Serial pest Nick Folkes and his micro-Party for Freedom have organised a party to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the racist pogrom in Cronulla. Joining him in this effort to stir up racial, religious and ethnic antagonism will be ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ Shermon Burgess and, presumably, an assortment of other racist thugs.
Anti Fascist Action Sydney is organising to oppose the racist rally. To keep up-to-date, please see the AFA Sydney blog and Facebook page and please spread the good word: — download a PDF version of the poster below here : cronullaneveragain.
See also : Anti-Islam ‘patriots’ set their sights on Cronulla, where it all began, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 22, 2015.
Slack Bastard, would you be so kind to share your knowledge of Islamic doctrines and goals with us. I want to know if your attacks on critics are based on an understanding of Islam or purely on grounds of bigotry.
Rossleigh: “I want to know if your attacks on critics are based on an understanding of Islam or purely on grounds of bigotry.”
The issue is not the merits or defects of Islam or any other religion. The issue is freedom of conscience. People have the right to believe and practice any religion or none, without discrimination or harrassment. If the religion they believe in is Islam, they’re perfectly entitled to it.
It should also be noted that Slackbastard has documented the wider extreme Right wing agenda of both Nick Folkes and Shermon Burgess. They’re not just racist populists – they’re actual Fascists.
The premise of your question to SB is spurious. The relevant commonality between those particular critics of Islam who are being opposed here, is not that they criticise Islam – something which is anyone’s right. Instead, what these opposed critics have in common is xenophobia, varying degrees of racism, and an adoption of behaviours which directly impact unfairly upon the lives of all Australians who don’t share their cultural background. This includes Australians of colour and any and every Australian Muslim regardless of their actual beliefs.
Such ‘Islam critics’ are not, I suspect, opposed by resident non Muslim Australian opposition for the reason of defending ‘Islamic doctrines’. Rather, they are countered because of antipathy to those actions and doctrines of such critics which are promoting general division, hatred, and bigotry in Australia.
For example, to describe Nicholas Folkes’s Party For Freedom simply as ‘critics of Islam’ is disingenuous. The PFF opposes multiculturalism and all migration from any part of the third world. They endorse discrimination against any and all migrants who self describe as Muslim, whilst calling for preferential treatment of those migrants applying to Australia from the ‘traditional source countries’ of UK and Europe – i.e. they essentially want white people like them and their ancestors to be preferred, and thereby hope for a return to the cultural order and racial mix of the 1950s and 60s.
Similarly, Shermon Burgess in his Facebook rallying calls for Australians to oppose Islam/Muslims, makes no meaningful distinction between Australian Muslims or their beliefs, has made racist remarks against Aboriginal Australians, has been happy to directly and indirectly promote the rallies and websites of white nationalists and neo Nazis, and these days likes to hang out with and give his support to anti Semites.
Oh yeah, and they’re also both critics of ‘Islamic doctrines and goals’…whatever that means.
Two answers, neither from slack bastard. Rashid, your name suggests you might be islamically literate. Care to enlighten me on islamic dogma?
Pingback: antifa notes (november 2, 2015) : 3CR, MAC, UPF and moar … | slackbastard
Enlighten you on ‘Islamic dogma’? What all of it? … I think you’d be better off going to a library rather than me giving up my day job.
Alternatively, go out and meet some Australian Muslims.
I could have phrased that differently Rashid. What is your understanding of islam? Could you provide some verses and/or hadiths? See, I asked slack bastard a question and you jumped in saying the basic premise of my question was spurious. I see and hear a lot of people defending followers of a religion that I suspect they know next to nothing about. Their arguments are founded on ignorance and, as activists are wont to remind us ad nauseam, the views of bigots are based on ignorance. It cuts both ways. Critics of islam are labelled and shouted down by so called antifascists whose actions can only be described as fascist. They won’t tolerate a different point of view to theirs. Do you have an understanding of islam and its goals?
>>”See, I asked slack bastard a question and you jumped in …”
I can’t speak for SB, or any other ‘antifascist’ for that matter, but I can independently address the underlying assumption of your question to him. That is, that criticism of an ‘Islam critic’ by anyone self identifying as ‘antifa’ is either ipso facto support for any particular Islamic belief (a non sequitur), or, that a lack of knowledge of ‘Islam’ invalidates any such criticism as made by antifascists (irrelevant and therefore false). Irrelevant, since the motivations (as they appear here to me) for their opposition to such critics, are the principles of equality of all Australians regardless of their religiosity, freedom for all to practice or not practice whatever religion they choose, and social justice. Reasons entirely other than what any particular Muslim may or may not hold as their religious beliefs.
