Despite its reasoned approach, I suspect this piece will become the Boaz camp-followers totemic target for a while.

Before they get their spittle flowing, though, I'd ask them to comment first on what I see as the core of Ms Güzeldeniz' article.

"The Muslim world is not homogenous at all. It is diverse and made up of different ethnic, national and sectarian groups and individuals with different worldviews, political opinions and lifestyles. In Muslim countries there are atheists (like myself, I am an atheist from a Muslim background from Turkey); agnostics; non-practicing Muslims; Muslims who are not aware that they are Muslims; Muslims who have never read Koran; practicing Muslims; conservative Muslims; very conservative Muslims; liberal Muslims; secular Muslims; “lefty” Muslims; socialist Muslims; capitalist Muslims; intellectual Muslims; working class Muslims; middle-class Muslims; poor and rich Muslims; young and old Muslims; peasant Muslims; provincial Muslims; urban Muslims; celebrity Muslims; Muslims with reality-show-addictions; Muslim housewives; Muslim career-women; Muslim single-mums; homosexual Muslims; arty Muslims; funky Muslims; environmentalist Muslims; feminist Muslims; sexually conservative Muslims; sexually liberal Muslims; Muslims who enjoys the company of the opposite sex; Muslims who prefers female/male segregation; Muslims who are legally obliged to live in a female/male segregated society in theocratic Islamic states; Muslims who drink alcohol; Muslims who never drink alcohol, and the list goes on."

Those who are determined to bundle Muslims all into the same package, regurgitate bloody surah bloody nine and then shout "danger, danger" from the rooftops, would do well to cut-out-and-keep the above paragraph.

And those who know and understand that terrorism, whatever flag of convenience it flies from time to time, is still terrorism, should be encouraged that the voice of reason does occasionally make itself heard.

Pericles,

I thought David Boaz would have been gone long enough now for you to have recovered from your apparent intolerance of him.

Islamophobia again? I hope not. It's passe and as boring as batshit. So is everything about Islam.

Look chaps. Where this gal says:

"It is therefore time to reflect on establishing a strong and just international legal system which will be equally binding for all states in the world, and which will encourage and enforce the use of diplomacy in conflict resolution. Also the marginalised minorities should be incorporated into the mainstream political system in every country and given the chance to express their demands and grievances through politics, thereby replacing violence with peaceful methods of negotiation."

it proves that the author came down in the last shower - has managed to avoid reading history from the League of Nations to the UN onwards - and can successfully regurgitate all of the other fine OLO essays on Mumbai we've been writing.

But in the end chaps, its the holiday season and Christ the author's pretty.

Pete

The core of Ms Guzeldeniz'article is to try and stifle any debate on Islam by labeling the rejection or aversion of Islam as "Islamophobia". As though there is something irrational about discussing Islam's doctrines of hatred and division. What we have now is that if anyone suggests that Islam has something to do with what motivates muslims, they are labeled "Islamophobic".

I'm just as intolerant of christian fanatics as I am of muslim fanatics, or any other group who are struggling to come to terms with modern thought and turn to violence. Mind you some of those do already use the legal system to get their own way and inflict their prejudices on society, see how many legal tools are available in Australia now, particularly Victoria for those who feel someone has insulted them racially or religiously - I believe the muslim community has already used those laws, as have other communities.

I don't agree we should have some international legal system to resolve all our troubles, it would just become a monster in itself abd leave people unhappy again.

Anyone who uses violence, regardless of the reason, should be stomped on hard - no recourse, no excuses, no hiding - if a country harbours such people, they should be stomped on hard. Retribution for victims should be immediate and extreme, then folks might think twice about doing it again or harbouring such extremists.

If the US had been stomped on for their support of the Irish troubles, they would have passed away years before they did - they only stopped their support for terrorism when they got hit on 9/11 and wanted the world to stop supporting terrorism - up till then, they did it as well. So it should be with other states, and if Pakistan or UK or US is found to be supporting or growing terrorism at home - stomp on them hard.

Yes, use extreme violence against violence, that's what these violent people will understand and the communities who harbour them, who are peaceful themselves supposedly, will stop supporting them. Have the UN put up a force that instantly punishes countries who harbour terrorists - watch them get hunted down overnight if they themselves could suffer from exporting or harbouring terrorism. (probably only in rpg's universe, but it would be a peaceful universe as far as terrorists and using violence to solve your problems - there would be no tolerence of intolerence)

The moth....flutters...to the candle......

Dear Pericles: let me offer a slightly different perspective on what the author wrote:

<These people “imagine” that there is a global homogenous Muslim community which acts together as one body and which should be held accountable for the actions of Muslim extremists.>

Then she says:

<So why do some people think that all these Muslims with diverse identities should feel related to the Indian Muslim terrorists and should feel responsible for their horrific violent actions just because these extremists happen to be Muslim as well?>

to which I respond:

The idea of "Islam" as presented in it's own foundation documents and in any 'Islam 101' text you care to look at... is that there is ONE 'Ummah' or community world wide.

Now..granted, some of those like the Shia, Sunni Ahmadiyah etc ...probably regard 'themselves' as the true manifestation of that Ummah, so we cannot neccessarily label Shia with Sunni or Sufi.

HOUSTON (Medina)..WE HAVE A PROBLEM! and that problem is....this:

Many groups such as Salafi and Wahabi and Hizb Ut Tahrir have a very aggressive and militant view of their faith. If I was going to ask "Which of the Muslim groups is closest to their scriptures, prophets and the rightly guided Caliphs" I would suggest those groups are.

THE PROBLEM is.. that when we the outsiders point out the potential for such groups to negatively effect our lives and societies, it is inevitably interpreted by some kind folk as "You are condemning/hating all Muslims"

THE OTHER PROBLEM.... is that in order to effectively criticize Hizb, Salafists and Wahabists, it is neccessary to examine what they themselves hold as their foundation. ie.... The 'Prophet', the Quran the Hadith and histories.

Perhaps we critics should use more labels? "Salafist/Wahabist Muslims are evil" but the trouble with that..is their behavior is soundly based on the documents mentioned. Which brings us full circle to saying "Islam" is evil..... but not ALLLLLL Muslims because they simply don't follow the fundamentals.

Welcome back Leigh.

Once again showing your tolerance, open-mindedness and wondrous capacity for articulate and reasoned critique.

Good to see you bagging Pericles 'apparent intolerance' of David Boaz. Intolerance is something you won't put up with, eh?

To quote you: "Islamophobia again? I hope not. It's passe and as boring as batshit. So is everything about Islam."

Happy Xmas Leigh. C'mon, just one little smile. You can manage it!

The reason for Islamophobia is that people are being murder by religious fanatics in the name of Islam

The best way to stop Islamophobia is for all religious leader of Islam to state that there are no virgins in heaven for evil people, they are going straight to hell.

Until the day Islam are the ones who are most intollerant on these evil deeds being perpetuated in the name of their religion. There will be people in the world scared of Islam

One of the things most wrong about Islam and its worshipper is that, they like to blame everything on other people, and it is never their fault, it was the Isrealites, it was the christians, it was the USA, it was Saddam Hussein ............

Once people of the Islamic faith start taking responsibilities of countering evil, and correcting their "religious teachings" that is the day Islamophobia will disappear

The Islamic Ummah and Caliphate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate#Quran

Al-Mawardi says[18]:

It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (Al-Nawawi) says[19]:

It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says[20]:

It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says[20]:

It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

<<Once the subject of intense conflict and rivalry amongst Muslim rulers, the caliphate has lain dormant and largely unclaimed since the 1920s.>>

The time since the end of the last Caliphate is just under 100 yrs.

There are those seeking to re-establish it.(Hizb Ut Tahrir..and others)

It is quite possible that the scattered and diverse nature of the Muslim world referred to by the author is a direct result of this situtation. If thus follows, that a re-establishment of the Caliphate would bring back all that the previous one practiced including attempted world domination. (Surah 9:29)

One needs to take not a myopic view of the Islamic world today.. looking only at 'now'..but rather examine at the big picture..in the broader context of history.

Ask:
1/ What did the previous Caliphate bring to the world ? (military adventures, attempted takeover of Europe etc)

2/ What would a re-established Caliphate bring to the world?

go figure.

If Islamophobic means "we need to fully enlighten our own people about Islam"... lets go for the phobic.

Lets be completely and totally excessive for the sake of Christianity and democracy...and for the women and the children of Australia of tomorrow.

The following site has much about the global plan

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22399-islam

The problem as I see it nowadays, is that many younger folk dont want to know about major issues (after all it is about ME, ME, ME and ME... isnt it?) or believe in that false 'universal love' doctrine.

They forget that evil exists, or dont want to know, and that that evil has to be confronted.

Just above Darwin hovers a huge, mostly Islamic, military force that just hungers for the time when the world military climate changes so they can march south onto Australian to claim it as their 'South Irian'.

This military force is known to have killed some 500,000 citizens in East Timor.
There have been other incidents like the murder of the Balibo 5 reporters...killed mercilessly to warn Australia to keep out of East Timor.

May the USA forever stuff September 11, 2001 in our faces so we never forget that out of over 1 Billion Islamics worldwide ...1% support the violence.

Thats over 1 million Islamics who dont care how the West or anyone else suffers in the great mission to bring Sharia Law to evryone.

Build your armies Australia! Train your youth! Equip for a home guard defence force...for surely overnight the whole world climate can change.

DEFENCE should be propangandising todays youth... now... for the conflicts of tomorrow.
One of which looks like the invasion of Australia.

"Islamophobia" is a catch-all term. Islam is an ideology like any other and, in a democratic society, is not immune from criticism,some of its believers think it should be and use the term in an attempt to suppress dissent. Many people in the West are indeed alarmed by Islam as earlier generations were alarmed by communism, for much the same reasons. I'd like Moslems to point out a liberal, progressive, democratic and prosperous nation that is majority Moslem. We have a right to be "Islamophobic" if this particular ideology threatens our liberties. That said, prejudice against Moslem people should not tolerated in a liberal democracy, it is however, not racism, that argument is specious.

I have no time for fanatics of any variety whether it be Christian or Islamic.

Islamophobia is where normally rational and reasonable people, in response to a terrible incident, subject a whole group of people with prejudice based on the actions of a fanatical few.

Do we argue that all Christians are perverts because of the actions of a few paedophile priests? NO we don't, we use rational commonsense that tells us that most people, regardless of faith, want to be left to live their lives as they see fit, raising their children in safe and nuturing environments while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

Well said Nursel. An informed view indeed.

I also take this opportunity to remind people posting of their User conduct obligations. Particularly you, planetagenet. Less arrogant, vulgar and childish comments would provide welcome relief.

It will not take too many more of these rants, by people with unpronounceable names, trying to tell me how I should feel about islamic terrorists, & their large number of fellow travllers, before I will get to hate all islamics.

Me thinks they profess innocence a bit too often.

Yank go home, or equivalent.

Islamophobia is an emotively manipulative term. If it means discrimination then use the word discrimination. If it means prejudice then use the word prejudice. People who try to use emotive language to convince are usually people who do not have a very good rational argument.

In this context it means if you do not agree with me then there is something fundamentally wrong with you. If I don't agree with the Rudd government does it make me Laborphobic? No it just means I have a different opinion. Muslim authors do themselves a disservice when they resort to such tactics. If they have a good argument then let's hear it and let it be judged on the merits of logic and reason. Emotive language only inflames divisiveness.

