board. They tend to be evolutionists, so they don’t see that there’s anything special about humans. So, unfortunately, it was back to the fray.

Pax,

Viking13 says:

"Whatever "goals" Christianity has they are not being violently enforced, with the sole exception of a tiny minority attacking abortionists. The numbers are minute when compared to daily attacks on Hindus, Animists, Christians and Buddhists by Muslims..."

OK then, let's look at recent US history to see how many have died at the hands of the Christians. One million dead in Iraq looks pretty horrific to me. Thousands dead in Afghanistan. Supporting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran with millions killed as a result. Placing a blockade on Iraq which killed 500,000 innocent Iraqis.

Invading Vietnam and unleashing a war which killed 2 million Vietnamese. Carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia killing tens of thousands. Supporting Pol Pot in his murderous attack on Cambodian society.

Invading Grenada. In effect invading Nicaragua through support for murderous right wing military proxies. Invading Somalia.

The list is much longer but this might give you some idea of the murderous nature of the US regime.

Gee, those Christians not only were a blood thirsty lot. They remain a bloodthirsty lot.

Actually to see it in terms of religion is really to miss the point. US imperialism is the real danger to the world.

Its coming conflict with Chinese imperialism makes the world a very dangerous place.

And Paul L my point about burning books and explaining Hansonism in class terms (a perfectly acceptable approach, one which you adopt without knowing it, by the way) was to say that a fascist potential exists in every class society in the Western world and that some Australians (who are presently mired in Islamophobia) are possible candidates for adopting fascist ideology and practice if the economic situation worsens markedly.

Passy, your reduction of modern life to "class struggle" is laughable. "lumpen proletariat" indeed! You are an elitist of the worst kind- the socialist variety.

As for "Christian" armies, again, laughable. The US Army, the British, the coalition partners don't head off to war under the Cross of St george (indeed, that cross is kept hidden these days in England for fear of upsetting the poor Muslims). You'll have to do much better than that.

"Lets just start with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Tell me do you honestly believe 93% of their populations are “moderate”."

Iran's probably not as bad as Saudi Arabia but it is stuck with a hardline Islamic regime that stifles opposition.

Voicing criticism, even condemnation, against Islam or any religion should not be considered racism or vilification in a society that upholds free speech.

Stevenlmeyer

First, standing ovation for the rationality of your scorn. And secondly, “the critic is under no obligation to abide by anybody's definition of fairness or to take account of the feelings of the faithful”, says it all.

Pericles

With the interpretation of your facts in your posts and your logic, Plato would never allow you to enter his Academy.

Vegetarianism, unlike pork, is not a feature of culture or religion but a trait of individual choice and belief of assumed physical and mental health. May be one could “force” vegetarians to eat meat, “but that would not change one iota their religious leanings”, and needless to say that would be the case. But by putting it so, you beautifully demolish your own argument. Pork is a cultural divide between Muslims and Westerners. For a Muslim as a “Westerner” eating pork changes his “religious leanings” by many “iotas”.

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.co

<<The vilification of Islam, particularly in the West, ..>>

The so called “vilification of Islam” is but to speak the truth about this ideology. Daniel Pipes has not gone far enough. Let the ex-Muslims speak for themselves. The following is from Ali Sina, the founder of the website ‘faithfreedom.org’

“To bring peace, it is necessary to eliminate hate. There is nothing more hate mongering than Islam. This doctrine is more evil than Nazism and communism. It inspires more hatred and causes more division than either one of these ideologies that are also hate based. Islam is more insidious because it claims to be from God. It is this added lie that has given it longevity. As Hitler used to say, the bigger the lie, the more believable it becomes. Islam is the biggest deception ever….You can never reform Islam. It is firmly built on lies. You can only demolish it by exposing those lies and by telling the truth about the despicable and shameful character of its pedophile, rapist founder. ”

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina80128.htm

One of the best website is ‘Islam Watch’ by ex-Muslims mainly from South Asia

“We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us had taken a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth….

Islam was nothing but a lie, we left Islam silently because of the fear for our lives. Then we felt that it was a responsibility on us to make the 1.4 billion world-Muslims to be aware of the falsity of Islam and its cruelty so that they can also leave Islam and live with love, respect and harmony with rest of the world.

…the current Islamic terrorism is not an aberration of the so-called 'peaceful Islam', rather it is the real Islam preached and practiced by the alleged Prophet Muhammad. This can be confirmed from a thorough study of the Qur'an and Hadis.”

http://www.islam-watch.org/IW/WhoWeR.htm

Oh c’mon Paul. Islam has been equated with foreigners, with outsiders, with “those type of people” for years. “Pipes argued Europe was in danger of losing its “distinct cultural” identity.” Culture, identity, race. It’s not a big leap. Pipes is just riding the wave. “Masked within the euphemisms and indirect speech is a classically racist argument: blacks (or Muslims, or whomsoever is targeted) are not just inferior to us in the West, but inherently so.” “His solution to this perceived danger is for Muslims to be more “Western” and less Muslim.” Can’t be both? I’m sure he’d like everyone to think that. I disagree.

“Muslim populations in the west are much younger on average than their host societies.” What, they’re all guests? Working, participating, paying taxes, yet fair game for being told to go back to where they came from.

Perhaps I’m the only one subscribing to OLO who’s worked and socialised with Muslims. It’s ironic they’re targeted on this site and on the streets, when chances are they’re just regular people doing regular things. Here a non-Muslim complains of having to endure the same thing; I bet he’s a regular guy as well. It’s no consolation to either of them they get to walk in the other’s shoes a bit.

Everybody misunderstands Israel it seems, so forgive me if I don’t afford them the sympathy you feel they deserve. It seems almost as misunderstood as Iran.

DB - I don’t really follow your arguments at the best of times. I find it difficult to engage with obscurantist and ambiguous scripts from 100-odd generations ago

I work with several Muslim women and share my suburb with a large immigrant Muslim community. It is precisely this contact with Islam which has persuaded me to convert from garden-variety leftist apology for Islam to active Islamophobia (for want of a better word).

What I find most disquieting is that you're right, Bennie - Muslims live like the rest of us, doing normal things and abiding by the law. The only difference is that they enthusiastically look forward to the day when you and I are murdered or subjugated so that our heathen wickedness can be replaced with Sharia law.

Primitive thought and integration with a modern society aren't mutually exclusive (as the Catholic church regularly demonstrates). The muslim women I work with are quite open about it. They respect their western colleagues for who we are and the work we do, but God requires that they have at least six children each in order to conquer Australia and break the pact with Satan which has brought us so much decadent success. If that requires mass killings, they're quite comfortable with it: Islam requires total submission.

What amuses me most about this predictable Islamophobic feeding frenzy is that most participants have missed one of Qadri's more interesting points, which is that vilification of Islam and Muslims has become for some Westerners the acceptable expression of the same kind of misanthropic hatred that used to manifest as racism.

Since the open expression of racist ideas and sentiments has become unacceptable in mainstream society, Islamophobia - as trumpeted by Pipes et al and their fans - serves very well indeed to rationalise the same old visceral xenophobic antipathies. It's not irrelevant that people who are Muslim tend also to have brown skin, but the racists can now vent their odious spleens by insisting that they are merely criticising ideology when they engage in their relentless anti-Muslim rants.

Ironically, the viciousness of much of the current Islamophobic crusade in some sections of the media and blogosphere can probably be traced in part to political correctness - which forced the more extreme racists under their ideological rocks for a while, but from which they have emerged recently rebadged as Islamophobes. As such, they can voice their ideologies of hate without needing to use explicitly racist language.

MOVE.

“For Pipes “Islamism” represents the worst excesses of Islamic militant orthodoxy” –what is wrong?

Any religious orthodoxy on terms of sacrificing a routine to something super-divine is a threat to democracy and common law-that is why separating the church from society is a founding stone of any democracy.