“What is your understanding of islam? Could you provide some verses and/or hadiths? … Do you have an understanding of islam and its goals?”
I’m a Muslim so yes I have my understanding of Islam. I also have an understanding that Muslims are not a monolith in terms of Islamic beliefs. Just as with the other major faiths of the world, they are divided into sects and sub sects. All the verses from the Quran plus various Hadith can be found online. The basic teachings (5 pillars, 6 articles of faith etc.) can likewise be Googled. I’m not sure why you’re asking me for an overall explication of Islam. Any comprehensive overview of all the various Islamic beliefs held worldwide would exceed the word limit here.
Rossleigh: “Critics of islam are labelled and shouted down by so called antifascists whose actions can only be described as fascist. They won’t tolerate a different point of view to theirs.”
Anti-Fascists mobilise and attempt to defeat Fascists no matter what banner under which the fash gather. It’s not a matter of tolerating different views. A Fascist group is a conspiracy to murder and thus the mode of response is not counter-argument (as it would be with Right wing populists), but the use of reasonable force in self defence.
Are you serious Bloke? A conspiracy to murder? A lot of decent law abiding Australians who have concerns about islam are labelled fascists by the likes of you. They don’t see themselves that way and to justify your silencing their free speech you accuse them of conspiracy to murder. You are quite irrational.
Rashid, do you think sharia should be the law in Aus?
This is for you bloke.
[Link to ‘Sorry, Social Justice Warriors: Political Correctness Has Peaked’, David French, National Review, November 2, 2015.]
Mark: “Are you serious Bloke?”
Yes, I’m dead serious. And I’m also careful about the use of the term “Fascist”, too. Check the UPF’s Facebook site, listen to their leaders’ videos and read the comments to the posts. These people are murderous thugs and they have to be stopped before they actually get to kill someone.
And I’m not a “social justice warrior”, whatever that is. It seems be a US term to refer to a militant liberal activist. I am a revolutionary Anarchist Communist.
>>”Rashid, do you think sharia should be the law in Aus?”
?…Whose sharia? Mine? I can only guess as to what you perceive ‘sharia’ to actually mean, since no definitive book or blueprint of sharia exists. Sharia literally means ‘a path to life giving water’. Practically it means whatever beliefs and practices a Muslim follows. It’s divided into 5 branches – ritual worship, transactions and contracts, behaviour, beliefs and punishments.
Whichever ‘sharia’ is followed by any particular Muslim will be construed through whichever particular interpretations they follow. So according to the sharia which I subscribe to, your question is unclear.
I think, as per the explicit instruction in the Quran to Muslims, there should be freedom of faith (or no faith). That forms an integral part of my sharia, and I’m quite pleased that that’s the “law in Aus”. I also think, as per the explicit instruction in the Quran, resident Muslims are Islamically obliged to follow the laws and authority of whichever society affords them the aforementioned freedom. Another fundamental part of both my sharia and the laws of this country.
Imposing as “the law in Aus” these two aspects of my sharia, i.e. freedom of faith and loyalty to authority which provides it, is I think necessary and laudable as a common principle. But enacting other elements of my sharia into Australian law, where they would forcefully apply to either a non Muslim, or to a Muslim who does not subscribe to them, would be a clear contradiction of the Islamic doctrine I mentioned at the beginning.
Bloke, you must feel very grateful to live in a country/society that gives you the freedom to be a revolutionary anarchist communist.
As for the Cronulla Sewage Outfall supposedly taking place in December –
Looks like you are being trolled by a fake “Rossleigh”. There is a Rossleigh at the Australian Independent Media Network who is the real deal and who would certainly not be on here frantically trying to derail discussion on why we need to confront and stare down the cancer of racism and bigotry.
Neither Rashid nor slacky nor Blokey nor any other fan of this blog need to justify themselves to yammering trolls.
There is no logical basis to racism or bigotry therefore they and their advocates do not warrant any respect or regard from us.