Nope, Leigh, he's still here.

>>I thought David Boaz would have been gone long enough now...<<

And he hasn't changed a bit.

>>The idea of "Islam" as presented in it's own foundation documents and in any 'Islam 101' text you care to look at... is that there is ONE 'Ummah' or community world wide.<<

But Boaz, didn't you read the bit about the differences?

In exactly the same way that different types of Christian determine different versions of their religion, so are there different types of Muslim.

Some Christians are happy to murder other Christians, some are happy to perpetrate confidence tricks on their congregation in order to extort money, some are happy to take advantage of the trusting nature of small children, some are happy to travel vast distances to kill people of a different religion, some are happy to take children away from their parents under the guise of moral guardianship. And so it goes on.

In the same way that so many Christians disregard the more idiotic parts of the Bible, so do Muslims ignore the more idiotic parts of the Qur'an.

The sooner you realize that is nothing more than fear that drives your rants against Islam, the sooner you will realize that there is no such thing as a new Caliphate.

And you know, you really should stop taking Wikipedia as gospel. Especially when they tell you themselves:

"This article needs additional citations for verification... Unsourced material may be challenged and removed... The neutrality of this article is disputed."

That was the heading of the Wikipedia piece you quoted on the topic of the Caliphate.

Why do you think it was put there?

>>a re-establishment of the Caliphate would bring back all that the previous one practiced including attempted world domination. (Surah 9:29)<<

Oh, please, not bloody surah bloody nine again.

You're like a dog with an old, chewed, saliva-covered tennis ball in its mouth.

No doubt someone will pick it up and throw it again for you to fetch.

Dog-whistle religion.

What a crock.

Basseem, I agree!

Nursam, we need to fight terrorism not accept it by attempting to censor opinion on it. When Muslims see Islamic terrorism… They need to fight (by law or if it came to it, force) those terrorists, just as the priest raping choirboys, putting down gayness etc.

The Indian attacks were vile. Any belief that (even mildly) supports/protecting/softening/excusing or denying them is deeply insulting to the many victims of these murders and civilized peoples in general.

Pericles, you forgot to list terrorism,lol. But I get that you are attempting to say they are ordinary people as well. People are people everywhere, but Muslims, sadly, are accepting of mass murder and so forth in their name. Terrorism is murder.

I mean why dump it and form a *New-Islam* write out the evil bits from the Koran and dump Sharia law? Or do “something” to STOP it.

Sharia law and refusal to separate law and religion is my main issue, I think it's possibly the core of the problem.

I am deeply against Islam because of the terrorist mass-murders, repression of women, gay intolerance, abuse and manipulation of the PC, so much so that now a genuine complaint of racism is weakened by their overuse or if.

Relatively speaking it it is the most destructive of the big beliefs around, the Christians have hatreds, but have only shot a couple of abortionists... lately. I am sorry to be so raw but add up the murder since separation of religion and law.

PS

This is Kayser Trad:

“ The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us. And because we are not elitists, we tolerate them. Yet they want us to assimilate “

This is real racism, hard core racism.. At the level of KKK intensity. This is what the author, Nursam, should be fighting.

http://worldwar111.blogspot.com/2006/02/racisim-islamic-response.html

Merry Christmas KTrantor

I appreciate your first and stoutly censorious comment on OLO.

We need more of the unsmiling SERIOUS left.

It is my democratic right to indicate that the author's words are old hat. Her article is obviously trying to reignite the same old "Muslims are bad" discussion among OLO's many Islamophobes.

You can't go wrong with that tactic. Whether it is new or anyone learns something is another matter.

As to my reference to "pretty" - an author's looks usually count - just like any media personality.

However I wish to say that I am far better looking than the author - as this photo http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/ indicates.

Thankyou KTrantor for your chilling tone.

Pete

Mmm, KTranter, I find it strange you single out Plantagenet. If you're going to attempt the censorious line, I'd suggest singling out more extreme examples. There's plenty around if you take the time to look.

Leigh! Aw man, it's great to see you back. The site's been missing the taste of your particular brand of bitter acid.
For the record, Pericles cited Boaz, because boaz appears to have been resurrected, Jesus-style.
Though, I suppose it's in a new form, so a far better analogy would be the decidedly more heathen process of reincarnation.
How ironic.

Parts of this article seemed a little weak, but other parts made very good points.

It's sad to admit, but occasionally terrorism does achieve the goals it sets out to achieve. People very quickly forget the origins of Israel (right or wrong aside, there were bombings by non-state players, which assisted in them being granted their demands).

Terrorism has become such a broad term that it can be used by any state player to define violence by a non-state player. So whether the movement has reasonable goals or not is irrelevant, provided they are using violence to obtain their goals. Countries appear to be exempt from such labels. Thus, a dictator can't be a terrorist, so you effectively get to escape this label once a coup is successful.

My point is, it isn't about morality, it's about leverage and regrettably violence can achieve political goals. The idea that violence can only possibly work for countries, doesn't hold much weight with me. In many places, the leaders of the countries are simply the terrorists who won.

The better material was in relation to the diversity within Islam, as Pericles points out.

Cont'd.

"Christian, Hindu, Muslim and all other extremists in India resort to terrorism. So it is important to understand the root causes of violence..."

It's pretty obvious what the root cause of violence is, then, isn't it? Irrational belief.

I am not an Islamophobe, but I am an unreasonophobe. I am scared of people who base their decisions on something other than evidence and logic, because I have no way of knowing what harmless and apparently trivial belief or action on my part is going to trigger a wave of hatred and violence on theirs. A reasonable person is open to negotiation, but a person who believes they have a direct hotline to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is always unpredictable and should be treated with extreme caution. Or better still, taught to see reason.

I have pointed out here before that nobody who deliberately embraces any irrational belief has the moral right to criticise any other irrational belief; for that reason, attacks by believers on other believers will always be half-hearted and miss the point. In other words, Richard Dawkins could have explained to the Mumbai bombers why they were wrong; the Pope could not.

Polycarp, that was among your weakest posts I've seen. It's not the bloody 'ummah.' It's the polarisation and the modern day political considerations driving this thing. Many of those diverse niches within Islam are so far against the conservative scriptural stereotype you shout from the rooftops, your attempt of tying them in as well is just plain foolish.

As I see it, critics like mac do make a good point - the chief criticism I have of the many broad Islamic groups is that they are either not speaking loudly enough against the violent groups or regimes, or they haven't figured out a way to make their opposition heard.

And boaz, I know you're keen to jump in and shout "It's because of the scriptural stuff! The thousand year old rot!"

Bulldust. I far more credible explanation is the fact that the issue is so polarised, that to speak out against even the violent aspects of Islam is to align oneself with those who are simply bigoted against the religion in its entirety, such as David "Islam is Evil" boaz.

The other explanation is that within the billion Islamic people, there are indeed violent lunatics, who will target the moderates who are willing to speak out.

To deny the existence of these lunatic groups is a rare, but exquisitely stupid folly.
To pretend all or even most, muslims are driven, controlled, and united by these lunatic groups is a common, banal one.

So, as I see it, there's two groups at fault here. The influential Islamic groups who are too afraid to speak out against the fringe lunatics, for fear of being targetted or being associated with the yahoo Christian/conservative fringe, as well as that Christian/conservative yahoo fringe who is trying to group them all as one.

Ms. Güzeldeniz, what you call “islamophobia” and “abusive response” is called Freedom of Speech. The right to criticize Islam and Muslims – or anybody or anything else – is part of what we call “human rights”. You obviously need to go back to the basics and learn about Western civilization and Islam.

The root causes of violence, as you say, are many. One of the most significant is the hate and violence clearly commanded against non-Muslims in the Quran. This you and all Muslims ignore. You act as if this violence has nothing to do with Islam when the terrorists themselves opening say otherwise. Analyzing or, heaven forbid, criticizing the tenants of Islam is unthinkable for Muslims, so the violence continues, so they must blame others.

Of course the Muslim world is not homogenous, but they all accept the Quran and believe Mohammad to be a great man and moral example. They also discriminate and persecute non-Muslims everywhere they dominate.

The comments here about Muslims are not based upon “stereotypes of oppressive, violent and misogynistic Muslim men and oppressed subservient Muslim women” but rather on the doctrines found in the Quran which cause those violent actions done by Muslims. You act as if these doctrines have nothing to do with Islam when they are the core beliefs of an ideology that causes this violence.

In case you don’t know, the Quran has about a dozen nice verses, but also a couple of hundred that mandate hate and violence. Islam’s dear prophet, a man called “an example to follow” in the Quran, led dozens of raids against non-Muslims, fought aggressive wars of conquest, plundered villages and caravans, murdered opponents, tortured his enemies, declared all kind of sacred special privileges for himself, let his men rape captives, enslaved men women and children and even beat his own wife. These things were written in the hadith by his friends and followers (Muslims), not his enemies.

Instead of “hoping” that terrorist attacks won’t exacerbate Islamophobia, why don’t you “hope” that Muslims will stop killing and attacking others? Wouldn’t that resolve the “Islamophobia” problem

Yet again an author who is talking sense well done lady.

Religion isn’t the problem it's the individuals i.e. If I and a few mates become irrational and blow up hotel quoting Bible references is that an act of Christianity as a whole or just that of an individual or group? There are SO MANY factors that go into making the individual(s) become a terrorist. "If truth is the first casualty in war" then perspective/reason are the first casualties of terrorism.

The tragedy is that on both there are those (minorities) on both sides who WILL not or can’t think beyond the brutal simplistic. Absurdly simple solutions for complex issues. A bit like “Occam’s razor being applied by a lobotomized individual”. Keep in mind that the surgeon who invented the ‘frontal lobotomy procedure” was shot by one of his lobotomized patients.

I fear that those like in the old song (can’t hear because they’ve got) “beans in my ears” will not only not avoid the conflict they so fear but in fact invite it. In a situation like that NO-ONE WINS. Some intellectually ossified individuals on OLO are clear examples of that.

Perhaps the most insidious/hypocritical of these are those who shrilly invoke freedom of speech as though it some how transcends our responsibility to our neighbours and in some cases the precepts of their religion.

With every ‘right’ come a responsibility some of them should remember that.
Likewise public policy issues are NOT the place for private bigotry and rabble rousing…again we all lose. Their principal boil down to “I have the ‘right’ to create panic and social disharmony for personal reasons regardless of the consequences.” It is interesting to note that is these individuals whose reasoning is the most flawed and brittle. Consequently they are also the most ready to resort to bombast and abuse in its many forms when confronted by opposition.

Who amongst us can honestly say Australia/OLO for that matter needs more internecine/international conflict and that anyone benefits from it

Hmmm

Well I wonder what sort of phobia the following were exhibiting when they sounded off:

1. Moharthir Mohammed at the Opening address of the OIC in Kular Lumpur in 2004 where in a long anti semetic and anti western tirade he called Jews descendants of apes and monkeys--all to rapturous applause from the assembled morons.

2. Ahmadimejads of Iran and their exhortation that they were going to wipe Israel of the face of the map,or

3. Ekemelidin Ishanoglus,the CEO of the OIC, working hard in the UN to see that our freedoms of expression are curbed so that one cannot criticise Islam.

oh

and were do you put the 12000 instances of terrorism that have been perpetrated by Muslims against non muslims,

If there is Ismlamophobia there is good reason for it, and will always be so unless and until the muslims themselves bring the idiocies in their stupid book into the modern world.