Given a number of practising Muslims on a planet, their nationalism narrowed to and directed with religious shores is even a clear danger to less devoted followers than outer to Islam world is.

Sorry, Boaz, but your argument is completely circular. The sadness is that you don't understand why.

>>...the verse I cited is not obscure, it is KEY.<<

To you, it clearly is "key", I cannot for one moment doubt that, since you thrust it down our throats at every single opportunity, and sometimes even without the opportunity being presented.

What you cannot understand is that simply because you tell me that this particular verse is key, or that particular verse is to be ignored, or the other particular verse is to be construed literally, or yet another only as metaphor, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is true.

It is just your opinion, Boaz. One opinion, among many opinions, as to the accuracy, veracity, credibility and validity of ancient texts.

And viking13, you keep missing the point. So often, I feel it must be deliberate.

>>I certainly don't see any similarities between the positions of Jews pre-WWII and Muslims now<<

This is irrelevant, totally, to the point.

The actions to which I drew your attention was not the target of the vilification, but those of the vilifiers themselves. Their tactics. Their use of a perceived common threat to elevate emotional response in people less able to understand that they were being manipulated.

>>Mosely's campaign was against an imagined enemy<<

Nonsense. To the out-of-work Londoner the enemy, as described by Mosley, was real, and visible.

Boaz, you're ducking and weaving again.

>>he asks 'what is the difference between what we are quoting from the Quran and Hadith..and what the POPE said? ANSWER.. 'very little' SO...WHAT?<<

So, on the one hand you have the leader of a religion advocating wholesale slavery of religious enemies, on the other... much the same.

Which is hardly deserving of a "so what", given that Christians tended to use the Pope's authority to kill and maim Muslims in the name of their God.

By their actions shall they be judged.

Dear Predictable Pericles.. after 'SO... WHAT? came.. "now we must ask the ALL important question"

I'll leave you with that one.

I am curious about one thing you said though. When you quoted Mosely, you implied that when a group of people who are specifically working against the state....that this is ok? You just outlined 'sedition' and then implied criticism and condemnation of those who opposed it... weird....very weird indeed. Next time choose more appropriate quote.

PASSY.. mate.. the time has arrived :) seriously, you have a very unbiblical view of what is a Christian.

You are equating 'Christian' with 'Western Culture'. I'm sure a lot of westerners, if asked 'What religion are you?' would respond "Hmm Christian".

If I can offer this perspective, ... to be Christian is summarized in Pauls words in Galatians.

"I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" Ch2 v 20

Jesus called on humanity to do 2 things.

Repent... (from all known sin)
Believe...(in the Gospel/Himself) (and commit ones life to Christ)

Doing those things, makes one a 'Christs-one' a child of God.

Please try to remember this when discussing the War in Iraq etc.

BUSH?...goood grief.. his Christianity has the appearances of being as real as the next vote. Either that or.... he is such a dumb dumb that he simply does not understand ANY religion..particularly Islam.
God knows his heart that's for sure.

But please don't equate "Christians" with the War effort. I don't see any crosses except perhaps on Ambulances.

regards
BD

CJ.. off to the libary mate :) some reading about the expansion of Islam is in order, then you can scurry out from under 'your' rock with a new informed perspective.

free2speak says:

"Voicing criticism, even condemnation, against Islam or any religion should not be considered racism or vilification in a society that upholds free speech."

Yes, but two things. The criticism of Islam is driven not by rational thought but obscurantist rantings or racist underpinnings.

Second, what if that free speech impinges on the right of others to go about their business and lives without harassment or oppression?

And further, what if the free speech leads to physical attacks? The Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oi Oi Oi intelligentsia who attacked people who looked 'different' at Cronulla took racist free speech to its logical conclusion.

The nice free speech people who yelled at ABC cameras telling Muslims to f..K off or they would be driven from Camden (or words to that effect) weren't asking to have afternoon tea with those proposing to set up a school in Camden.

I just see racism in all these criticisms of Muslims. Maybe I have the wrong glasses on, but I don't think so. These attacks on Islam are driven by fear of the other, a completely irrational fear but one that sublimates alienated lives under capitalism to a sense of control over a minority group, and hence some sort of power in an essentially power denied life.

Yes Philip Tang.Islam is the religion of the impotent.Hate and violence is substituted for logic and for the development of civilised society.

Respectability and truth does not enminate from the collective belief of 1.4 billion people.The Western and Oriental world see truth in objective science and logic.Religion is just the ointment that sooths our insecurities.

Survival equals logic and religion equals emotional security based on an imaginery father figure.This father figure is used by all religions to surpress logic.What chance has our humanity of surviving another 100 yrs?Our tribal mentality is but a hare's breath from self destruction.

CJ Morgan, you say –

<What amuses me most about this predictable Islamophobic feeding frenzy is that most participants have missed one of Qadri's more interesting points, which is that vilification of Islam and Muslims has become for some Westerners the acceptable expression of the same kind of misanthropic hatred that used to manifest as racism.>

Perhaps it would be interesting if it were true. I see how the two phenomena COULD be similar, but I think they’re not. The main reason is that Islam is, among other things, a bunch of ideas that are located in some documents. The strong, urgent disapproval of these ideas is not “personal” in the way that racism always is. I agree that those of us who object to much of Islam’s ideas have to make sure we don’t extrapolate to Muslim people – and the risk of extrapolation is high – but the two phenomena are different.

Mustafa, Where are you? Kindly engage with these arguments.

SusanP, Thanks for explaining about flaming.

Pax,

Let us be aware of the emergence of the new and revitalised Islam that is trying to establish itself as an alternative Islam to the hateful and bigoted desert version that is over two thousand years old and is rapidly becoming redundant.

You'll find it in its nascent state in America, Europe Australia and New Zealand mainly where millions of them have fled their homelands to give their children a better life.these are educated Muslims who have studied science and felt the life-giving winds of liberalism. They are hated by the fundamentalist ultraconservatives more tahn we are hated. Thes people are a more potent thrfeat to the old doctrines that would not otherwise thrive .

These "new" Muslims need our sympathies,our friendship and ecouuragement and support. The problem is that with them have come theose who are Wahabists and those dedicated to the establishment of the Third Caliphate .They offer no compromise or co-existence.They seek our extermination. How we cope withy this threat depends on how strong we are willing to be,how willing we are to fight fire with fire and do whatever it means to protect ourselves and our way of life. If do-gooders say this makes us no better than them so be it. I am talking about survival.Let's not get too particular and squeamish about it. Remember the Wooden Horse of Troy?
The enemy isnt merely at our gates;he is already amongst us here and now.
Socratease

Words of wisdom from the politically very correct mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim's mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

We do indeed need to inculcate this Britishness, especially into young Muslims.... We should teach British history. We should think again about the jilbab, with the signals of apartness that it sends out, and we should probably scrap faith schools. We should forbid the imams from preaching sermons in anything but English; because if you want to build a society where everyone feels included, and where everyone shares in the national story, we cannot continue with the multicultural apartheid."

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/thoughts-on-Islam-London-mayor-Boris-Johnson.htm

Passy...

I'm quite prepared to work long_and_hard_with_you.. to extricate you from this sad 'blinker' vision you currently have.

"The criticism of Islam is driven not by rational thought but obscurantist rantings or racist underpinnings."

Here is the_truth:

SOME...critics_of_Islam... speak from the viewpoint you mentioned.

OTHERS speak out of knowledge of that faith and its history.

I fall into the latter category. Do you see me here ranting against Hinduism? Buddhism? Zoroastrianism? Bahai-ism?

Those faiths don't constitute any particular threat to Australia at this point. I can discuss their merits or lack thereof theologically, and I could even mention re radical Hinduism that a wonderful man from my own tradition, along with his children, were burned to death in their car by an angry Hindu mob, but that was not 'Hinduism' doing that, it was ignorant, rabid 'people' who could not point to a 'doctrine' to support those horrific actions.

ISLAM.. IS DIFFERENT. and that's the thing you are currently missing.