However the proponents of these aberrations do require the scrutiny of law enforcement given the long criminal histories of these advocates.
Rashid, sharia as enforced in a muslim majority country. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. I’ll take that as a yes.
Basterd, not every Australian who has concerns about islam is a neo nazi with a criminal past. It is not right that they be shouted down by self appointed judges of [who’s] voice can be heard.
>>”Rashid, sharia as enforced in a muslim majority country. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. I’ll take that as a yes.”
Then I’ll take you as wilfully ignorant. In any case, Mark didn’t contextualise his question within such an absurdly limited definition of sharia, so your asinine response is just bizarre.
The point about Muslim majority countries where some version of sharia is enforced, is that force is having to be used against their Muslim population. Why would Muslims have to be forced by the State they live in to act Muslim? It’s because the definition of ‘Muslim’, and therefore the interpretation and belief of what is and isn’t sharia, is not unanimous amongst Muslims.
Muslim nations where some particular State enforced authoritarian version of sharia is enforced, are the same nations where authoritarian politics rule and dominate. The collaboration between authoritarian governments and the influence of that society’s clerical elite is not coincidental – it makes for better overall power consolidation for both. Muslim majority nations where Muslims are given some semblance of personal and individual choice (i.e. pluralistic democracy), tend to produce pluralistic outcomes.
Your ‘connect the dots’ imputation that a Muslim (including any Australian Muslim), is and does as any other Muslim… and is therefore a supporter of “sharia as enforced in a Muslim majority country”, is puerile nonsense. Though such essentialising and conflation is the ever recognisable ignorant hallmark of supporters of the PFF, UPF, ADL, RA etc. etc.
Well Rashid, it’s a simple question and the answer appears not to be found in your verbose obfuscation. Are you saying that islam is not also a political blueprint? So I will assume that your answer to the original question is yes.
Pingback: antifa notes (nov 10, 2015) : #UnitedPatriotsFront and moar … | slackbastard
Duhhh if you want simple answers to simple questions instead of facts Rossleigh B, I suggest you direct them to the Reek Lamers or the Potatriots. They do “simple” very well. You should feel right at home with them.
With the greatest of respect, it’s not a ‘simple’ question but rather a simpleton’s question. Only ignorance of the term itself could lead someone to presume that an equivocal question enquiring of an individual’s support of ‘sharia’, should self evidently instead be taken to only mean “sharia as enforced in a muslim majority country”. It appears your expectation is/was that I answer the question in terms of what your limited understanding of the term sharia is, rather than with any regard for the complexity of its actual meaning, or the disparateness in belief and practice apparent amongst those who interpret it – facts you inexplicably assert are ‘obfuscation’.
Furthermore, even taking into account your limited definition of sharia, not every “muslim majority country” enacts the same version of sharia, or enacts it in the same way or to the same extent. In some of those ‘Muslim majority’ countries it applies only according to personal status, i.e. only to self declared Muslims, and in some only in family matters – marriage, divorce, property settlement etc.
Any belief system, religion, ideology etc. is capable of being politicised by and to the degree of the interpreter and their interpretation. Islam is no different in that respect. As I mentioned earlier, the Quran explicitly supports freedom of religion. That’s an integral part of my sharia. Therefore, I infer from my sharia a necessary separation of a country’s religious institutions from its political ones. The Quran is the primary and definitive source for Islam and sharia. No ‘political blueprint’ exists within it.
And what the rulers of “muslim majority countries” decide to forcefully enact into legislation in the name of religion, is not necessarily a reflection of ‘Islam’ as understood by those Muslims upon whom it’s forced, let alone a reflection of the beliefs of a random Australian Muslim on an anarchist blog.
Rashid, what about sura 5:32?
Your questions are becoming increasingly coy. What about 5:32? Is there an actual point you wish to make about it? Are you intimating that your reading of this verse of the Quran supports your earlier implied narrative – i.e. that the likes of the PFF, UPF etc. are legitimate in their articulation of criticisms and ‘concerns’ about Islam? Or is this just an arbitrary enquiry about a random verse?
What about 5:32? Do you know what it says?