Kactus,
What you say is absolutely correct. Violence is endemic in Islam and it is not just a few extremists or in a few countries.

Since 9/11 2001 there have been 12419 jihad attacks and for November this year there were 191 attacks in 16 countries with 857 dead and 1568 injured. Another example is the violence after the Danish cartoons episode. Some people seem to completely ignore these facts and the author should start by advocating non violence to the muslims.

TRTL has put his finger on the problem. The moderates are too scared to rise against those muslims that advocate violence simply because they put themselves at risk by doing so. Muslims will kill their own to keep those with different views in check.

A phobia means a compelling fear. I dont have that, but one simply cannot put aside the violence that is part of Islam.

"...violence begets violence and creates a vicious cycle by causing much suffering and compounding grievances on both sides of conflict, while destroying the possibility of negotiating differences and resolving conflicts through dialog, diplomacy and politics." (Nursel Guzeldeniz)

A very true description of Islam. The root cause of nearly all the terror attacks and conflicts in the West(liberal secularists and Christians), Thailand (Buddhists), Philippines(Catholics), India(Hindus), China (Marxists) and Eastern Europe (Orthodox) is Islam.

The "resolving conflicts through dialog" as proposed by Muslims is when they are in a minority. When Muslims become a majority, they would kill the non-Muslims or force them to become Muslims. This is what happened to Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is being practised in Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Those who have benefited from the freedom, peace and economic prosperity of living in the West should not espouse a 7th century barbaric life-style and ideology (like Islam). Muslim migrants to the West who want to bring their failed ideology of Islam with them should consider living in Saudi Arabia or countries of their Arab masters.

Islam began in a bloody manner. Its founder murdered hundreds and raped many women. The leaders (four of them) immediately suceeding Muhammed were assasinated by Muslims. The creed of Islam is based on hatred, murder, intolerance, hypocrisy and half-truths.

Muslims are told to emulate their founding leaders. No wonder there is so much bloodshed coming from Muslims.

"Although the first caliph Abu Bakr's death is mysterious, the later three pious caliphs—namely Omar, Usman and Ali—died to the knives and swords of assassins." (Islam watch)

"Given that Islam's brightest stars had been killed by Muslim assassins at its commencement, the religion of Islam does not reflect a creed of love, compassion and peace; it does not propagate ever-pure and -eternal message. On the contrary, it is reflective of a creed of hate, intolerance, terror and bloodshed." (Islam watch)

Well, I hope the christians aren't ever stupid enough to start a holy war. I don't think they can compete with this dedication. Makes world youth day look like a quiet BBQ...

Check out picture 8...
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/the_hajj_and_eid_aladha.html

Also the death star pictures 5 and 6.

If the author wants people living a free country like Australia to display less Islamophobia, she would do well not to expose the hypocrisy of her position by failing to acknowledge the complete failure of the Muslim world to set any examples at all, anywhere.

For example

1. The Saudis can spend billions pouring money into new mosques all over the world to further expand of their idiot belief system.eg, Mosques are going up allover Italy, but when the Catholic Church wanted to build a church in Saudi Arabia it was refused. In fact the mere possession of a bible in that coutnry is illegal.

Who is it with a phobia then ?

2. The bible has been given a thorough going over for the last many centuries as part of the enlightmement. The Koran and its attendendant Haddiths etc have no such going over and indeed the delusional followers cant even ackowledge the historical records and evidence with an open mind, which if they did, would be no doubt be surprised to learn that it does indeed have a history- and a well documented one at that.

Meaning, that there is not a chance in hell it is the immutable word of anyone in particular.

Who is it with the phobias and/or delusions then?

What we need from people like Nursul Guzeldini are examples in the Muslim world, however she wants to describe it, of the sort of behaviour she expects

>> So why do some people think that all these Muslims
>> with diverse identities should feel related to the
>> Indian Muslim terrorists

But the men who attacked Mumbai were not Indian Muslims.

They were Pakistani, from Punjab province.

The author should ask why Pakistani Muslims leave their country to murder Indians, Israelis, Americans, Europeans etc.

And why do Muslims with diverse identities find it so easy to protest about cartoons, books etc and call for the death of the offenders (IIRC even Cat Stevens said Salman Rushdie should die, and bounties were offered on the heads of the Danish cartoonists) but these same Muslims do not call for the death of Hafiz Saeed and other LeT members. Where are the protests and calls for Osama to be killed for insulting Islam?

Let me quote from a survivor of the Mumbai attack:

Lynne Shaw, from Penarth, Wales, was being led through the Taj Mahal hotel by staff, with her husband... During the short journey they were seconds away from the gunmen. Mrs Shaw said: “All of a sudden gunfire broke out in the corridor and they had executed a six-year-old in front of his parents”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3535866/The-British-survivors-of-the-Mumbai-attacks.html

Consider the people behind the Mumbai massacre: Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad. These radical Islamist groups have, like Frankenstein, developed a life of their own. Initially created by the Pakistan government (ISI) to fight India in Kashmir. Over time, the creature began to identify itself with the worldwide “conquer-the-infidels” jihadi groups. So? According to experts, these groups are backed by Saudi money and protected by officials in Muslim governments that are sympathetic to the war on infidels. According to William Kristol in the New York Times, “Jihad’s True Face,” these groups ”have developed an independent capacity to raise resources and an independent capacity to plan and prosecute operations in Afghanistan, in India, and increasingly within Pakistan.” This group has links to jihadist groups around the world.

There is no reason not to believe that the tactics used to terrorize Mumbai cannot be used in London, New York, Sidney or anywhere else (except maybe Israel). These are often members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Wahhabi organization dedicated to the spread of Islam and domination of infidels.

So what does this have to do with Australia? Well, only that the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well Downunder. Only that most of the Mosques in Australia were built with funds from the Wahhabi establishment and government in Saudi Arabia. Most of the Imams here are trained by and follow Wahhabi doctrine, even if watered-down when explained to Australians.

Ms Guzeldeniz is making excuses for people that murder children and for those that work with them and take their money. Do Muslims in Australia go to mosques built with Wahhabi funds? Yes. Yes, this is guilt by association. Killing 6-year old for the glory of Allah is fine sport, then.

TRTL, Even apostasy being a danger for a Muslim is still the Christians fault, come on man… If you dislike Christians, no problem, just say so, but don’t beat up on them cuz leaving Islam can be so dangerous… That is a problem if Islam not Christianity.

I am going to re post Kayser Trads hate speech from Nidal Islam in the late 90s… I was saddened that no supporters of Nursul’s article acknowledged this this horrible truth, her support of him…

This must be faced. This is who Nursul is supporting.

“ The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us. And because we are not elitists, we tolerate them. Yet they want us to assimilate “

http://worldwar111.blogspot.com/2006/02/racisim-islamic-response.html

This is real racism, hard core racism.. At the level of KKK intensity. This is what the author, Nursul, as we, should be fighting.

As everyone is saying to Nursul, and I say to the apologists too.. Stop saying how offended you are and do something about the constant hate and murder. The Christians did, they separated law and religion. It worked. No more bonfires with witches on instead scientific progress for medicine and technology and social aims and Christians still comfortably have their beliefs. I think this will help Islam too. And yes, TLTR you’re correct, proper support and protection for Islamic apostates.

Where the hell are our feminists in all this too?

gee, the gang's all here. and what a charming gang they are. pericles nailed it in one.

Bush Basher,

Calling people names, insinuating they are racist or somehow horrible as human beings because they oppose Islam and actually say so, it just doesn't work anymore.

The power of the those words, once so important and meaningful, is so worn out with the misuse just as you did then. It'll be a shame for future minorities who are ever actually abused won't it.

Sorry to be angry but this kind of snide *oh u nazi racist* when some dislikes Islam is just so pathetic and has done so much damage it has held up progress by shoving people so firmly into their corners.

dear meredith,

1) i didn't call anyone names. but now i will.

2) i am not excusing anyone. if keysar wrote a nasty hate speech, and it sure wouldn't surprise me, then i'll join you in damning him. will you join me in damning the hate speech of pat robertson and jerry falwell?

3) what i regard as "horrible as human beings" is the sleazy guilt by association, the ludicrous identification of muslims as a homogenous group. that's how pericles nailed it. just read his highlighted paragraph again.

4) i regard such sleaze as particularly horrible when it is done with arrogant god-blessed sanctimony. particular OLO "christians" have turned this into an art form – to the extent that slinging feces against a wall can constitute art.

Bush Basher says: "gee, the gang's all here. and what a charming gang they are. pericles nailed it in one."

meredith responds: "Calling people names, insinuating they are racist or somehow horrible as human beings because they oppose Islam and actually say so, it just doesn't work anymore."

Hey, meredith, a tad off target aren't you?

Which part of Bushy's post (which I've quoted in full) is 'name-calling'?
Which part insinuates people are 'racist'?
Which part insinuates people are 'horrible as human beings'?

It's an age-old debating trick to deflect attention away from a very thin argument to suggest the other side has been hitting below the belt. Maybe that's not your intention. Maybe you just got Bush Basher mixed up with Gibo, Polycarp, Leigh or runner?

Well said john frum. You wrote exactly what I had in mind when I read this article. The author plays the same old record on 'islamophobia' that we've heard too many times. As other reactions state very rightly: this word is only being used as a means to stifle any criticism of Islam. And we always hear the same thing: There is no single Islam, the religion has many faces, so you can't expect Muslims to protest in masses against the atrocities in Mumbai, to name just one thing. However, it is no problem to get masses on the streets to demonstrate against the hijab ban in France, to demand the death of Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoonists, or to burn American or Israeli flags. But when it comes down to condemnation of the genocide in Darfur, where one group of Muslims kills another group of Muslims, when it comes down to condemnation of the pathetically labelled 'insurgents' in Iraq (how about 'thugs'?) who slaughter their fellow-Muslims by the thousands, when it comes down to the terrorists in Mumbai, who gunned down a Muslim family (only one of the kids, 5 years old, survived) that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (train station), it is impossible to get the masses on the streets to finally say: Enough is enough, we don't want any more slaughter in the name of our religion. Instead of this silence, utter silence.

I've been a bit busy, but I have to say that this is a great article that has elicited predictable responses from the bigoted rabble that Pericles accurately characterises as "Boaz camp-followers". I'm no fan of Islam (nor any other religion), but it's pretty clear to me that Islamophobia provides a contemporary outlet for frustrated xenophobes and racists to express their odious hatred for those people who are culturally and/or ethnically different from them.

It seems to me that Islamophobia is every bit as threatening to world peace as is Islamism - probably more, because those who engage in it tend to reside in wealthy Western nations that need to have an alien Other to demonise, and which have lots and lots of weaponry and soldiers who need to be deployed somewhere.

It's nice to see that Leigh has gotten over his identity crisis, but curious that he pretends he doesn't know that Porkyboaz is still mired in his own pathetic deception.

Where is this widespread Islamophobia that we must guard against?
I don't see it.

I see leftist activists trying desperately to shield radical Islamists, who they see as comrades in the fight to overturn the current order.

But Islamophobia will come, unless ordinary Muslims begin to condemn the Islamist radicals. Until they do that, until Muslims living in western countries start caring more about those countries and less about their Ummah brethren in Palestine (or wherever), until the ordinary Muslim demonstrates that he cares more about his neighbor (be they Christian, or Jew, or Hindu) than about the latest Muslim martyr somewhere in the world, until he does that, he will be subject to growing suspicion by his neighbors.