All you seem to see is 'poor minority muslims attacked by racist whites/westerners' etc.

You mentioned Cronulla as an example, but DIDN'T mention that some of those in the crowd..DOING the attacking were in fact Aboriginal!
Some of the crowd could not even speak ENGLISH....but they knew what Cronulla residents had been subjected to over a long period of years..and they were sick sick SICK of it.

Honestly mate..you need some exposure to a broader set of truths.
A study of the expansion of Islam would be worthwhile.

Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' of wife_beating ?
Theory: see Quran 4:34
Practice:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&NR=1 <--important!

see how the WOMEN see it.....(2nd vid)

Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' of sexual abuse of captive women? see surah 23:5-6

Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' which enables old men to:
-Marry
-Sexually use
-Divorce
pre-pubescent female children?

See Surah 65:4 as it stands, and if in doubt see Maududi's Islamic commentary here
http://www.tafheem.net/main.html
click on 'At-talaaq' then scroll to verse 4, then scroll to paragraph *13

Well...do you? seriously ..do you ?

It always makes me chuckle, Boaz, when you firmly grasp the wrong end of the stick, and then wave it above your head to show the world.

>>When you quoted Mosely, you implied that when a group of people who are specifically working against the state....that this is ok?<<

Let's try this again, shall we? I quoted Mosley as follows:

"We will not tolerate within the State a minority organized against the interests of the State. Jews must either put the interests of Britain before the interests of Jewry or they will be deported from Britain."

Your natural inclination, it seems, is to take these kind of statements at face value. If you had been in his audience, as my grandfather was, you would have followed the bouncing ball to the inevitable conclusion that - hey, those Jews are acting against the interests of the State! Let's send the lot of them back where they came from.

(The fact that many of "them" had been born in London, perhaps lived there for generations, would conveniently be discarded at this point; the rabble had been roused to tar all Jews with the one brush, which was the point of the oratory)

Truth doesn't come into it. Emotion - principally fear - is the sole objective. Nor is the "enemy", or their perceived fault, particularly relevant.

It is the process itself that disgusts me: transference of hatred of another group of human beings by instilling fear and loathing in the audience.

My other chuckle is when you, the man who proudly announces on OLO that he beats his daughters, say stuff like this, with a straight face:

>>Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' of wife_beating ?<<

As I have noted elsewhere, Christianity and Islam have more in common than you care to admit. Subjugation of women, homophobia, all that stuff.

There's a strong tendency for people to hate in others, that which they also hate in themselves, is there not?

Hello socratease, I’m as concerned about Islam as anyone is, but I agree with you nonetheless. We should be very gracious and neighbourly towards Muslims in Australia – absolutely. I guess we should be like that towards everyone (even each other!), but I’d say especially towards Muslims both for expedience (to woo them into the community and away from the Wahabists etc) but also because the current community mood might make them feel even more marginalised that recent arrivals normally feel.

Don’t be surprised if others on OLO who have the same concerns as me also agree. We may differ in our degree of optimism, but I suspect that Boaz, Philip Tang, Sancho, Themistocles, viking13, stevenlmeyer and others would agree with what you’ve written.

I would also say that your point is more relevant than much of the discussion. I think what we need to figure out is not so much what to think and feel about Islam, but what to do in relation to Muslim people who are within reach.

But, the current discussion becomes important when people like Mustafa suggest that Islam is benign by its nature. It clearly isn’t, and his oily message is irritating and misleading. Anyway, cheers to your post.

Pax,

Dear BOAZ_David

Like all religions (including your own) Islam is contradictory. The idea that texts written in societies radically different from today's economically, politically and socially could be guides to living or guides to truth based on faith alone is one that I find a little hard to take.

Religion adapts to the society it finds itself in. Thus feudal Christianity is very different to Christianity under capitalism. But the main function of religion is to give false hope to the oppressed while at the same time calming the oppressors to understand that the religion itself is major protector of the oppressor. That class contradiction reflects itself in variants of Christianity,(eg from fundamentalism to liberation theology), Islam and I assume other religions in the industrialised world or in the process of entering the industrialised world (eg Hinduism in India. Not sure. Does anyone know more detail about that?).

You also ask me:

"Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' of sexual abuse of captive women? see surah 23:5-6

"Do you support a 'DOCTRINE' which enables old men to:
-Marry
-Sexually use
-Divorce
pre-pubescent female children?
...

"Well...do you? seriously ..do you ?"

I am not quite sure what you are implying here. I assume it is based on your view about the inherent evil of Islam so anyone who defends Muslims defends what you, BOAZ_David, think is their doctrine.

The question is so ludicrous and so contemptuous it does not deserve an answer.

You justify the Cronulla riots. This to me seems a very unchristian thing to do. Nevertheless they were clearly a racist outburst. The fact that oppressed groups like Aborigines indulged in bashing Australians who were "foreign looking" people (if that is true) doesn't detract from the nature of the attacks as racist, and expressing the latent fear many Australians have of the other. that ear comes from a society in which we as humans are deeply alienated through the process of production where our labour and its value is stolen from us.

Indeed, apart from racism, another expression of this deep alienation in present day society is religion.

The Takeover by Demography strategy is absolutely drilled into the Muhammadans from birth, all across the globe. The women breed like rabbits while the husbands skulk around preaching jihad. How do they fund all this? From the dopey infidels' welfare state! Check out the stats on birth rates and welfare dependency by religion.

You really are a repulsive little slug aren't you, John Sleazefield?

goodthief: << We should be very gracious and neighbourly towards Muslims in Australia – absolutely...

...Don’t be surprised if others on OLO who have the same concerns as me also agree. We may differ in our degree of optimism, but I suspect that Boaz, Philip Tang, Sancho, Themistocles, viking13, stevenlmeyer and others would agree with what you’ve written. >>

Is goodthief seriously suggesting that the Islamophobic bile that is continually posted here by the people s/he names constitutes being "very gracious and neighbourly towards Muslims"?

<< ...the current discussion becomes important when people like Mustafa suggest that Islam is benign by its nature. It clearly isn’t, and his oily message is irritating and misleading. >>

It's also "irritating an misleading" when good Christians like goodthief post frequent disingenuous and "oily" messages that vilify Islam, while claiming the high moral ground.

Goodthief and his Islamophobic cohorts are every bit as bad as Islamic apologists like Trad, and are in fact even more irritating in this forum at least - because there's so many of them.

Passy: << Indeed, apart from racism, another expression of this deep alienation in present day society is religion. >>

Quite so. Interesting how the two expressions of alienation occur so often together.

John Greenfield: << The Takeover by Demography strategy is absolutely drilled into the Muhammadans from birth, all across the globe. The women breed like rabbits while the husbands skulk around preaching jihad. >>

I bet John Greenfield isn't a racist either.

Ginx

If you are capable of a counter-argument, or indeed ANY argument, please Bring It On! If all you have is the usual bovine loud narcissistic denunciation of the Luvvie Leftist, go sell it elsewhere.

CJ Morgan

"Racist?" Oh lord give me strength! How old are you? Do you think people really listen to that sophomoric pap anymore? Whenever I hear some Luvvie Leftist start banging on about "racism" I reach for my revolver. Wake up!

"The idea that texts written in societies radically different from today's economically, politically and socially could be guides to living or guides to truth based on faith alone is one that I find a little hard to take."

How easy it is for us to feel like we are far more advanced than our ancestors because we benefit from scientific discoveries and technology that has changed the way we live. Yet we still have the same questions about the meaning of life, questions about justice and morality and what happens when we die, and the same basic needs of food, water, shelter and sanitation.

Communities in parts of the Middle East are much the same as they were when Islam arose, particularly in rural regions left behind by modernity. Even so, people are still people regardless of what age they live in and so it does not matter that socities change. Just because we benefit from scientific discoveries and technology, so what? What matters is answers to life's fundamental questions of existence, morality, justice and what happens when we die. The Qur'an provides these answers to the Muslim devotee, just as the Bible does for a Christian, or following some Hindu god does for a Hindu. Modernity does not change our needs, nor does it necessarily provide answers to life's fundamental questions.