Yes I do….*still waiting for Rossleigh to make a point*
I can see you’re a man of few words, but if you (as a critic of Islam) have a specific objection to this verse, why don’t you try and articulate exactly what that objection is? Or if you’re implying that this verse validates your earlier rhetorical question: that ‘Islam is a political blueprint’, then demonstrate how so. However, if your expectation is that I provide a running commentary/tutorial in response to you simply typing Quranic verse numbers followed by a question mark, then I’m not interested and my name’s not Siri.
Slack Bastard: “Never Again!”
Why don’t you, or Rashid, address the fear people have with a growing Islamic population?
Judging by what I see going on in Europe, and what I am hearing from European migrants, the growing Islamic population is seemingly becoming a threat to the Western world – with very little to no benefit.
@Sam: I think that the fears of locals re Muslims are irrational.
@ndy, it’s one thing to say ‘it’s irrational’, but not to address what is happening in Europe, or the negative experiences non-followers have in townships with a large Muslim population is kind of mute: This isn’t just a ‘white supremacist’ issue either.
@Sam: By ‘locals’ I meant ‘Australians’. By ‘what is happening in Europe’, I assume you mean ‘the migrant crisis’/’the crisis of management European states are facing. (And I think you may mean ‘moot’ rather than ‘mute’?) Otherwise, inre Australia, I think you’d have to elaborate on what you believe to be the threat the roughly 2% of the population what are Muslim poses to the non-Muslim population.
You say the fear towards Islam is ‘irrational’?
Why don’t you convince people why the fear of Islam is irrational, because the recent events in Paris doesn’t help your cause.
Precisely: the failure to distinguish b/w Islam and the actions of presumed Muslim terrorists in Paris.
“actions of presumed Muslim terrorists in Paris.”
Presumed? It’s pretty well confirmed the assailants are Muslim.
I’m watching France 24 Live. No statement has been issued as yet w regards the precise nature of the attacks, of which there were 7, which reportedly included suicide bombers. Several dozen have been killed and many more wounded. A state of emergency has been declared and France’s borders have been closed.
Rashid: “Yes I do….*still waiting for Rossleigh to make a point*”
Rashid, you can argue your point until you’re blue in the face, you will not convince anyone that Islam is workable, on a large scale, in Western society.
>>”Why don’t you, or Rashid, address the fear people have with a growing Islamic population?
Why don’t you convince people why the fear of Islam is irrational, because the recent events in Paris doesn’t help your cause”
Your argument is less than cogent. What is currently occurring in Paris (though still far from certain) appears to be the actions of individuals, not actions of an “Islamic population”. It isn’t necessarily irrational to fear the actions of particular individuals, and I daresay many Muslims hold similar fears since they’re hardly immune from being the victims of such incidents. What is irrational though, is projecting that fear upon entire populations of persons based on stereotypes related to their racial identity or perceived shared religious identity. By your logic, any growing population of persons of dark skin should be curtailed for fear of them thieving from technology stores.
Recent history confirms that most of the Islamic population of Paris will be as appalled and upset as anyone else at what is currently happening.
And recent history also confirms that individual Parisian Muslims, when given the opportunity, will represent the faith of their growing population in ways which render your linear connection between ‘all of them’ and a reason for fearfulness as nonsensical.
Paris anybody? As inevitable as the sunrise. ‘Racists, bigots, islamophobes, fascists and irrational people’ have been warning of the dangers of importing islamic doctrine into Western nations for years only to be labelled, ridiculed, shouted down and silenced by the self appointed, so called progressive guardians of political correctness, who, incidentally seem to be ignorant of what it is they are defending. Watch the left in Europe bury their heads further into the sand. I suppose capitalist France deserves it for all those years of colonialism.
“What is irrational though, is projecting that fear upon entire populations of persons based on stereotypes related to their racial identity or perceived shared religious identity.”
Fact of the matter is, it isn’t just terrorism that is a concern, it is also social problems that are arising due to the large influx of 3rd world, Muslim migrants into Europe. This is backed up by people who have lived in Europe, and dealt with Muslim migrants on a daily basis.
“Attacks like the ones in Paris tonight are committed to purposely trigger an Islamophobic backlash. That backlash is not an unintended consequence of such attacks, it is part of their logic. ISIS types want an Islamophobic backlash because it lends credence to their narrative that there is a war between the West and Islam. By strengthening and emboldening the xenophobic right-wing in Europe, they strengthen their own worldview as well. And the most tragic irony is that the backlash may target refugees who themselves had been fleeing ISIS’ reign of terror.