Because the terror problem is now identified as due to Islamism. If Muslims do not tackle it, the problem may be identified as Islam, rather than Islamism, and the consequences would be terrible indeed.

Much wringing of hands, I notice.

>>it is impossible to get the masses on the streets to finally say: Enough is enough, we don't want any more slaughter in the name of our religion. Instead of this silence, utter silence<<

KeesB, that post was all very drama-queen emotional, but you forget: these are terrorists we are talking about.

I did not see too many Christian masses on the street when the IRA and UDA were at each other's throats, with innocent civilians both caught in the crossfire and deliberately targeted.

In fact, I saw collection tins in Boston bars raising money from supposedly good Christian family men, for guns and bombs to continue the slaughter.

Those who cannot tell the difference between barbaric acts of individual terrorism and acts of outright war are condemned to live in constant fear.

The problem arises when they take it upon themselves to communicate this fear and loathing to others unable to think clearly for themselves.

Try to have a hate-free Christmas, everybody.

HAS IT OCCURRED TO ANYONE?

.....that if this article had not been printed.... published.. no-one would be saying any of the things it has attracted here (from either side).....

The problem with articles whining about "Islamophobia" is that they actually CREATE IT......

TRTL...you said a very valuable thing:

<<"The other explanation is that within the billion Islamic people, there are indeed violent lunatics, who will target the moderates who are willing to speak out.">>

GOOD GRIEF...why has it taken you so long to get this? and accordingly, to understand why people tend to highlight the things about Islam which are the ideological fuel FOR those 'violent lunatics'.

If you don't attack the idea...there is no point in complaining about those who follow it...

This is where you will begin (hopefully) to understand why an understanding of (bloody) Surah (bloody) 9 is so important.

Islam is a religion which is based on the written Word and recorded History of it's prophet.
With all due respect and honesty... this is where your approach seems weakest..in not recognizing that ALL Muslims without exception will agree with this.

Where the 'moderates' and 'lunatics' diverge is:

[The degree that they decide to apply that word and example to modern life.] (especially in demographic minority status locations)

What I feel some in the 'Pericles' camp don't appreciate is that the 'degree' of application does vary with the percieved political/military/social power of the Muslim community.

Can you disagree with that?

Polycarp shouts:

".....that if this article had not been printed.... published.. no-one would be saying any of the things it has attracted here (from either side)....."

Does this make it the only site in the whole world where this issue is being debated?

"The problem with articles whining about "Islamophobia" is that they actually CREATE IT......"

So David, if we printed lots of articles about Islamophilia, we would actually create it?

Now there's a thought at CHRISTmas. Love not hate! Perhaps if we talked more about love and less about hate, we'd all be better off?

Quote: Unfortunately, Islamophobia - the discrimination against Muslims- still prevails in Australia, and even appears in On Line Opinion, supposedly a quality Australian e-journal of social and political debate.

So says Guzeldeniz. I would like to comment on something that I have noticed elsewhere and is well illustrated by this quote: to Muslims and their friends words have different meanings.

Has anybody at OLO censured Muslims? Has Boaz banned them from posting? Has Pericles or TRTL been making special rules to deprive them of jobs or housing? Please tell me who here at OLO is doing this vile thing?

What she means is that we (some of us) are CRITICIZING Islam. I saw this same thing when a Muslim woman I know wrote to an Islamic website (altmuslim) saying that "Muslims are persecuted everywhere". Really?

What she and Guzeldeniz are saying is what most Muslims appear to believe: that criticizing Islam and Muslims is a form of persecution or discrimination. They don't understand that this is called free speech and is a fundamental right. Actually most Muslims have very little experience with this Western ideal and they don't like it. As I have said before, Muslim values are not Western values. This explains the human rights situation in Islamic societies. Muslims have double standards, or different standards.

This is one more reason why I believe the future will not be nice. I blame both the terrorists and the so-called moderates who refuse to be honest about their religion, its teachings and practice.

Polycarp, you say "good grief, how has it taken you so long to get this?"

It hasn't taken me long. It's patently obvious and I've always been aware of that. I've never denied the existence of these lunatics and I've always believed this is the reason why the majority moderates are afraid to speak out.

Now, your turn.

Good grief! How as it taken you so long to realise that this is the reason why they're not speaking out, instead of this scriptural rubbish which can be interpreted in any way anybody wants?

How can you honestly say "How can you only now realise this!" with such a straight face, when the point I was making was that the moderates aren't the problem, it's the fringe elements?

Polycarp... I mean, really - can't you see the foolishness of this? My point is at odds with yours. You're claiming it's because of the text that the movement in its entirety is bad. I'm claiming that there are dangerous fanatics who spread fear amongst the reasonable majority.

And it's the fanatics who are willing to use the scriptural things to attack others. That I can accept.

All the more reason to rubbish such a scriptural mindset, even if we must study it to understand this pathological problem.

Meredith - I wasn't targetting Christians in their entirety. I was targeting those who paint a simple view of a clash of religions.

(See above)

Most, but not all, of these people tend to be fundamentalist Christians with a one-track mind. I've no problem with reasonable people of any religion.

I just dislike nutbags who take all this ancient voodoo stuff seriously, and use it to try and hammer other people.
There are plenty of dangerous muslim fanatics out there doing it.

Though there's a few fanatics of a different stripe doing it right here, too. Granted, they don't use violence as far as I know, but they attempt to mobilise public opinion which can lead to ostracism, begetting violence.

Better to combat this fanaticism wherever you see it.

We have Keysar Trad describing white people as Dregs.
We have Hilali's comments. We have the supposedly moderate Auburn muslim leader asking for Lebanese rioters to not be jailed by rewarded.

Bush-Basher,
True, you didn’t technically call anyone names but I can see you well knew what I meant… It’s cool you will join me in condemning Trad…*if* he wrote a nasty hate speech. Well he did and here it is:

“The criminal dregs of white society…“
http://worldwar111.blogspot.com/2006/02/racisim-islamic-response.html

Bush-Basher, condemn away… Pericles?

Kactus and JFrum, I agree. Seems most people agree that dislike of Islam is ok and not Islamphobia. The majority seems to want Muslim-moderates or apologists to take responsibility and make some positive steps. This OLO article supports Trads racist-Islam, here’s a chance for them to start…

Sedat, Do you mean Lebanese riots after Cronulla? Locals labeled *white-supremacists* for one day of deeply regretted drunken violence over long-term attacks on Cronulla's women and a life-guard... Yet the Auburn revenge-attacks shut down East-Sydney and were a whole week of stone cold sober calculated vandalizing and violence and they‘re not criticized but termed heroic by the new Mufti, I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.

Drunkenness is never an excuse but that proud soberness is chilling as there is full intent with no remorse.

TRTL, Yes, sorry, I jumped to fast. I'm Atheist and generally ignore religion until they’re killing over it. So I ask you to add up the tally list for who’s killin’ everyone these days… Like the Christians are slaughtering the odd abortionist here and there but the Muslims are in a murderous frenzy. It fries my head, when people say they are all equally as bad… Religious death tolls these days say different.

We can’t rid the people of beliefs, we can just do our best to protect secularism. Which is starting to slip right now with Sharia-courts in the UK and Aboriginal-courts in Oz. Also the Christian-right and Humanist-left in a sense.

I think Muslim apostasy is in urgent need of help and our government should be lobbied to help people leave Islam in safety. I also think we need to protect secularism by strengthening any laws that may allow any religious legislation slip by.

Problem wise? Islam is it due to its urgent death-toll.

I am still waiting for the auther Nursel Guzeldeniz to provide just one example of an Muslim country that behaves in the manner she wishes.

There are at least 52 countries that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries so she has plenty to chose from.

Bearing in mind however it would have to have the same standards of democracy and openess as exists in the country she chooses to live in.

Come on Nursel-- pick one

Dear Spikey.. quite a good point.. speak more about love than hate.

Specially at Christmas time.

I know one thing. The Love that Jesus epitomized and spoke of is the only one which can redeem lost souls and renew broken societies.
It would make an interesting topical study "Love.. as Jesus spoke and lived it".

TRTL... now that we are in agreement that the 'lunatics' are the problem, and that they intimidate the moderates.. we can now progress to the next level which is the 'ideological'.

THAT....is where the moderate Muslims struggle in combatting the loud raucous voices of the radicals.

You see.. the basis for the radicals position is in fact the Quran and Hadith.. even correctly interpreted.

One classic example that I'm sure u've seen by now is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVF1zAEwEyY

What we need to focus on..is his use of Mohammad's personal example in asserting his position of justifying slaughter of non Muslims.

Now.. if a radical says this kind of thing to moderates.. would you expect a moderate peace loving muslim to condemn his own prophet to the face of such a person?

Therein lies the difficulty. IF.."Mohammad did it" then.. as Quran 33:21 says

"Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."

I don't mean to sound 'same old' here..but perhaps you could investigate this yourself a little? Why not ask some Muslims this simple question:

"Is Prophet Mohammad the defining example of how a Muslim should behave and act?"

Then.. you could add (if ur cheeky) "Even in war?"... and you could ask them if surah 9:29 should be understood as Caliph Omar understood it when he was invading the Persians :)
But u'll probably find that very few of them even know the hadith on which this is based.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: Please read this to see how they interpreted Quran 9:29

Porkycrap: << ...now that we are in agreement that the 'lunatics' are the problem... >>

I'm also in agreement.

Trouble is, Porky doesn't realise that he's one of the 'lunatics'.

Boazy/ Polycarp and the fellowship:

Just tying to keep you honest:

• You said: “Many groups such as Salafi and Wahabi and Hizb Ut Tahrir have a very aggressive and militant view of their faith”

o Salafis and Wahabis are old fashioned orthodox who do not equate muslims and others but they don’t allow violence against non-muslims.. There is probably 10 Millions of the 1.5 billion muslims at best estimate.
o Hizb is a politically motivated youth groups who have a hand full of followers in a number of countries including Australia. They only appeal to misguided 17 year old disgruntled youth. Also, I never heard that this mob allow violence against non-Muslims.

• Above groups can be around 0.1% of total Muslim population at best. The question is, if you want to judge a faith by its followers, why not pick up a sect that makes a large percentage (15-20%)and its fastest growing one? Sufism (Mystic Islam is the most peace form of spirituality and here is an article by the Christian Science monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p13s02-lire.html?page=2

• Reason of revelation for your famous obsession (surah 9:29) by researcher and historian Sami Zaatari:

“One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion”.

So it was a circumstantial issue during a direct time of war and not a legislative verse.

Try intellectual honesty next time.
Peace,

Polycarp
Does this mean anything to you?
BAQQRRTY GITTLLIACK

dear meredith,

1) i not only didn't "technically" call anyone names, i didn't in any remote sense call anyone names. however, i do extend a sincere apology to all poo–throwing monkeys: my metaphor was unfair to them.

2) i'll happily beat up on keysar on the appropriate thread, but this decidedly isn't it. you exactly miss the point. the point here is exactly guilt by association, using specific nasty examples to unfairly slime millions of people. once again, please take pericles' quoted paragraph to heart.

as for keysar, you should just be patient: he'll undoubtedly be back soon with nonsense to attack.