CJ Morgan, Feel free to quote a post by me on the subject of Islam that you consider “disingenuous” and we’ll discuss the merits of your opinion. Similarly, feel free to find some “bile” in one of my posts and we’ll discuss it.

We’re all in danger of projecting our own flaws onto others, especially our opponents – so don’t be surprised if there’s a good deal of disingenuous bile in your own posts. You are familiar with my frequent practice of trying to foster agreement – eg the discussion about humanism as common ground a while back. So, you know better than to seriously accuse me of this kind of mischief.

Vilification involves an attack on people, not their ideas. I see Boaz and Paul L. et al as exposing and critiquing ideas and practices, not vilifying people. You know this. True, there is a risk of overflow onto people, but that is never the intent from my observation.

I stand by everything I’ve said about Islam. As for my behaviour towards Muslims, that’s something I needn’t air here in any detail. Suffice to say that I have several Muslim friends and acquaintances. It’s easy to avoid airing my opinion about their religion because our friendship/acquaintance is not formed in the context of polemics and debate: we are colleagues etc.

Unlike yourself, I don’t need to agree with people in order to treat them with respect. This is an important freedom that I, and indeed most people, possess – the freedom to put differences aside and behave well. Try it, it works.

Usually, I would take issue with the word “Islamaphobic”, which you bandy about as though it weighed nothing, but in the case of Islam my reaction really does include some fear. I think it makes sense to fear Islam, and I get no comfort from people like Mustafa Qadri when I ask them to explain why there is nothing to fear. However, fear is not all there is, so “Islamaphobic” is by no means definitive of the position of people like myself.

Pax,

For your amusement

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell

Goodthief - while I accept that your intentions are probably benign (if self-delusional), your apologetics for the the most rabid of Islamophobes in this forum call your personal ethics into question.

You defend those who actively spread hatred, but you feign respect for the victims of such vilification.

You're as bad as they are. And Christian haters are no better than Muslim haters.

All you promulgate is grief, goodthief. Wake up.

Come on you guys.Lighten up!

Muslim integration cannot be facilitated by acrimonious blogs and wild slugging it out.They arent going away and the problems not only will not disappear but will be exacerbated. The moderates will think that they can not hope for justice and acceptance and will be embittered. They will not help out in the fight agsinst bigotry. Those angry young men and not so angry are beginning to betray, ironically enough,sign of the bigotry that they are accusing all Muslims of. Nothing can be gained;opportunity will be lost in a haze of anger and hate.
We want an Australia that can be richly multicultural and the Muslims have a richness that can enrich and empower us.

They do have customs that are repulsive to freedom and democracyloving Australians abhor.And you know what....they are learning to adjust and accept ideas that they wouldnt and couldnt have back in conservative countries that they have fled.

The changes arent going to be dramatic and immediate as you would like,change come with pain and angst.You have no idea just how hard it can be and is going to be. It will not come about in the next two generations perhaps ...and not without lapses on their part,perhaps! We have to be patient and come down very hard and uncompromisingly on the malefactors and bigoted, but in doing so lets not forget that the terrorists are NOT all Muslims who themselves would hate being so betrayed by their benighted idiots.Most Australians are not dedicated to any kind of idealism...booze, sex and footy,not counted!!All this will be very hard for them to empathise with.

lets all hang in there.Make the peace-loving welcome ....they dont have to be punished as well.In the end they will richly reward our forbearance.So.Drop the smiking gun.Think the problem through.Some just love a scrap and would be clamouring for the battlefield.They live for the excitement of it all.Try living for the justice of it all asa well.

Socratease

CJ Morgan, I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to differ about just how bad a man I am.

socratease, It’s hard to tell if you’re 7 years old with a bright upturned countenance and enormous eyes, or if you’re actually on the money. :) Anyhow, I certainly HOPE you’re right, and I realise that hope might have to suffice. I also agree that acting positively on that view – as though it were true, even if one has misgivings – is the only way to proceed. I’ve said this before, but I think we here on OLO should spend more energy discussing what to do, rather than on trying to agree (or prevail) about diagnostics.

stevenlmeyer, Thanks. Condell is as ruthless as a dog approaching its dinner bowl, but he’s certainly a funny dog.

Pax,

Myyyyyy Goodnesss...this is tooo Precious :)

Ginx: WHAT would OLO be without you ? :) classsic.

<<You really are a repulsive little slug aren't you, John Sleazefield?>>

You did more in that little sentence for 'Right Wing' causes than the Right Faction of the Liberal party over a decade mate :)

SUSAN P/GY.. even though GINX has committed the grievous sin of 'FLAMING'
please don't ban her.. she is good value, and adds color (if not information) to the otherwise sometimes rather clinical discussions and is a great testimony for what some of us are saying.

CJ
"And Christian haters are no better than Muslim haters."

ROFL! ...CJ.. "confession" is down at the local RC church mate:) But dare I make the observation that you tend.. just a tinnnny bit, to fall into the category of 'Christian haters'? if ur posts are a guide.

Methinks Goodthief touched a nerve there *ouch*

C'mere.. u need a HUG :)

CJ.. I treat "muslims" as they come. I have the runs on the board regarding 'face2face' with FH, and I still miss the bloke.. his happy smile and chirpy jovial manner... We disagree on Islam, but that doesn't mean I don't cherish him as a person- geeeeee...

I'd find it a bit more of a challenge if f2f with an unrepentant Maroubra revenge attacker, but..we can do all things in HIM who enables us, after all.. as He said "they know not what they do".

SOCRATEASE... ur a_teaser arn't_u :)

You said:

"We want an Australia that can be richly multicultural and the Muslims have a richness that can enrich and empower us."

I disagree on both counts.

1/ No, we (me and my mob) DON'T want a 'multi' cultural Australia.

We want an Australia which is focused on ONE thing..'being Australians' without reference to ethnic or cultural tags.
The main problem with your rather idealistic (and romantic) view is 'time'......Over time, 'difference' tends to become reinforced, and tribal. It is a natural 'US/THEM'.. which of course is not a problem until you bring politics into it.
-OOohh.. those MUSLIMS.. all living on welfare, having lots of kids.. blah blah
-Oooooh..those white racists.. they hate us, they deny us jobs because we are Muslims....
-Oooohh..those XYZ mob.. look at the GRANT 'they' got for their new community centre... what about US?

Now..left alone, those things subside in time, BUT.. when someone with a political agenda comes in.. they STIR STIR STIR on those things and try to divide and conquer. If you want to destablize India, just bomb a Mosque and call in as if ur a Hindu Nationalist "we did it"
and Vice versa with a Hindu Temple. If you doubt.. check out how Indian Hindu's feel in Malaysia over the Government bulldozing ONE small temple. Then see the outcome of their last election :)

Now..I'm going to annoy you here -ONE Nation, ONE Race, ONE culture...full stop!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=164

U'd need to read my opening post in that link to understand what I'm getting at :)

2/ Muslims have a richness that can empower us.

Sorry.. as PEOPLE yes, but as 'Muslims'..no. We are enriched from their cultural differences.. agreed. We are not enriched by the aspects of Islam which I often rant about.
The only 'power' "Islam" is interested in...is that we should be subjugated! (Surah 9:29 please read it)

http://www.al-kitab.org/al-kitab/quran/SURAH009.htm

"Muslims" who happen to be of the 'cultural' kind rather than the 'Islamist' kind, can teach us a lot about extended family and respect for elders. (and we sorely need that lesson)

CJ,

Your gutless rant can only be aimed at myself and BD. So I spread hatred is that right? I could equally accuse you of spreading ignorance, apathy and stupidity. I would like you to show me how and where I spread hatred. Since you can’t even point out Goodthiefs supposed flaws I think it highly unlikely you can.