Thoughts with everyone in Paris tonight. May the forces who wish to beget an apocalyptic “war of civilizations” be defeated.”
~ Nader Atassi on Facebook
Andy (quoting Nader Atassi): ““Attacks like the ones in Paris tonight are committed to purposely trigger an Islamophobic backlash. That backlash is not an unintended consequence of such attacks, it is part of their logic. ISIS types want an Islamophobic backlash because it lends credence to their narrative that there is a war between the West and Islam.”
This is 100% correct. These attacks (regardless of whether the ones in Paris last night were by Daesh or some other organisation) are designed to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. The jihadis want Muslim communities in the West to become besieged and persecuted minorities, because this is the ideal environment in which they can win Muslims to their side.
At the moment, only a small minority of Muslims support Daesh, even if they think a Caliphate to unite all Muslims is a worthy concept. An open and tolerant society, in which Muslims can participate freely and without persecution, is fatal to their project. Looked at in this light, Marine Le Pen is the jihadis’ best friend in France – just as jihadis in Australia would be cheering on Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front.
“Andy (quoting Nader Atassi)”
One would have to be naive to think ISIS soul [sic] instigator of Islamic terrorism. The ‘West vs Islam’ theme is much more deep rooted than that.
ISIS could disappear tomorrow, and it wouldn’t make Islam any more compatible with the West.
>>”Rashid, you can argue your point until you’re blue in the face, you will not convince anyone that Islam is workable, on a large scale, in Western society.”
Whether your proposition is true or not, it’s not actually a point I’ve argued at all. Meanwhile you’ve completely missed or deliberately ignored the points I am making. And whether or not I’ve personally convinced anyone of anything, it remains the case that my basic position is a majority view in Australia. On the other hand, not only have you yet to demonstrate that you understand what Islam (as practiced by most Muslims in Western society) actually is, your views on ‘3rd world Muslim migrants’ remains the embarrassingly bigoted exception. Your comments, replete with stereotyping and meaningless generalisation, have only served to convince me of your inability to recognise or distinguish a ‘Muslim in Western society’ such as myself, from those who dominate our media and your imagination.
It’s this glaringly obvious inability to positively discriminate between (a majority of) Muslims of faith who eschew violence and conflict, and a minority who don’t, which contributes strongly to the consistent inability of the PFF, UPF, RA etc. to convince more than a noisy ignorant (relative) few to support their absolute divisive positions.
So the divide in this debate is not between those who believe “Islam [as they define it] is workable, on a large scale in Western society”, and those who don’t. The divide is actually between those who respect, uphold and embrace any individual’s right to peacefully believe or practice whatever they want within a pluralistic Western society, versus those of a narrow mind who feel threatened by and oppose in some form such pluralism.
As such, on one side of the divide, the so called ‘jihadists’ and their supporters are currently vastly outnumbered by ‘regular’ Muslims who do not subscribe to their interpretations of Islam. In my opinion therefore, in the end they cannot and will not prevail in their efforts aimed at stoking such a division. The likes of the UPF, who ironically also sit on the same (wrong) side of the divide, are co-provocateurs of the same poisonous worldview. They too will also necessarily fail, unable to convince most people to support an illogical division within the established pluralism of our society, a proposed division which necessitates suspicion, hate and vilification towards a diverse minority.
Short term, jihadists and patriot/reclaimers will likely indoctrinate a few through their respective propaganda efforts, but the long term failure of both is just inevitable.
“such as myself, from those who dominate our media and your imagination.”
My imagination you say?
So according to you, when I am listening to first hand experiences from ex-soldiers, travellers to the Middle East; a Kenyan man, a number [of] Indian people, migrants from Europe who have dealt with Muslims on a daily basis, I must be imagining things?
Everything I have assessed points only in one direction: As the population of practising Muslims grow; as Islam starts to manifest itself into society, you can only expect cultural and systemic change — and not for the better…
Sam, I will try to cut through Rashid’s jungle of verbiage and harvest the points he is trying to make. Rashid, an acronym for you, KISS. (Keep It Simple)
‘…it remains the case that my basic position is a majority view in Australia.’