3) "this kind of snide *oh u nazi racist* when some dislikes Islam is just so pathetic"

there are two problems here:

a) talk of dislike of "islam", as opposed to muslims, is abstracting the religion from the practitioners. if dislike ("hatred" is more accurate) of muslims isn't the actual issue then who the hell cares? be honest.

and at least, if you're going to abstract, please acknowledge that those doing the abstraction in this thread are doing it with the utmost arrogance and in the utmost bad faith. you want to talk about hate? look back at the posts on this thread. you really think you're standing with the good guys?

b) yes, criticism of "islam", and coherent groups of people, is fair game. and yes, such criticism is sometimes deflected by screams of "racism" (or whatever). but, that doesn't make all criticism reasonable or well intentioned. screaming that people are screaming racism is just as much open to scam.

the fact of the matter is, that much of the criticism on this thread is factless, dishonest and loathsome. and, many of us have seen this same hate filled nonsense on thread after thread after bloody-boaz-bloated thread.

Fadi Abdul Rahman

THis man. He is the youth leader guy. I don't know if he has a real job except collecting government grants.

He said the Middle Eastern rioters shouldnt be jailed by rewarded with youth programs.

He complained a Korean focussed church was built where there was once a Muslim focussed youth centre. Koreans are hard working and have earnt far more than the islamics.

Not to mention the thing that started the exposition of racist-bigot-muslims in Australia was the murder of Korean school boy Edward Lee by racist muslim thugs.

Not another wave of racially motivated gang rapes please!

So many people who post here don't get the message that Islam is simply a superstition like any other, Moslems should understand this, it has absolutely no rights. Careful analysis of the contents of the Koran are a waste of time, anything can be extracted from that collection of gibberish. Attempts to equate criticism of the Koran with a violation of Moslems' human rights are sinister and a threat to our freedoms, whining about "Islamohobia" is often a smoke screen to shut the Kaffurs up. I'll repeat my earlier call and join others here--name a progressive,liberal democratic Moslem nation, all Islamic countries are basically dependent on the West. After all Islamophobia is a far less dangerous disease than Kaffurophobia which often proves fatal-to others.

Bush basher

Well... This article is in large part about Kayser Trad.

Even if you have some special little bit of logic that that means it is the wrong string to talk about him in.. doesn't mean we all do...

no, the article is not "in large part about trad". it is extremely remotely about trad.

trad's OLO column is referred to exactly because of the *responses* to trad's column, which - whatever the merits of trad's column, and i couldn't see them - were largely off-topic, fact free, pointlessly nasty, and reduced everything to an absurd and deliberately obtuse "islam is bad" rant. just as, as pericles predicted, has happened in this thread.

the topic of this thread is guilt by association, whether all muslims should be stained by the actions of the nasty few. or, if you like, whether all christians should be regarded as disgusting because of poisonous toads like boaz-polycarp.

once again:

*) read pericles' paragraph

*) look at the thread and see where from where the hate is really emanating.

BB,

This is the last I want to converse with you, it’s not going to go anywhere and posts are preciously limited here. So you can have last say in you like.. names n all.. I don't care, as I said it doesn't work anymore.

To get to the point, a lot of people really resent attempts at censorship. People will discuss what they like, where they like and when they please. You need to come to terms with this.

Again just especially for you, in case maybe you’d like to put your hand up against racism:

“ The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us. And because we are not elitists, we tolerate them. Yet they want us to assimilate “

http://worldwar111.blogspot.com/2006/02/racisim-islamic-response.html

This is real racism, hard core racism.. At the level of KKK intensity. This is what the author, Nursul, as we, should be fighting.

Bushbasher

Read this and then tell me where the hate comes from, Bushbasher.

Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 20 December 2008 11:58:33 AM

"the topic of this thread is guilt by association, whether all muslims should be stained by the actions of the nasty few. or, if you like, whether all christians should be regarded as disgusting because of poisonous toads like boaz-polycarp.
once again:
*) read pericles' paragraph
*) look at the thread and see where from where the hate is really emanating."
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 20 December 2008 11:58:33 AM

Read this and then tell me where the hate comes from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html
Especially read the reader's comments- hopefully they will open your eyes.

Fifteen years ago, I knew nothing at all about Islam. I thought it was just another religion, that people had a right to practice in freedom, allowing others to have their religion or not have a religion at all, in other words "FREEDOM".

Most of what I have learned about it since, is bad.

Obviously, I don't suggest that ALL muslims are wicked. Unfortunately, they have done nothing to condemn and stop the extremists in their midst. We can only assume that they agree with them, or at least don't mind what they are doing.

Islam is NOT just another religion, it is also a totalitarian political system, with territorial ambitions, fuelled by Saudi money.

Australia is but a few steps behind what is happening in the UK.
When will you get it?

Bushbasher

Tell me again where the hate comes from:

Note the dateline of this article, just a few weeks ago....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23584232-details/Islamic+radicals+make+mockery+of+hate+laws/article.do

People, please! Calm down for a moment.

There's a fundamnental disconnect here, which is causing the argument, rather than the core issues.

The real argument is not whether there are extremist Islamic groups. The answer is that 'yes' there are. This has never been disputed (so polycarp, drop the smug "now we agree" crap).

The disagreement is whether Islam in its totality should be treated with hostility, or whether the individual groups should be criticised.

Nobody is saying violent groups should not be criticised. What is being said, is that grouping them all as one is retarded because this can only lead to increased violence.

So, the links people put forward need to be placed in context - are you simply saying "look! Look! Violent fanatics!"

If so, I say, well, duh. To those who are saying Islam in its entirety is a threat, I would first ask what your goal is.

Nobody is discussing the realities of this dunderheaded approach.

Those hostile critics of the entire religion need to accept a few home truths:

1) There's a billion muslims in the world - most don't commit violence, even if there're many fanatical groups making problems.

2) Islam is not going to disappear. Therefore, anyone with a modicum of sense can see we need to find a way to co-exist with the majority.

3) The moment you say the violent interpretation is the "correct" one, you lose all ability to encourage moderacy.
You can't say "shucks, your religion is actually violent and evil and if you were a true follower you would be too, but hey, be nice."

The truth is, there's no "right" answer. Only different ways to live life.

There are sections of the Qu'ran which forbid violence. Encouraging people to follow these is more effective than insulting them for the bits which don't.

(Polycarp, I know I'm about to make an ad-hominem statement, but how stupid can you be? Can't you see that telling people the only "right" way to follow their religion is to be violent, can only lead to an angry response?)

Cont'd

(They're hardly going to drop their religion and proclaim the glory of yours. Drop the "my religion is better than yours" crap and talk sense).

It can't be denied that other people are CAPABLE of making non-violent interpretations.

There is no umpire or arbiter of what's right.

There are no rules on how you can or can't follow the religion, as evidenced by the many kinds of muslims listed in Pericles's opening quotation. Gay muslims exist, therefore anything is possible.

The lines are not black and white. The only sure thing here is that there are idiotic approaches to the situation which can only result in more violence.

My conclusion is those who make out that Islam is a monolithic evil enemy have no solutions to the fact that we live in a globalised world.
They have no answer to the fact that we CAN'T just ignore them and hope they go away.
We CAN'T allow the fringe movements to define the majority, or it's us that creates a bigger enemy.
Combat extremism wherever you find it, but leave the moderates alone. It's the ONLY way forward - the only result of these hostile approaches can be more violence.

Have you stopped to realise this? Can't you see that's the only possible result of pushing them too far and putting them in a box?
Even if you BECOME right, and Islam does become a monolithic front, then you're still dumber than the people who said they weren't.
Don't you see this is the end result of making life more difficult for so many people?
You really think an "I told you so" will really help you've helped make this the only possible result?

The fundamentalists want this. It seems polycarp, you want to give it to them. That's why I fight your approach.

I don't want to give them what they want.

You do.

The "push back" approach only works when you push the right people. Push the wrong people, and you just push them in the wrong direction.

So stop acting like children. Examine the consequences of this approach.

Nursel,

I wrote this partly because you claimed OLO is supposedly a quality e-journal. Yet I find your article hollow; dishonest and poor in analysis.

(1)... You mentioned "root-cause of violence".
You're not even remotely close to definitively identify a root cause of violence. Yet you leaped to an unknown "international legal system". Are you for real??
I think your "legal system" is hollow, only high-sounding gibberish with which you'd hoped to gain some semblence of credibility when writing.

(2)... Use of Islamophobe labels
When is criticism of Islam not IslamoPHOBIC, Can you tell ??
It is very typical of pretenders, to say "I am an atheist...", to claim neutrality, as if that puts them on a morality high-ground, making it easier to throw stones and label their opponents below.
Anyone who pretends to promote anti-violence, equality and justice, who then also attack opponents with sweeping labels; is disingenuous and cannot be trusted.

(3)... Diversity in the Muslim world
You listed roughly more than 40 Muslim types. But do you really know 40 different Muslim individuals, all with very diversed non-Islamic characteristics??
Or ummm..., did you simply made them up to score points??
Or... may be you actually referred to just a handful of Muslims that you know?? Like ONE single Muslim who is not sure she's a Muslim; who never read Koran; a liberal & secular Muslim; a leftist socialist Muslim; a Muslim with reality-show-addictions; a homosexual Muslim; an arty funky Muslim; a feminist Muslim; sexually liberal Muslim; a Muslim who drinks alcohol....and the list goes on.
Further on:
* Among more than 27 million population in Saudi Arabia, how many diversed homosexual Muslims are there??
* What happened to that Muslim who was caught drinking alcohol??
* When was the last protest match by marginalised feminist Muslims??

Nursel,
Come on, give us a break and come clean with some honest facts, some integrity.
You cannot always count on the likes of Pericles for moral supports.

If your article is trashy, you don't honestly want "better quality audience" on OLO, do you??
What's "better quality audience" to you??

I don’t think that TRTL’s comment should stand unsupported as they might lose their impact so consider this again:

“We CAN'T allow the fringe movements to define the majority, or it's us that creates a bigger enemy.
Combat extremism wherever you find it, but leave the moderates alone. It's the ONLY way forward - the only result of these hostile approaches can be more violence.”

If this remark was written in regard to humanity as a whole it’s pretty certain that most of us would see the sense in it. We don’t let ourselves be defined by the misguided, the aberrant, the mentally unsound, or by the sociopaths, psychopaths and the deranged. Rather than decry humanity – in its entirety – as a failed experiment that should be scoured from the face of the earth, we look for solutions, deterrants, and strategies.

We would all like to believe that our own personal beliefs represent not only the truth but the standard by which truth can be measured. Who amongst us espouses a cause, a political policy, a belief or a religion passionately believing it has no merit or is incorrect?

Over the last fifty years technology, communication and increased education have all combined to make us more and more aware of those around us. The poster who admitted he has only recently become aware of Islam is like millions of others - encountering things for the first time because our communication is expanding. More and more people who sincerely believe that their truth is THE truth are encountering each other. We have to find way of dealing with that other than wiping each other from the face of the earth.

It is not, as we are all aware, the extremists of any movement that are going to build assimilation and tolerance. Let’s, by all means, condemn and deter them. But denying that moderation exists and searching out differences rather than commonalities is, as a couple of people have pointed out, extremist.

Only by discouraging extremism and acknowledging moderation WHEREVER IT EXISTS can peace be achieved.

TRTL says:

"There are sections of the Qu'ran which forbid violence."