Goodthief,

I think your posts are regularly well composed and your moderate opinions are thoughtfully enunciated. Your willingness to try and find a middle ground with those fantasists from the left is to be commended.

Socratease,

Much of what you say makes sense, except that the problem with radical Islamists isn’t getting better, its getting worse. Previous generations of Muslim Australians were decidedly more moderate than today’s young Muslims. I seem to regularly have to state that I fully accept that most Muslims are not radicalized. I don’t not have a problem with these people, I am happy for more of them to migrate here.

But, the proportion of Muslims who ARE following fundamentalist strains of Islam, the Islamists, is growing. They are taking over mosques, community centre’s and university student organizations. They are focused upon bringing moderate Muslims into their fold.

Many leftists seem to think that AlQaeda and other Islamist organisations main enemy is the West. It is not, it is the moderate Islamic nations. The west is merely in the way of their main goals, which are the unification of the Muslim world under their fundamentalist banner.

We need to have people going to the mosques, listening to what the Imams are saying, rooting out those who are fomenting intolerance, supporting terror or vilifying non muslims. We need to understand the differences between Muslim sects rather than merely swallowing the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense hook, line and sinker. For some Muslims it is clearly NOT.

I see the problem in our policy of Multiculturalism. I believe and support the notion of Australians of diverse backgrounds and heritages. However I believe that all migrants should be encouraged to integrate or assimilate into the mainstream.

Muslim extremists are already winning the day if we are to judge from the rantings of some mails we've been getting on this website. They are eroding our ability to reason calmly;they are making us use invective and insult;they are making us demean ourselves and behave like rednecks. They will also attack anyone who reminds them of what they are doing to themselves.Goodthief,I am not a seven year oldalthough I'm beginning to think I am dealing with one.There!You see what I mean...it is so easy to fall into the trap and resort to counter-attack with unseemly language.This was just to illustrate how things are going. I have enormous eyes filled with hope.HOPE! That is our greatest weapon.You say we should not spend time on diagnostics but focus on what to do. That is right,what we should be doing is working and living with hope and behave welcomingly. Ihave made a Muslim friend who is a PhD in Geology and has an MA in Literature. He attends Unitarian forums and meets with people like Val Webb and enfages in dialogue.The differences will always be there and so it should be. We dont want him to become a christian and he doesnt want us to convert to Islam. We only want to explore our human-ness and engage in friendly dialogue. I have met his daughter and son-in-law and they are like him...lovely people who only want to live in peace and be the best for their families.Their friends share their values. Do you fel the need to meet such people too. Many subscribers to this chat room would NOT in case they see the error of their ways and the worst thing that can befall thenm is that thewre wont be anyone left to HATE and VILLIFEY. How lonely that would make them.

Socratease

Boazy - perhaps I should have said 'Christians who spread hatred are every bit as bad as Muslims who spread hatred'. Neither description applies to me.

Paul.L: << Your gutless rant can only be aimed at myself and BD >>

I wasn't actually referring to you, but if you want to include yourself among "the most rabid of Islamophobes in this forum", then that's fine by me. If the cap fits... And exactly how is it "gutless" to stand up to the numerous anonymous racists and hatemongers who infest this forum?

If you had any "guts" you'd identify yourself with the hateful drivel that you post repetitively in this forum, instead of hiding behind an alias.

You know what I am going to say, Boaz, don't you?

>>We want an Australia which is focused on ONE thing..'being Australians' without reference to ethnic or cultural tags<<

Please, cast your mind back to the time when you were a missionary.

Did you assimilate into their culture, or did you remain true and steadfast in your beliefs?

>>Now..I'm going to annoy you here -ONE Nation, ONE Race, ONE culture...full stop!<<

But you don't actually believe that, do you? Except when it is YOUR culture.

It still hasn't occurred to you, has it, that your aims and the aims of those you perceive as your Islamic enemies are identical?

Apart, I mean, from the homophobia, the subservience of your womenfolk and your willingness to beat your daughter... I'm referring to your desire that everyone worships the same God that you do, in exactly the same way that you do.

You even share the same God, so I'm told.

Is that why they scare you so much?

After all, everyone tends to hate in others that which they hate most about themselves.

I agree. Extremists of any kind (be they Muslim, Christian or the authors of the first few posts which I scanned briefly) are narrow minded, unacceptable and downright dangerous. Hate/fear mongering in any form is reprehensible. It seems that these folk are insecure, frightened beings, unable to cope with anyone or any concept remotely different to themselves and their tunnel-visioned thinking. Sad and unfulfilled lives for the lot of them, I should think. Embracing the unusual and learning about new things are a couple of the things that make life worth living. Try it guys!

The arguement that, the West is inherently Racist, is fraut with the danger that everything said by a person who is not a Muslim about Islam, or it's followers, is Racist. I don't believe this to be so in the main. In some cases yes, but mostly no.

On the other hand, I have not heard anything but unkind remarks about Westerners and their customs by Islamist people of Middle Eastern origin. Even to the point that, because Westerners are Kaffa, they are not even human, therefore are not to be respected in any way.

If that remark was made by a Westerner all hell would break loose, as it did in the Danish press. So, one could, very rightly claim that Muslims are Racist also.

The he said, then he said, is a circular arguement. It's going nowhere and intensionaly stirs up all sorts raw emotions. People of Middle Eastern origin are inherently more emotional than Westerners, therefore rage with more passion. Whereas Westerners tend to let most unkind remarks slide. Therein lies the difference in reactions to any unkind remarks.

People on both side have the right to voice an opinion, weather right or wrong. It's just an opinion. Muslims who get over emotional over someone in the Wests personal opinion worrys everyone in the West because they feel it could lead to a bombing. This fear then leads them to make an unkind remark. Again a circular arguement.

<<Please, cast your mind back to the time when you were a missionary.
Did you assimilate into their culture, or did you remain true and steadfast in your beliefs?>>

Straight and facts-based thinking is needed. If X is a missionary then X’s objective is to convert others to X’s religion, otherwise X would not be called a missionary.

Labels of ‘racists’, ‘Islamophobes’, ‘Christian extremists’, etc are not helpful to the Muslims. It would not improve their position. We have to examine the historical facts Islam plays in bringing chaos to this world. Islam breeds poverty, ignorance, violence and lawlessness. This following observation comes from secular Muslim, Syed Akbar Ali,

“Not wanting to admit their [Muslims] weaknesses or wanting to recognize the real enemy within, they wildly lash out at everything else without thinking. The West, non-Muslims, Muslims with different views, Zionists, Christians and just about anyone else who is different from them can become a convenient scapegoat for their anger and helplessness…And after decades and centuries of hope and yearning they are still unable to achieve the same levels of competency as non-Muslims. Their despair turns to anger at the non-Muslims.”

If we consider the success of India and the failure of Pakistan and Bangladesh, we realize that Islam is the downfall of these countries. India is a success story whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh are failed states. Racially there are practically no differences between the people of these countries. They were all part of India under the British, but Indian Muslims wanted a country where they can implement the full range of Islamic practices, so Pakistan (later Bangladesh) was founded. 60 years down the road and with full Islamisation, nothing seems to work except chaos, lawlessness and the list of religious superstitions gets longer. Muslims have no choice but to migrate to the West to have a better life.

This pattern is repeated in many Islamic countries. The Muslim-majority would persecute, rape and get rid of the non-Muslims then eventually Muslims will kill Muslims and very soon the country becomes a failed state.

Lebanon is becoming a failed state.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/lebanon_&_christian_marginalization.htm

"Ginx: WHAT would OLO be without you ? :) classsic.

<<You really are a repulsive little slug aren't you, John Sleazefield?>>

You did more in that little sentence for 'Right Wing' causes than the Right Faction of the Liberal party over a decade mate :)

SUSAN P/GY.. even though GINX has committed the grievous sin of 'FLAMING'
please don't ban her.. she is good value, and adds color (if not information) to the otherwise sometimes rather clinical discussions and is a great testimony for what some of us are saying."