What is the basis of that claim? What study are you quoting? It’s easy to make a throw away comment like that, but that’s all it is. A majority view in undergrad circles perhaps. You haven’t made a point, you’ve expressed an opinion.
‘On the other hand, not only have you yet to demonstrate that you understand what Islam (as practiced by most Muslims in Western society) actually is…’
Well what is it? Do muslims in Western countries follow a different koran, sunna and hadiths to muslims elsewhere? Is the koran not the unchangeable word of allah? Is mohammed not the perfect man whose example is to be followed? Is it not the duty of every muslim male to fight the infidel until they submit or pay the jizya and feel themselves subjugated? Or is it more a case that muslims in Western nations will present a peaceful face while their numbers are small. How did mohammed spread islam, by peacefully proselytising or by the sword? Give an honest answer. Remember, verbosity does not equate to eloquence, a simple answer will do, spare us the waffle which up till now has been a hallmark of your posts.
‘…remains the embarrassingly bigoted exception.’
Labels like bigot, racist, etc,etc ad nauseam have lost their potency and contribute nothing to the debate. They mark you as a totalitarian who will not tolerate a dissenting opinion.
‘It’s this glaringly obvious inability to positively discriminate between (a majority of) Muslims of faith who eschew violence and conflict, and a minority who don’t, which contributes strongly to the consistent inability of the PFF, UPF, RA etc. to convince more than a noisy ignorant (relative) few to support their absolute divisive positions.’
Divisive positions. Islam is divisive. It divides the world into dar al harb and dar al islam, as you know. That is the immutable word of allah. Allah also says that there will be no peace until the whole world resides in the house of islam. Do faithful muslims in the West not believe this? Erdogan amongst others has said that there is no extreme or moderate islam, there is only islam.
The vast majority of Australians are not interested in nor want this division in their society. We weren’t consulted, we didn’t vote on it, we had it foisted on us by leaders who betrayed our trust.
Again you expose your inherent bias against critics of islam by labelling them a noisy, ignorant few. It might surprise you that these ignorant few are not as few as you imagine, and tolerance does have a limit.
Tell us what Islamic State has done that mohammed did not do. Members of Islamic State seem, to an informed outside observer, to be following the example of mohammed to the letter. They are practising islam in its purest form. Why would any peace loving person want to do that.
I take it from your last paragraph that you don’t consider yourself and the so called ‘vast’ majority of muslims as jihadists. So why do you cling to this mediaeval doctrine? Jihad is integral to islam, until the whole world has submitted. Allah said so, according to the koran. (And don’t quote peaceful verses, we know about Mecca and Medina verses and abrogation.
PS Slack Bastard, what is your knowledge of islam?
I try to stay away from the history, as you’ll find Christianity doesn’t have a clean past either. My point of view, rather simply, is based on the ‘social experiment’ that is happening in Europe. It would be wise for Australia to place strong limitations on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, as, among others, the most recent events in Paris. I never once called for mass deportation, but Australia still has a window of opportunity to ‘plug the hole’ so to speak.
Sam, you’re right about Christianity but I think you must know the difference. When Christians kill in the name of their religion they are doing so against the teaching of Christ.
When a muslims kill in the name of islam they are doing so according to the teaching and example of mohammed.
I think the muslim population of Australia must be around 5% at the moment. We’ll have to wait and see how things will be if they ever reach 15 or 20%. If Europe is anything to go by, well…
” I think the muslim population of Australia must be around 5% at the moment. We’ll have to wait and see how things will be if they ever reach 15 or 20%. If Europe is anything to go by, well…”
Sadly, the left will still be in denial.
>>”My imagination you say?
So according to you, when I am listening to first hand experiences from ex-soldiers, travellers to the Middle East; a Kenyan man, a number [of] Indian people, migrants from Europe who have dealt with Muslims on a daily basis, I must be imagining things?”
There are nearly half a million Muslims in Australia, and around 1.6 billion Muslims throughout the world. And the basis you cite for your personal opinion of ‘Muslims’ is … the second hand accounts of others? Are you serious?
Why is it that I (as an Australian Muslim) don’t feature or even register in your general characterisation of Muslims? What specifically about my practice of Islam, and the practice of Islam by all those other Australian Muslims who share my beliefs, has contributed to Australian cultural change for the worse? It appears you have no idea since you don’t actually know any Muslims like me. All you have is the (limited) accounts of the experiences of ‘others’, the actual manifestation of Muslims such as myself instead being substituted with … your imagination.