Unfortunately this is not true. The over whelming bulk of the Koran is violent towards non believers and jews- full stop- as this assessment in the New English Review reveals

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/28244/sec_id/28244

OZZIE....... I see you have be exercising some skills there.

1/ Let me mention some thing which might or..might not mean something to you.

2/ If you were associated with the period concerned, then you would be aware of a pattern of behavior by some from that time which incuded torture, both psychological and physical. (there is no other word for it)

3/ I hope for your sake, that you don't know the person and had nothing to do with sadistic behavior.

4/ If you are not directly connected to that place and people then I advise you to forget all that you have seen fit to look at -it doesn't concern you personally.

6/ Does this mean anything to you "The Count of Monte Cristo" ?

If you have a personal interest in the matter rather than just curiosity you can email me at polycarp111@yahoo.com

F.H. I welcome your attempt to interact re 9:29
Your problem with the provided explanation is that it does not address the use of the verse by Al Mughirah during Omars invasion of Persia.
No amount of contextual 'fantasies' can change the fact that Mughira directly linked the invasion (offensive) with 9:29
I'm happy to debate this to the bitter end :) but with you there is no bitterness.

I think that Islamophobia is far more likely to incite violence in Australian society than the religion of Islam ever will.

TRTL sums it up well.

The volume and instensity of Islamophobic sentiment expressed in this forum attest to the truths in Nursel Guzeldeniz's perceptive article.

Allah help us :)

TO ANYONE THAT'S REALLY INTERESTED ,in the subject of the article, the origins and purposes of "Islamophobia" are examined in Gina Kahn's diary on the "Butterflies and Wheels" website.
www.butterfliesandwheels.com

Nursel,
For your benefit, Bigmal pointed to a website that provided a clue about major root causes of violence (and terrorism).

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/28244/sec_id/28244

The information there more or less confirms my numerous claims that Islam is based on Mohammed's lies.
(1)...How important is Mohammed to Islam? A whooping 86% of total text.
(2)...How important is Allah to Islam? Only 14% of the Koranic text.
(3)...How important is kafirs (non-believers) to Islam? A disturbing 61% of text devoted to kafirs, meaning the Koran is actually a book to wage wars.

Mohammed never met a heavenly Angel like he claimed. He lied in order to establish Islam, (to benefit himself foremost). The Islam religion had made Mohammed a very successful warrior against his opponents, the non-believers.
I believe Mohammed did not care about Islam when he died. He wouldn't need Islam then.
But he probably did not foresee that Islam took on a life of its own, grew and grew so large that millions of faithful stomp on Mecca every years, causing great pollution.

And all those poor Muslims thought they pray to a godhead called Allah, (which weighs only 14% in Islamic text).

Haha..ha... (I guess I really ought to hold my laughter, not out of respect though)

BTW, that website did not fully explain why Koranic material is obscure; difficult to understand; horrible and contradictory.
Well, a missing explanation is very simple - Koran had never come from a godhead of infinite wisdom in the first place. It was only the WORK OF AN ILLITERATE MAN, A LIAR - Mohammed.

A report from an Indian newspaper

>Lucknow (IANS): A section of Muslims here has offered special prayers for the early release of Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi who hurled shoes at US President George W. Bush, a cleric said on Saturday. The prayers have been organised in prominent seminaries and mosques in Lucknow on the call of the Islamic Centre of India, said Maulana Khalid Rasheed, who heads the city's oldest Islamic seminary Firangi Mahal. Maulana Rasheed told IANS: "We will continue to hold such prayers till Zaidi is freed." <

How about holding prayers until Pakistan shuts down the terror camps? How about praying for the victims in Mumbai? How about dealing with the many problems in India itself?

It is this identification with co-religionists in a faraway land, at the expense of your fellow countrymen that will breed Islamophobia. Would their neighbors be wrong in asking where the loyalty of these people resides?

And these same people who so curse Bush... what about Yahya Khan? What about "Tiger" Niazi? This is the 37th anniversary of the Genocide in then East Pakistan when MILLIONS of men, women and children were killed. The systematic extermination of all doctors, teachers, intellectuals, the entire educated east Bengali class, by the Pakistan Army.

No prayers for them - no war crimes trials for the killers - why?
Because the murderers were Muslim? Because the genocide was conducted by an Islamic state?

Why is justice for the millions of Bengali genocide victims not part of the long list of Muslim grievances to be protested, to be used as justification for terror attacks somewhere?

GZ

Sorry you are wrong. The New English paper referred to above and which you say doesnt explain why the Koran is so difficult to follow does do so.

"The foundational texts of Islam[1]--the Trilogy--suffer from being deliberately difficult. It is clear to anyone who reads these texts that every effort has been made to make the material obscure and difficult. There are two reasons for this obscurity. First, difficult texts make for a secure job for the priestly caste—the imams and scholars. If the text is clear in meaning, then no help is needed to understand it etc ..."

CJ Morgan Why dont you do some proper homework on the issues raised instead of peddling your puerile nonsense.

Since when has the search for the truth been something that should be avoided just because it might hurt someones delusional beliefs.

What is being shown is that there are very good reasons for the existence of Islamophobia, however defined--these reasons may not be palatable but they are truths than need to be brought out into the open.

bigmal: << Why dont you do some proper homework on the issues raised instead of peddling your puerile nonsense >>

Why is it "puerile nonsense" to state the obvious? Islam didn't cause the disgraceful Cronulla race riot, but Islamophobia certainly was a causal factor. What are certainly puerile are comments like this from GZ:

<< Haha..ha... (I guess I really ought to hold my laughter, not out of respect though) >>

I seem to recall that both GZ and bigmal are Christians, which sort of makes their objections to Islam rather hypocritical, doesn't it? Like Islam, their religion is based on fanciful myths of Iron Age Middle Eastern pastoralists, which have been written down later in convoluted texts whose meaning their credulous adherents have been arguing about ever since.

Perhaps bigmal could have another go at doing his own "homework", since his last effort shows little evidence of comprehension of "the issues".

Well, it seems Ms Guzeldinez has succeeded in clouding the already clouded issue.

The hatred of muslims is one thing, and the criticism of Islam is another thing. The hatred of muslims should be discouraged, but the criticism of Islam should be encouraged, it is long overdue.

Lumping these two things together and calling it Islamophobia does nothing to help the situation. Calling someone Islamophobic would be like calling someone here Truthophobic. Just about everyone here would take offence at being called Truthophobic (irrational fear of the truth). And as we know, the moment one starts using ad hominem, it is evidence that their argument is weak.

Police began to use selective law enforcement. They selected targets that were unlikely to use their ethnic background and cultural beliefs to hinder police investigations or arrests. It was mostly Anglo Saxons and Asians that were the targets, because they were under represented by religious leaders and the media. They were soft targets.

Racist bigot Muslims raping and killing white Australians prompted the Cronulla riots where only 5 or so brown people got bashed.

Polycarp,
I know nothing of this matter. I just noted that in one of your previous posts you appeared to give too much reference to a particular article. By searching for some of those terms in the article I was easily able to find what/who/where you were talking about. So just be careful. Hope you understand this.
regards, ozzie.

It seems to me a number of commenters are confusing their personal biases and fears (faith) with public policy and hijacking all mention of Muslim/Islam as a stalking horse to unload to gain more relevance. (“praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” mentality)

The issue was to about giving Australian Muslims a fair go and that Islam isn’t Arabic for terrorist any more than all Christians share the ‘Brethren’ or ‘Branch Dravidians’ world view.

CJ is literally correct. There already has been several orders magnitude of misery caused by Christians in AUSTRALIA than from Islam. Much of the grief today between the two religions in Australia is caused by ‘so called Christians’ allegedly in the name of Christianity.

Much of the bigotry and discrimination to Muslims goes unreported because many fear retaliation.
i.e. I chased off three youths on bikes that were riding past, kicking at and screaming religious abuse at a diminutive Muslim woman with three small children simply walking to the shops. She was fearful of laying a complaint even though she knew one attacker.

The real purpose of any organization is to focus authority/leadership and therefore GZ interpretation as to the arcane nature of the Koran is valid one but not the only one. But what is missed is that the same could be said of the Bible and Christianity (or any other organized religion and text). It is simply not reasonable to read the texts from another cultural faith and then claim absolute insight. Christianity is more than just the Bible.

The idea there are two faiths in the world “Mine and the wrong one” is beneath contempt as it degrades their own religion as much as the target. In reality everyone is entitled to believe in what ever faith THEY chose. The problem comes about when individuals confuse their rights as an individual with public policy. Christians have no more right to impose their views on public policy than does anyone else. Neither is ridicule an viable argument.
Human rights in a democracy aren’t conditional on being of a faith less odious than someone else’s.

Calling any criticism of Islam by the epithet "Islamophobia" is just a way for Islamists and their apologists to deflect justified criticism of their religion.

“Irrational fear of Islam.”

If fear of Islam is irrational, then fear of any other totalitarian and authoritarian political and social system, like Nazism or Communism, for example, must be equally irrational.

Unfortunately for the Islamists, there is just too much evidence of the real nature of their so-called "religion of peace" to be ignored. If you can’t acknowledge that, then you are not being honest.

I don't so much FEAR Islam, as I DESPISE it.

Like all these other "isms", it will be defeated eventually, but the question is, at what cost?

Is it not sensible to seek to minimise the problem by reducing the number of Muslims in the West?

If they want to come here and adapt to our system, fine. They would need to cut out about 80% of the Koran in order to do so.

In Europe, and even here in Australia, Muslims are asserting their religion, its precepts and its authoritarianism to take precedence over the tolerant and free society we have in the West. A strong response is needed to discourage this, and to encourage moderation.

Islam needs a Reformation before it can be compatible with democracy and our way of life.

C J Morgan, your viewpoint is confused. It is true, as you say, that Islam has come from the same root as Judaism and Christianity, but there the similarity ends.

The Cronulla riots were the result of a massive failure by the NSW Labour Government to keep control of Lebanese Muslim thugs and their transgressions at Cronulla Beach for many years prior.

Your mentioning the Cronulla riots is just an attempt to divert the conversation on to a subject well covered at the time and since. Please desist.

As an agnostic, my view is that all religion is irrational, but I can live with Judaism and Christianity, because they are no longer dangerous to my freedom not to believe. With Islam, the opposite is the case.

Dear Ozzie...

thanx for that. Glad you are not connected to the events..or the memories.

I'm trying now to glean testimonies from other blokes (from my course) who experienced the same disgusting and degrading violence as I did.

If you ever wonder where my strong sense of 'justice' comes from...that would be one of the defining moments (that period of my life).. the other was an 8 yr stint in Malaysia.

Did you tweak to my reference to the Count of Monte Cristo ? :)

Think about that one mate...

-What happened to him ?
-What did he do about it?
-Did it take a long time?
-How did things end up for those who mistreated him?

aaah.. by answering those questions.. you might just be reading a real life screenplay of my life :)

BACK to "Islamophobia". I'd just like to reiterate the primary point that the "Phobia" part is by definition "irrational fear"...something which is the subject of considerable debate.

So...I have to support the author in one sense.. i.e. "No..let's not have a wave of irrational fear about Muslims".. rather.. (this is where I differ from the author) Let's have a good hard look at Islam from the theological and historical perspective and then..draw very rational conclusions about how we should frame our public policy.

Froggie,

A very good response by you. Right on the button.