Sorry BOZO, my mistake, I got the wrong guy.
(You really have a thing about what I say don't you? Even when I'm not addressing you, you make room in many of your posts for a shot at me. Halleberri praise the Lord!)
___________

Sleazefield, you want a constructive post from me? Excuse me??

Take a look at your 'constructive' posts! And you and the Slug judge me!! HA!
_____________________________

As for lack of information in my posts....,- is ANYONE really reading what others are saying?

The irony of a Right/Left balanced forum is a kind of 1 take 1 = 0.

Without question, it has made for a very successful site. But we are kind of cancelling each other out. At the moment I am physically and mentally drained, and haven't the energy to do the OLO Dance.

So;- take your shot BOZO...another Cancer shot?

I WILL take you on, even if at the moment I do it from a kneeling position

"Islamophobia?" ROFLMAO. Are you people on drugs? A "phobia" is an IRRATIONAL fear about something. There is NOTHING irrational about hating/loathing/fearing Islamists. In fact, for a Westerner not to loathe and fear Islamists is irrational.

Like most Australians I am sick to death with their moronic whingeing and victim mewling.

As for multiculti, again are you peeople on drugs? It is precisely multiculti that we Australians have saved the likes of Keysar Trad and this Mustafa Qadri. We saved them from REAL multiculti societies like Lebanon.

If the Muslims want multiculti let then go back to Lebanon. I am sure we could get together enough people to spring for the taxi fare to the airport and a (one-way) ticket.

Just for once I would like to see OLO post a Muslim wrtiting about economics, science, anything apart from how freaking badly done by the Muhammadans are.

Boo Freaking Hoo!

BOAZ David, I find so much of what is so good in your post.I commend you for it. It's just that some of the bloggers let passion and raw emotion get in the way of reason.
You argue for integrated and just communities unaware of the offending nature of emphasizing the community appendages but choose to be merely Australians intent on getting the best for their loved ones, for being the best themselves and contributing to the common wealth of Australia as Australian and not as indigenous Australians or Catholic Australians or Muslim Australians. We shouldnrt needto refer to "mosque" or "temple" or "church"but as a place of worship.Having said that lets remember that if the word church or mosque is used it isout of habit or even as a sort of short hand and not meant to emphasize anything in particular...and should be left at that.Being understandind and tolerant are worthwhile civic virtues to embrace wholly,dont you think?
Cheers.Keep up the good postings,mate. There's a good Aussie word to use on Australian-born and migrant newcomer alike.

Socratease

Love your posts John Greenfield.

They say more about you than any amount of rational, reasoned, thoughtful and constructive discussion possibly could.

socratease, I agree about hope as a mindset/heartset – to protect us from despair and bitterness and disappointed expectations. But, on its own, it doesn’t do anything of more substantial value than that. And it certainly shouldn’t lead us to deny facts. We should also be wise, would you agree?

While I like your account of your relationship with the Muslim geologist, I don’t think the Islamist critics online need to hear it. My impression is that that they, too, know some Muslims and like them well enough. They/we have made it clear that we are concerned about some ideas and some trends. Very, very concerned. I think you and CJ Morgan are mistaken to call if vilification of people, and to accuse us of hating (which seems to be what you’re now doing, although you started out calmly enough).

Paul.L (thanks for your note) is very good with the facts. He says, for example, “Previous generations of Muslim Australians were decidedly more moderate than today’s young Muslims”. What does hope do with this? Paul suggests a course of action – moderate Muslims exposing extremists. Hazardous work, but do you have a better idea? I wish I could solve the problem by being nice to the Muslims I meet, or engaging in organised dialogue. I do this, it’s easy, but it doesn’t achieve much for the broader picture, and it certainly doesn’t slow the extremists down.

Pax,

John Greenfield

Your every post proves the point of Keysar on another post and of Mustafa.

Unfortunately your represent a section of Australian society which is arrogant, self centred, miserablist,uneducated and racist. Two hundred years ago it would have been the same sentiments against Aborigines. A hundred years ago against the Chinese and Aborigines. 75 years ago against the Jews and Aborigines. Fifty years ago against Southern Europeans and the Aborigines. Thirty years ago against the Vietnamese, Chinese and Aborigines. Ten years ago against Muslims, Asians and Aborigines.

Now? It seems, as Howard recedes from memory, his heritage is racism against all who are not white Anglo-Saxons. You exemplify the fading light of yesterday so well.

Your diatribe against Lebanese Australians is enlightening. Most Lebanese in Australia are Christians. Presumably that is of little import to you. They are all wogs in your bitter twisted little mind.

Passy, once again I'm with Pericles.

Greenfield is a prolific troll around the blogs, but he is redeemed by being so good at it. As Pericles suggests, Greenfield's own drivel says more about him than any of us could :)

Goodthief,what else can I offer what you would accept of "sunstantial value" ?Me,or anyone else,for that matter.Individually ...little that would be dramatic. There's no magic and immediate remedy.These trhings are evolutionary and take a lot of time to mature and last long enough to become permanent.
But things are happening,goodthief. At levels where it is important but unobserved by ordinary people unless they know where to look for it.In every state in every community there are multicultural meetings taking place involving ALL ethnic and religious communities.These are at university levels and government levels.Churches are running similar meetings of an out-reach description. The individual can extend the hand of friendship by meeting with these people when the opportunity presents itself.Its easy enough to even smile at those passing by and greeting them in any way oone is comfortable with.It isnt hard to be nice .
The mosques in Australia are all teaching tolerance and acceptancre. The earlier torris outpourings of bigoted and radical conservatives like Benbriks have been silenced forever.Its unbelievable that Australian University, Griffith, or is it Griffen, could have stupidly begged the Wahabis for millions to fund their projects.It has angered MUSLIM community leaders who know best what the Wahabis are capable of!!

Muslims are writing novels,leading articles and letters to the editor of national newspapers supporting tolerance and acceptance. It IS all happening...but slowly and cautiously so that there can be no rushed agreements from which misunderstandings can arise later on.

The trace of anger you detected in part of my previous post was due to what I still genuinely feel about the Wahabists and racist bigots who preach hate.I wont hide my true feelings about them.There can be no compromise from me.
I feel a new and happy and strong Australia is in its nascent stage.We should welcome it.

Socratease.

Some Muslims have tried to reform Islam but they are presently living in the West. If they expressed such ideas in Muslim countries they would most surely meet with stiff opposition and be put down. Mahmud Mohammad Taha of Sudan tried to reform Islam but was executed in 1985.

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

So the hopes and dreams of goodthief and Paul.L of a reformed Islam is never going to happen, not in Western countries nor in any Islamic country.

“The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that “force is not an answer” to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that “true” Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community.”

Serge Trikovic discusses the Western elite class attitude in light of the findings of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based in Vienna. The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Europe/Counter-Jihad-Can-the-West-Be-Saved.htm

How often does it need to be said? Islam claims universal application: that is, to be applicable to all races. (I'm sure when other universes are found, Muslims will claim that they should be Muslim too.)
This being the case, to be against Islam is not be against a race, but against a religion.
Writers such as the current one are only interested in protecting Islam from justly deserved criticism. All ideologies, political systems and religions are facts, and open to examination, criticism and condemnation. If Islam is getting a bit of the criticism it richly deserves, then counter that with good agruements, not calls for special treatment.

Dear Socratease...yes, I'm basically in agreement with your post responding to mine.

I guess we cannot entirely remove ourselves from the reality of people writing or interacting 'as' something.. race or culture or religion, but my primary concern is the racial/cultural. On the religious issue, its probably a bigger issue in terms of separateness.

For example, no serious Muslim or Christian or Jew would be happy for their son or daughter to marry 'out'side of their flock. The difference is, how each group might respond to such an event.
-Some Jews hold mock funerals for their erring offspring. Others would be ok with it.
-Some Muslims would hold a funeral of the child they killed themselves, others are not so hot headed.
-Christians? well.. we grieve in our hearts, advise, guide, counsel, encourage... and I suppose there might be some unbiblical ones who disown their children for that.