As for CJ Morgan, you have had the gall to say that you had deduced that I, along with GZ, where christian.

Sorry but you have got that wrong as well. Just goes to show how not doing your homework properly makes one look a bit dopey.

Ahem. Allow me to reiterate my earlier comment and the following responses:

I state: "Have you stopped to realise this? Can't you see that's the only possible result of pushing them too far and putting them in a box?
Even if you BECOME right, and Islam does become a monolithic front, then you're still dumber than the people who said they weren't.
Don't you see this is the end result of making life more difficult for so many people?
You really think an "I told you so" will really help you've helped make this the only possible result?"

To which the rest of you go on harping about problems.

Well guess what?

You're not solving them. You're only making it worse.

Go back to the drawing board and come back with something constructive.

I'd make the point that if you really want to combat these problems, you should combat the extremist groups, whether or not they're representative of the 'accurate' Islam.

If they were the 'accurate' Islam (honestly as if any Christians or anybody else could be the judge of that) then lets encourage the muslims who follow an 'inaccurate' example huh?

Instead of reinforcing the idea that to be a muslim is to be violent, lets explore alternatives, because this is what I see:

I religion with a billion followers. Plus, several people who apparently, seem to think it's a good idea to tell these people that if they're genuine followers, they're violent.

What's the other option? Are they going to go away? Are all billion of them going to spontaneously convert because people started shouting at them?

Religion thrives on repression.

Do you see my point yet? Do you see the stupidity yet?

Good grief.

Nursel Guzeldeniz,

1. I haven't noticed where you have actually defined "Islamophobia" and given examples of what you regard as discrimination against Moslems. If someone ridiculed Mahommed in a cartoon, would that count as discrimination? Or if a Moslem taxi driver was fired for refusing to accept a blind man and his guide dog as passengers?

2. Your argument that the diversity of the Islamic world somehow justifies its silence in regard to Moslem terrorist atrocities is ridiculous, I'll remind you that many Christians protested against the Vietnam and both Gulf Wars,which were crimes committed by other Christians in government.

A thousand pardons to bigmal, whom I acknowledge is a secular Islamophobe. I'd be offended too if someone mistook me for a Christian.

The gall!

Froggie: << Your mentioning the Cronulla riots is just an attempt to divert the conversation on to a subject well covered at the time and since. Please desist. >>

I raised the Cronulla riots as an example of Islamophobic violence in Australian society, following up on my assertion that Islamophobia is far more likely to cause violence in Australian society than the religion of Islam is.

I appreciate that Islamophobes and their apologists mightn't like to be reminded of the consequences of their bigotry, but I have no intention of "desisting" in doing so.

Bassam and Bigmal are correct.

CJ Morgan is busy re-writing history with his comment: “ Islam didn't cause the disgraceful Cronulla race riot, but Islamophobia certainly was a causal factor”

Actually CJ, Islam DID indirectly cause the riots.

People weren’t AFRAID of Islam, they were just incensed by the aggressions of Muslim Lebanese thugs over several years. The real failure was that of the NSW authorities in not curbing these actions of the Lebanese.

Examinator: “In reality everyone is entitled to believe in what ever faith THEY chose.”

Yes, Examinator, that is true. It would be good if Islam would allow that, without making second-class citizens (Dhimmis) of the people who choose their own religion.

“The problem comes about when individuals confuse their rights as an individual with public policy. Christians have no more right to impose their views on public policy than does anyone else.” Absolutely, examinator.

Tell the Islamists the same thing. Maybe “death for apostasy” or “death for insulting Islam” or “Honour Killings” doesn’t rate with you as an imposition on public policy.

TRTL
“1) There's a billion muslims in the world - most don't commit violence, even if there're many fanatical groups making problems.

2) Islam is not going to disappear. Therefore, anyone with a modicum of sense can see we need to find a way to co-exist with the majority.

3) The moment you say the violent interpretation is the "correct" one, you lose all ability to encourage moderacy.
You can't say "shucks, your religion is actually violent and evil and if you were a true follower you would be too, but hey, be nice."”

My response:

1) There are indeed, more than a billion Muslims. Most don’t commit violence, but few censure the ones who do.
2) The only way to co-exist with Muslims is eject the 15-20% who support violent Jihad. The problem is who are the Jihadists, and finding the moral fibre to deport them.
3) Precisely why we must be strong against Islamism, to discourage extremists and encourage a reformation in Islam. As at today, it has not been reformed.

http://www.markhumphrys.com/islam.uk.html

jesus wept.

Ahh... how fascinating are the workings of the mind of the Islamophobe:

<< Actually CJ, Islam DID indirectly cause the riots.

People weren’t AFRAID of Islam, they were just incensed by the aggressions of Muslim Lebanese thugs over several years. The real failure was that of the NSW authorities in not curbing these actions of the Lebanese. >>

So a mob of drunken yobbos draped in Australian flags decide to exact vigilante justice on some people they assume are Lebanese and possibly Muslim.

How, exactly, did the religion of Islam contribute to that?

Jesus wept indeed.

I'M weeping.. don't worry about our Lord.. he is robust :)

Why am I ripping my hair out here?

Simple.. what the heck has the Cronulla Riots got to do with this thread?

errr.. nating.... nada..zip...

The Cronulla PROTEST.. was not about "Muslims" but the behavior over a long period of time of 'PEOPLE'. Knowing the mentality of some Maronite Lebanese.. the chances of some of them being mixed up in the behavior on racial grounds would be quite high.

The Cronulla PROTEST was triggered.. as in..the straw which broke the camels back.. by the bashing of the life guards by a particular ETHNIC group... it just so happened that they were also (from reports) Muslim.

That it all then spiralled out of control along racial and partly religious lines is history.

All this underlines forcefully the dangers and stupidity of encouraging cultural difference.

ISLAMOPHOBIA..is the "Irrational" fear.... so finally back to the topic.

There is nothing 'irrational' about the well founded fear of Muslims if you are Jewish "The last hour/Muslims kill the Jews"..
If ur Christian "Fight those who do not believe in Allah (etc) even if they are people of the book"(Jews&Christians)
"Kill them whereever you find them" (Polytheists/atheists)

Now..just on an issue of 'context'.. the last partial verse dome from good old Surah 9 which beGINS with Mohammad declaring "Allah as declared null and void all peace treaties" (paraphrase) THEN...just like NOW.."HAMAS has declared an end to the cease fire with Israel"
and of course.. the rockets and mortars began to fly.

IRRATIONALITY is that condition where the Author, CJ, Perilous,Bushbasher and ilk can look at a duck and say "woof woof" :)
(but still have a nice Chrissy CJ)

CJMorgan has posted over 2600 posts since 18/9/06...but so little new ideas...That has led me to believe CJMorgan is genuinely incapable of analysing complex issues. Hence his inability to relate Islam to being a root cause in Cronulla riot.

Conclusion-- CJMorgan has low IQ.

Albert Einstein & Laws of Physics-- An object is in constant motion/velocity, until a force acts on the object causing it to accelerate/decelerate.

Constant motion/velocity is quite "useless" because no work is performed. It's a FORCE acting on the object that matters because it performs work, causing the object to change behaviour.

In similar ways, a Muslim who's sexually-liberal/feminist/alcoholic/homosexual/single/career-minded is just that-- a common human, static in her way of enjoying an earthly living.

But what WILL change her behaviour is a constant FORCE.

Over time, her non-Islamic behaviours will be curtailed by various forces of Islam-- Her liberal companions become fewer; Families constantly presuade her to be more Islamic; Muslim communities bring pressure to bear; Imams try counselling her; Muslims around become explicit with threats; New Islamic edicts go against her behaviour; She's watched by secret Islamist morality squad.

Eventually she'll have NO CHOICE but to change according to all the Islamic forces.

You see...Existence of some "goodie-Muslims" actually does not prove Islam is good.
Rather, a possible tranformation of "goodies" to carry out unspeakable atrocities is testimony to evil forces within Islam!!

One day, perhaps a female suicide bomber will destroy Sydney Harbour Bridge, killing many.

Most people will puzzle how a previously sexually-liberal/alcoholic/homosexual female could ever be transformed to carry out such a terrorist act.

Nursel will argue wider Muslim communities should not apologise for actions of the suicide bomber because there're Muslims who are sexually-liberal/feminist/alcoholic/homosexual/single/career-minded, just like non-Muslims.
Pericles will be first to support Nursel's defense.
CJMorgan will stoically said: "How, exactly, did the religion of Islam contribute to that?"

And together, all three will blame non-Muslims for marginalising Australian Muslims, for causing that female to turn to extremist views; and also blame the police for not doing their jobs.

As someone who watches public administration and environmental law, let me take this discussion into another different, but, related direction.

Some years ago, Narwee High School (NSW, the alma mater of former Premier Morris Iemma) was closed as the majority ethic community made it effectively a 'no anglo' zone. This may or may not have been a deliberate move, however, what eventuated was that a Muslim group and Newington College sought to have the stewardship of the school transferred from the State to them.

Not wanting to be seen to favour one group over the other, the school was sold to Landcom and is currently being redeveloped for medium density housing. This position was then adopted as a (de facto) State policy - ie. any State school closure would not allow another private school to be established on the same site.

Recently, the Muslim community clandestinely purchased State land for the development of a school in Bass Hill and was recently allowed by the Land & Environment Court to develop a school on the site, despite Council refusal and being contrary to Government policy.

The question is, why has this been allowed, and would another school/ ethnic community have tried this and succeeded?

A similar development at Camden has also captured the public imagination. Some bus companies, via the Local Traffic Committee, have sought comment regarding the 'busing' in of students in exclusive male and female buses.

Do Muslims get a raw deal? Not compared to Christians in other countries. We have and allow the rule of law to assist all and sundry.

The fundamental issue that perplexes us all is how do you, in a society that allows free choice, cater for those who, at their earliest chance, will have that option taken away from us ?

Reality Check

That story is a local variant of what is happening on a global scale. The Saudis are pouring billions into the building of mosques and schools all over the western world.

But it is quite impossible for any western group to build a non Islamic edifice in Saudi arabia.There is NO reciprocity.

Further Muslims living in any western country can go anywhere at anytime in exactly the same as any other citizen. There is no discrimination of any sort.

But in Saudi Arabia the traffic signs to Mecca and Medina make non Muslims peel off and take different route.

Whilst Saudi Arabai is by far the worst,similar situations exist in other Islamic states, to varying degrees.

The fear that most western adminstrations have is that the schools that are built and controlled by the local Muslim community, end up teaching an extreme variant of Islam because that part of the curriculum is the condition attaching to the money.

This link from Hudson Institute on Saudi educational intolerance makes interesting reading.

http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/saudi_textbooks_final.pdf

GZ

CJ Morgan only appears to have a low IQ, because his brain is scrambled, by having to believe, due to his need for political correctness, in things contrary to the facts. When the facts go against what he believes, well, for him, it is the facts that have to change and hence his need to re-write history.

His inability to understand the real causes of the Cronulla affair, and also his ability to ignore the Muslim racist incidents which occurred after it, are ample evidence of this neural failure.

Now, if he, Bushbasher and Mr Periwinkle could only get past this PC disease, they would start to see things in the cold light of reality.

Enough of your calumny and effete nonsense, CJ Morgan! Stand up for your own culture- unless, of course you are a Muslim writing under a Welsh pseudonym :-)

Back to the subject:

More and more people are waking up to the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, and I believe the only way to counter this fundamentalism is to be strong and not give an inch.