But sure, as far as we can, lets all simply see ourselves as Aussies and people. Ethnic tags are more serious than religion in my view.
There is nothing worse than a parent who refuses their child to marry one of another race.. for simply 'racial purity' reasons.

We cannot do anything about our race or ethnicity, but in matters of faith, we can make our own decisions.

blessings.

Pericles..CJ.. r u 2 twins ? :)

CJ.. at least you are the 'good' twin with a sense of humor.. Pericles is the 'evil' one.. I don't think I've ever seen a hint of joy in his posts.

Regarding John Greenfield's posts...each to his own, and by all means criticize where it is due.

Here is something to get you blokes going :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPmw5EABWmE&feature=related

But wait...there's MORE.. it gets better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&feature=related

and yet..it gets better STILL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh503w_YLe4&feature=related

Say what you like about this bloke..but you cannot deny is oratory skills :)

Don't worry, others do take his position to task.

http://www.letusreason.org/Popteach7.htm

Passy

Oh dear. A Marxist (almost as vile as an Islamist, same nutty utopian eschatology) having the gall to have a go at me. What a hoot!

WTF does John Howard have to do with ME!? And how dare you compare Aborigines, Jews, and the people who have built this nation to nutjob Islamists!

"Your diatribe against Lebanese Australians is enlightening."

Hmmm..in my dictionary, "enlightening" does not mean "non-existent." Because that is what this alleged "diatribe against Lebanese Australians" is. Non existent. Apology please.

"Most Lebanese in Australia are Christians."

Well bully for them. You are telling me this because er, why, exactly?

"Presumably that is of little import to you. They are all wogs in your bitter twisted little mind."

Actually no. In Australia, it is Greeks who are "wogs."

I hope this helps.

Thanks socratease for being conversational. Though I use my own language, I “agree” that we need to be patient and persistent, and that if many do a small thing it amounts to a large thing. I believe in people power. I’m less optimistic than you, but that might just be because I’m silly, or of course perhaps you are. :)

You say, “The mosques in Australia are all teaching tolerance and acceptance”. This statement will come under fire, so I’ll just ask:

i) All?

ii) How on earth do you know?

Philip Tang, you say “the hopes and dreams of goodthief and Paul.L of a reformed Islam is never going to happen”. I understand your pessimism: I feel most of it myself. However, it’s hard to say what you say with any certainty, isn’t it? Second, even if the prospects of reform are as slim as you say, what do you say we in the West should do (regardless of how we feel)? Should we act in a way that improves the prospects, or not bother? Certainly, it would be easier to simply oppose Islam at every step - but it might not be justified.

Pax,

Actually,goodthief,one cannot speak for ALL mosques monitoring speeches but one has to accept with good faith what one is told by men and women of good faith.There is still a margin of error,is there not? The mosques that is well-credentialled may well serve only as a recruiting place. There is no perfect surveillance system.But in an evolving process the negative and failing to adapt soon gets eliminated especially when the mosque-goers are getting on in life and achieving their share of the good life. I believe that happy people make happy and worthwhile contributions to their community and are able to withstand the overtures of political seduction.There is the honor oand well-being of happy and succesful family members to be considered,too.If this gets to be widespreadthen the community begins to breathe fresh air again and life is good.

It is so important for all people to be accepted and be happy with each other.It sure will beat the hell out of surveillance and suspicion. I beiieve that the process has been set in motion. The dark brooding men oif hate will be defeated by the goodness they come up against in their own community.

In the meantime, we can assist the growth of social virtue to which I stand firmly committed by being tolerant...no.more than this going out of our way to make these people feel part of our family whom they will come to want to protect because they feel accepted and want to be a part of andtherefore want to protect.It would feel like it is their own,and to which the ones they love are feeling comfortable in and succeeding in.
I know that the occasional lapse will occur and some of us may die under their hands but in the end goodness will prevail because they will want it to.They will sort these hate-filled bastards out and get rid of them.

Socratese.

goodthief

The situation is complex and there are no simple solutions, only measures to take to improve the situation.

In my opinion the better people to consult are ex-Muslims such as like Ibn Warraq (a Pakistani British who studied Arab and Islamic Studies) a leading advocate encouraging Muslims to think through their Islamic faith. (http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/). He wrote very good articles like “Islam, Middle East and Facism” http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Fascism.htm

He also wrote books like “Defending the West: A critique of Edward Said Orientalism” saying essentially that the West should not be too apologetic for her colonial past. http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Defending-West-Critique-of-Edward-Said-Orientalism.htm

Another ex-Muslim is Patrick Sookhdeo (an Anglican minister) who is considered an international authority on radical Islam. He wrote an article “The Myth of Moderate Islam” http://jimball.com.au/features/Myth-of-moderate-Islam.htm and a few other books.

His website includes an account of a Christian lady in the UK who was sacked for wearing a little cross round her neck whereas Muslims are allowed to wear head scarf. http://www.isic-centre.org/archive/109-cross-defined-as-non-essential-to-christian-faith.html

I think we have to face the fact that Muslims are compelled by Islam to be constantly on a jihad against non-Muslims.

A secular website which give accounts for many of the wars between Muslims and non Muslims writes,

“While all forms of religious fanaticism are negative, only Islam raises slaughter of all Kafirs (non-Muslims) to a holy creed, it teaches Muslims to gloat over the killing of non-Muslims and celebrate their death. Hence Islam is the most demented and dangerous form of religious fanaticism… So Islam will have to be the first to be removed from the path of human progress and the reply to Islam to be effective would have to be more blood-thirsty and paranoid than Islam itself.” http://www.historyofjihad.org/quran.html

The website predicts a war with Iran in June http://www.waronjihad.org/

Phillip,

I suggest you read the Islamist, by Ed Hussein. He documents his journey from the peaceful and moderate sufism of his parents generation through increasingly more radical groups, to the pan Islamism of Hisb-ut-Tahir.

Radical, literalist Islam is a relatively new phenomenon to most of the modern Muslim world. It is far more common in the young than in the previous generations, particularly in the west. I certainly am not overly optimistic about the chances of moderate Islam because of radicalisms prevalence among the youth. However I believe it is a fight worth winning. We need to engage with radical Islam everywhere, not just on the battlefield. That is too narrow a focus and will ultimately fail. We need to fight politically, economically, socially as well as militarily. In short we need a holistic approach.

By definition multiculturalism should be helpful in this fight. However multiculturalism in the west doesn’t imply greater knowledge of each others cultures, sadly it is the reverse. Multiculturalism has bred an ignorance of other cultures. The PC cultural relativists have in fact prevented the average person from a critical look at any other cultures. Only our own faults are investigated and promoted. A balanced look at other cultures is totally un-PC.

This has led to the warm-fuzzy style of PC multiculturalism, where the average person feels good about other cultures, but doesn’t actually know anything about them. This has been a very destructive process to the fabric of our society.

It is time to return to a policy of assimilation. This is the only model which can accommodate disparate and seemingly incompatible cultures. The era of deriding our own values whilst championing those of the ‘others’, must end. We need to acknowledge the value of our cultural inheritance and pass this on to those who come to live with us. It is time to end the black armband approach to our history. It is fundamentally dishonest and it only foments anger and mistrust.

Socratese.,

I wonder how you would explain the problems that Europe is having with homegrown Islamic fundamentalists. Are they also being too mean to Muslims? You seem to be adhering to the old, and discredited, theory, that poverty and lack of opportunity are the causes of Islamic fundamentalism. But this is rubbish. Middle class boys from across the Europe and the Middle East have been going to Iraq/Afghanistan in search of martyrdom. Fundamentalism is as much a reaction to the spiritual emptiness of the soft lefts social revolution as it is to poverty and oppression. Indeed the prevalence of fundamentalism among the west’s young Muslims clearly illustrates that poverty and oppression has an almost negligible role in radicalizing young people.

Success and wealth hasn’t stopped the Saudis using their petrodollars to spread their backwards version of Islam, indeed it has actively helped their missionary work.

Who are these people of good faith that are telling you that there is no extremism in the mosques? http://www.australian-news.com.au/enemy_within.htm

You say you are committed to being tolerant. I believe in tolerance as well, but to be tolerant of the intolerant is eventually counterproductive. There are things we cannot tolerate and we should be clear about this. As Costello said, those who want Sharia and the return of the caliphate should not come to Australia. They have no place being here.

We need to support moderate Muslims but at the same time we should be effectively targeting radicals and fundamentalists, especially ensuring that those Muslims who do migrate aren’t adding to the problem

Philip
I support your position 100% when you say: " We need to support moderate Muslims but at the same time we should be effectively targetting radicals and fundamentals.." That has always been my position and what I have benn arguing all this time.

There is NO doubt that middle class Islamists are creating homegrown ragicals all over Europe and in USA. The radicalisation is very complex as a process.Not even the families of these disaffected can understand the phenomenon.There are very sophisticated and highly complex cultural andpsychological processes at work.There are extremely clever and sophisticated mind-altering psychologists in mosques in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that are proving so successful.It is proving difficult to counter theirt influence.Those who travel to these countries need to be under active surveillance and targeted in any way we can.

Sharia. Whenever it has been mooted that sharia should be tried in a non-Muslim country the loudest outcry against it has come from libearl and moderate and educated muslims in that part of the world,especially from amongst the women who naturally are vehementally opposed to the idea. I have any number of cut outs andexcerpts of protests from them. They DO NOT ANY PART OF SHARIA. What the pro-sharia mob have to learn andaccept is that our laws are created in PARLIAMENT and always will..in a secular democracy. We the people will decide our laws andif they dfont like it then they can bloody-well piss off.No compromise and no accomodation.

Socratease

Philip
All that has been written about the virulent strain of Jihad are correctly stated but they have to be put in the context in which they have been written.More on this later when I have researched it fully.A Muslim friend of mine is undertaking the research.

Fundamentalist conservative right wing bigoted Zionists point to the Old Testament,the Pentateuch,in fact, to justify their hatred of all Muslims,Palistinian in particular and what the OT says how they should be exterminated. Yahweh's commands to Aaron and Joshua for example about how they should clean out the "promised land" before occupying it.They say that Jehovah has not changed his mind since then.They act as though they would if they could "cleanse" the place in obedience to his wishes! And yet not every Israelli accepts the OT as such.They too say we should understand the contextt in which all that was said and written. Both Abrahamaic religions have the same religious and doctrinal base that came from over 4000years ago! They share a common context.

Robert

Paul.L

Assimilation between Muslims and non-Muslims has not happened (peacefully) and is not ever going to happen (this is built into the Islamic theology) in any part of the world.

This is the experience of South-East Asian countries like Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore where there was mass non-Muslim migration (to these countries) in the early 1900s.

Migrants that have settled in non-Muslim Thailand and Philippines have adopted the customs of the countries, but not so in the other SE Asian countries.

There is some semblance of tolerance between the Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic countries Indonesia and Malaysia, but this breaks down occasionally when the economy gets bad and the non-Muslims are blamed. For example, Mahathir the ex-PM of Malaysia blamed the British for the plight of the Muslims in Malaysia to this day even though the British left Malaya 50 years ago.

The Muslims wanted a separate state from India, the British gave them Bangladesh ( then East Pakistan). Today, Islam has made Bangladesh a failed state and the Indians are silently building a 3,300 km fence to keep out the Bangladeshis entering India.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003762578_bangfence26.html

The Rajasthan government in India has taken steps to expel illegal Muslim Bangladeshis workers (estimated 20 million ) in the country when the Muslims planted bombs and killed at least 80 people. Why did the Muslims plant bombs in Hindu temples?

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Rajasthan-to-expel-illegal-Bangladeshi-workers/311038/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3925840.ece

Socratease,

I think it was Paul.L who said this, “We need to support moderate Muslims but at the same time we should be effectively targeting radicals and fundamentalists, especially ensuring that those Muslims who do migrate aren’t adding to the problem”

As to the Israel/Palestinian conflict it is sad to turn it into a religious one by the fundamentalist Zionist and Muslims.

For present day Israel, I believe she is primarily secular and that they practice what their scriptures exhort them to do

“You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.” Lev. 24:22

It is not only Islamists like Mustafa Qadri and Keysar Trad who wish religious dogma to trump scholarship in Australia's universities. A chain petition is currently doing the rounds as a complaint to the Australian Press Council trying to silence our media!

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/islamists-complain-to-press-council.html

Thanks Philip, I’ll look at some of those.

You say, “I think we have to face the fact that Muslims are compelled by Islam to be constantly on a jihad against non-Muslims.” That’s the worst possible view of Islam, but I realise it might be correct. Still, even if true, it doesn’t help me much to work out what to do. What it does do is remind me not to be naïve in working out a course of action and in taking that course.

This is what concerns me. The secular website you refer to says, “the reply to Islam to be effective would have to be more blood-thirsty and paranoid than Islam itself”. I sure hope that’s incorrect. Even if Islam is as bad as the worst description suggests, it doesn’t follow that a savage response is the only wise course of action. Might we not attempt a softer approach? I don’t mean appeasement – of the kind that bans the cross in a workplace full of scarves – but real mature respect, which would be required to be mutual.

And, may we not distinguish between Islam and Muslims, and entertain a hope that they might become “bad Muslims”?

Trying to work out what to do.

Pax,

To all readers of the Islam discussion group:

A Unitarian minister on Sunday addressed his audience and said "Let us all be Christian but not Christians."
In the same way I fervently hope that a Muslim will try to be Muslim but leave off trying too hard to be a Muslim.

Socratease

Philip
I read your post with great interest and your irritation and frustration is clearly justified but will be allayed when you realise something of the contemporary history of Islam especially in the countries you jhave named ...andthere are others also.

The situation is this. In the Asian countries you singled out correctly and also European and American countries there are colonies of Muslim migrants who have virtually fled the bigotry and ignorance,the backwardness and regressive nature of their own homelands. The steps must have been very hard to make but for teir future and the future of their children they had to make those decisions.I should know.I too had to leave the comfort,the security and friends and cultural familiarity of my homeland to come away to Australia.It is very hard to make the move,believe me.

BUT with these genuine future-seeking Muslims who are happy in their new secular democratic countries of liberal dispensation there are also the subversives whose agenda is not the agenda of the genuinely pace-loving and educated Muslims although in the time of crisis the two get confused as being the same. There is a serious wave of Muslims dedicated to the establishment of the Third Caliphate in the world.They aim at world domination. The Muslim Brtotherhood,AlQaida and JI are just to name three. They would just as cheerfully kill the heretic and apostate Musllim as the kufir.Theyve got Saudi Arabia and the UAE well in the crosshairs ....as well as Morocco and Algeria!
They are counting on us taking it out on the "good guys" and throwing suspicion on them to create in us a hatred and suspicion of ALL Muslims.Let us not be stupid enough to fall into their trap!

Socratese

goodthief

Of course one should distinguish between Muslims as a people and Islam as a totalitarian ideology. However, Muslims subscribes to this totalitarian ideology and are not at liberty to leave it if they choose to. They would be killed as commanded in the Koran and Hadiths.

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo (ex-Muslim of South Asian origin) gave a good and informative lecture on Islam from a Christian perspective. He knows Islam well and is generally sympathetic towards the Muslims.

http://www.nashotah.edu/audio/convocation2004/sookdheo/sookhdeo01.mp3 (lecture)
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=402 (interview)

How boring this topic is!

It is utterly clear that any religion is the best for her followers.

Otherwise, they are not followers but hypocrites.

Youve missed the entire point my friend.What a pity

Socratease