No more mosques, no more Islamic schools, no more Muslim immigration, no more Korans and definitely NO to Sharia law.

The ONLY law to be obeyed in this country is Australian law, legislated by the Australian people through their democratic right to vote.

Any Muslim heard, read or seen to express hate-speech inciting violence against Australia, its western way of life or any other ethnicity or religion should be expelled immediately or sentenced to an extremely long term in prison.

The word “Kuffir” or anything similar shall be immediately black listed, and any Moslem saying it should be arrested and charged with racist speech.

No appeasement, no prevarication and no political correctness.

The moderate Muslims will eventually thank us for eliminating the extremists and we will not need to proceed to sterner measures in the future.

While I make no claims to genius, unlike G Z (or gz, GZ Tan, GZA1312 etc) I can at least remember my login from one month to the next. And also unlike him I don't believe in fairy stories,

Some recent Islamophobic sputterings from this thread:

G Z: << One day, perhaps a female suicide bomber will destroy Sydney Harbour Bridge, killing many.
>>

Enough said.

Reality Check: << Recently, the Muslim community clandestinely purchased State land for the development of a school >>

What, the entire "Muslim community"? How did they do so "clandestinely"?

bigmal: << The Saudis are pouring billions into the building of mosques and schools all over the western world. >>

And Christians have been building churches and schools all over the world for how many centuries?

froggie: << The word “Kuffir” or anything similar shall be immediately black listed, and any Moslem saying it should be arrested and charged with racist speech. >>

And you clowns reckon that Islam is a fascist ideology?

Those are only the most recent Islamophobic blatherings from our resident bigots, who are clearly terrified of Islam - or are pretending to be, having found a convenient focus for their repressed xenophobic bigotry.

If they were for real, they'd be arguing against the pernicious influence of all religion in Australian civil and social life, rather than than targeting the one that just happens to be followed principally by brown-skinned people who have emigrated here relatively recently.

RealityCheck,

Your story about Narwee High School has touched a cord. I know that part of Sydney. I used to wonder why that high school became a residential development.

How do we, in a society that allows free choice, cater for existence of an expanding non-democratic force (a.k.a. Islam)??

A tough question. But one that must be dealt with for the sake of freedom and democracy.

This is really not my area of expertise. But I offer a discussion below to kick off.

(1)...An obvious logical answer is to adopt selective (ie. partly non-democratic) legislations that disallow Islamic schools, (whilst permitting non-Islamic institutions).

On the surface, this seems unacceptable in a free society, contradictary to freedom and democracy.

But just like no one predicted the timing and severity of the recent financial market turmoil, an unexpected event can turn what is impossible/unacceptable into a reality. The key is to be prepared, so that one can seize the moment.

For instance, a major terrorist strike (God forbids) in Australia by Islamist jihadists ought to be a sufficient trigger for closing down suspect/affiliated Islamic institutions.

Like I said, the key is "BE PREPARED". Our politicians and administrators must have policy drafts in place well before a major incident. That will enable the government to quickly en-act appropriate laws at the right time, seizing public opinion.

(2)...Another key is knowledge about Islam

There will always be confusions whether a problem is racially or religiously motivated. On top of these, there are people like CJMorgan who will obfuscate the public with their bias; cowardice; and perhaps secretive unholy alliance.

Too many doubts, unanswered questions will negatively impact decisiveness. This is not a good position to be in.

The public, (yes, everyone) must be well-informed about the nature of Islam so that they can quickly conclude whether Islam is the root cause of a violence, and offer public supports to law-makers.

The public must be knowledgeable enough so that they are not fooled by diversionary tactic typical of CJMorgan. (Such as political-correctness and unfounded claims that other religions are just as bad as Islam).

Well said GZ and Froggie

C J Morgan
The issue is not that any other religion has proseltysed around the world at various stages of history, but that the Saudis over the last 50 years,have and still are, been pouring billions into the building of mosques and schools all over the world, AND, controlling the curriculums so that they can propogate their violence and hatred, AND, engaging in their own brand of bigotry by not allowing anything from any other religion to be built or promoted in Saudi.

In case you missed it, here is the reference again.

http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/saudi_textbooks_final.pdf

Clearly there is vast difference between your glib assertions, yet again, and current realities.

CJ...and his knowledge of Islam :)

Personal Anecdote..(Illustrative of CJ's condition)

LOCATION: RMIT Melbourne

OCCASION: Public information meeting re the 'Mosque' on RMIT premises.

ENCOUNTER: With Socialist youth in mall, expressing support for the Muslims.

DETAILS:
Once it became clear that I was not in favor of the Mosque, the Socialist chappy became agitated. Before his head exploded I asked him "Do you actually know anything about Islam"? His response:"About as much as I know about any religion.. very little"

Then.. when I began to drag out a Quran to use as evidence....his head did actually explode.. or maybe implode :) he went into:
"Point weak, shout/yell/abuse" mode and proceeded to berate me for being opposed to something he knew just about ZERO about!

WELCOME to the world of CJ Morgan and his bishop...Pericles :)

Now.. a rational person might take a peek at the Saudi Educational texts and see what they say.... hmmmm now that should not be too onerous for young CJ.... but his aversion to 'inconvenient' facts is now well known :) but please.. PUH-LEASE...don't shuffle off in a huff.. you make us look toooo good :)

Much of the bigotry and discrimination to Muslims goes unreported because many fear retaliation.

There is far more bigotry dished out by muslims that goes unreported for fear of retaliation.

The NSW police apply the full force of the law to pasty faced nazi nerds while they cower from the real hardmen the Muslim street thugs

Polycarp,

Just curious...Do you always happen to carry around a copy of the Quran in case you should happen to be on a university campus?

Just curious...How does the 'Socialist youth' in your selected anecdote relate to (a) CJ Morgan or (b) the topic at hand here?

Just curious...Why do you find shouting offensive when you are notorious for that behaviour?

Just curious...Why do you find it apposite to comment on another poster's alleged aversion to inconvenient facts when that's your own trademark?

Final item of curiosity... In telling CJ "...don't shuffle off in a huff.." do you feel at all embarrassed to recognise that that is your modus operandum when curious posters ask you awkward questions?

I don't expect an answer to any of these questions Polycarp - and I'm certain I'll not get any. I just thought I'd demonstrate once again your propensity for hypocrisy.

Froggie,
CJMorgan's tactic is to selectively pick other's writing out of context and turn it against the original writer. A tactic that is parasitic and opportunistic.
I've no doubt about his low IQ, judging by his warped sense of reasoning plus lack of originality, (hence the need to feed off someone else's writings)

(Merry Xmas to you!!)

*-*-*-*-*-*-
CJMorgan has averaged 3 posts per day, since 18/9/06. (Little wonder he can remember his login from month to month).
Being the prolific poster he is, CJMorgan is not a "clean skin" -- There must be a covert motive behind this man. Perhaps some sort of secretive unholy alliance is involved. Perhaps he's a "Muslim-by-association", or perhaps a cunning Muslim-in-disguise?? I make no assumption about his ethnicity either -- Welsh? blue-eye blonde? Moroccan? Pakistani?
I've enough experience to know one may not change another person's thinkings. There are silly individuals like those Socialist youth that Polycarp encountered in RMIT. I'm sure some human brains are hard-wired to be left-leaning or right-leaning, that cannot be easily altered. Nor will most people open to change. I personally know someone a bit like CJMorgan when it comes to Islam. The one I know comes across as cowardly, gets traumatised easily when threatened and cannot cope. To me, what's important is to identify and isolate no-hopers like that; and treat them as a "sound-board", primarily for educating others.
*-*-*-*-*-*-

Bigmal,
I thought it was being diplomatic to say difficult Koranic texts make for a secure job for the priestly caste. I believe the main cause is Mohammed's illiteracy. As a warrior leader, I'm sure Mohammed must be smart enough to know that he needed to deliberately make text difficult to understand (to achieve a semblance of "sophistication"), to give a false impression that instructions originated from Allah.

(Merry Xmas to you also!!)

Polycarp,
I only noticed your existence a couple of days ago. I was puzzled why socialist-youth mob targeted you like they used to attack BOAZ. Now I know.
I'm somewhat curious about your 8-year stink in Malaysia.

(Merry Christmas to you!!)

Every time a post is written about Islam we have the secular humanist blinded by dogma trying to compare Islam to Christianity. The truth is that secular humanism which ordains the murder of tens of thousands of unborn babies has far more in common with terrorism than any other group. CJ is a fine example of someone entrapped by his own contradictory dogmas. He compares building Christian churches to building mosques. I would say that building mosques and abortion clinics have far more in common. They are totally intolerant of anyone that might challenge their usual 'tolerance' rhetoric. The sad thing is that they honestly believe their own lies.

If the author wants to do away with Islamophobia, here is one suggestion from a leading writer on Islam>

"If Muslims want to end "Islamophobia" instantaneously, here's how they can do it:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will vanish."

Any likelihood that any of this is being discussed in Australian Islamic circles I wonder?

It would make a very interesting OLO piece.

GZ I was there as a missionary :)

Dear Spikey...
1/ The socialist youth relates to the topic..in that his mentality is similar to many I encounter here. i.e. "Don't give me facts (such as Quran or hadith quotes) I don't know anything about Islam but don't you DARE criticize it" So..I demonstrate the similarity. CJ seems to have a similar mindset of knowing little but saying much (in defense of Muslims). Though I should add, my attacks are aimed at Islam as a set of ideas..not Muslims directly.

2/ Spikey... that was real world shouting.. using caps here is different.. I often use caps for a heading....quite legitimate. Other times just for EMphasis.

3/ Facts are helpful things. Offer as many as you like..I welcome them. Do you welcome factual issues about Islam?

4/ I've yet to encounter the 'awkward question' that causes me to cringe in fear or horror.

I think you're fantacizing there.

Happy Christmas and have a good break.

Spikey... 4got one question ....

Do I carry a copy of the Quran with me? Yes I do when I go out on a 'mission' such as attending the Islamic protest at RMIT or the information day.

I would be remiss to be making claims about Islam unless I can back them up would I not?

Evidence... aaah.. it always helps to differentiate bigotry from truth.

Bigotry was the Socialist who ranted "They have a right to practice their religion" yet he does not know what their religion teaches.. what a total dimwit.

The true extent of his dimwittedness was revealed when I mentioned that in his own magazine (Socialist Alternative) there was a story about how the Iranian revolutionary guards massacred 10,000 socialists after they gained power....

This is how crazy Socialist activists are in Melbourne..

-they demonstrate the stupidity of supporting Muslims who betray them in their own magazine.
-yet they stubbornly try to rationalize this in terms of their socialist dialectic world view..and go into some twilight zone denial mode of "But it won't/can't happen to us/here"

Now..IF..these idiots had even half a clue, they would look more closely at what Islamic (un)Holy writ says about them...as a class of people.. and how they should be treated.

Once again..it comes back to the events and ideas contained most clearly in the 9th surah of the Quran. But hey...I won't bore you with that.. you can read/study it yourself.

Good to see that this topic got to the 100 mark.

It was somewhat predictable though, given the title.

Now I wonder what the next one on Islamist matters will be.

I know what it will never be.

"What the followers of Islam themselves can do to assuage the level of Islamophobia", and written by a follower of note.