>>”‘…it remains the case that my basic position is a majority view in Australia.’
What is the basis of that claim? What study are you quoting? It’s easy to make a throw away comment like that, but that’s all it is. A majority view in undergrad circles perhaps. You haven’t made a point, you’ve expressed an opinion.”
Well my basic position is that any Australian should be free to practice or not practice whatever belief system they like. I’m confident that’s the basic majority view in Australia, notwithstanding the absence of a ‘study’ you apparently require as substantiation. And also notwithstanding some obvious caveats, e.g. the actual practice of a belief shouldn’t contradict the initial principle.
In contrast, your own position, one which generalises and thereby discriminates against most practicing Australian Muslims (or what you euphemistically refer to as ‘imported Islamic doctrine’), runs directly counter to such a majority view.
In other words, for yours to be the prevailing majority view, most Australians would have to forgo the notion of personal religious freedom in any instance where an Australian identifies as Muslim. That’s a discriminatory view that remains a minority one.
>>”Well what is it? Do muslims in Western countries follow a different koran, sunna and hadiths to muslims elsewhere? Is the koran not the unchangeable word of allah? Is mohammed not the perfect man whose example is to be followed?”
No, the Quran is definitely the same. The acceptance of Sunnah and Hadith is, for most Muslims I know, contingent (at the very least) on them not contradicting the Quran. The actual authenticity of Sunnah and Hadith may be a secondary consideration.
The difference amongst Muslims is in their degree of religiosity, the interpretations they choose to make or follow, and their resultant practice.
>>”Remember, verbosity does not equate to eloquence, a simple answer will do, spare us the waffle which up till now has been a hallmark of your posts.”
I apologise if you’ve found it hard to follow. But I must say, the brevity and silence that you’ve mostly employed in responding to earlier posts has hardly illuminated your own arguments.
>>”Is it not the duty of every muslim male to fight the infidel until they submit or pay the jizya and feel themselves subjugated?”
No that’s not the case. And we’re not living in the time of the crusades, or a time when Muslims as a single entity are at war to stop the annihilation of religion.
>>”Or is it more a case that muslims in Western nations will present a peaceful face while their numbers are small.”
No it’s more the case that peaceful Muslims will present a peaceful face (regardless of their numbers), and violent Muslims won’t.
>>” How did mohammed spread islam, by peacefully proselytising or by the sword? Give an honest answer.”
The honest answer is that you’re not really after an honest answer. During the lifetime of Muhammad(sa) he engaged only in defensive warfare.
>>”Labels like bigot, racist, etc,etc ad nauseam have lost their potency and contribute nothing to the debate. They mark you as a totalitarian who will not tolerate a dissenting opinion.”
Hardly. The dictionary definition of bigot is: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
The UPF (as just one example) opposes Islam in general, i.e.they make no practical distinction between its followers. They oppose all mosques in Australia, regardless of the actual beliefs of those who will or do patronise them. In other words, they are (to quote the dictionary) “utterly intolerant” of Muslims.
So no, on the contrary, ‘bigot’ contributes the precise meaning of what they and their like are, and what distinguishes them from other dissenting (and discerning) ‘Islam critics’.
>>”Divisive positions. Islam is divisive. It divides the world into dar al harb and dar al islam, as you know. That is the immutable word of allah.
Putting aside for a moment your casual assigning of your own limited understanding of Islam directly upon my beliefs – i.e. ‘what I apparently know’, the fact is that the terms you mention are not universally recognised amongst Muslims. Immutable word of Allah? The only ‘word of Allah’ I’m aware of is the Quran. And these terms do not appear in it.
>>”Erdogan amongst others has said that there is no extreme or moderate islam, there is only islam.”
What has the personal opinion of a colourful Turkish leader got to do with me as an Australian Muslim? By your logic, I’m out to destroy Twitter:
“We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic.” – Tayyip Erdogan, March 20, 2014.
>>”The vast majority of Australians are not interested in nor want this division in their society.”
I’d bet (sorry no studies to offer) that the majority of Australian Muslims are not interested in such a division either.
>>”Again you expose your inherent bias against critics of islam by labelling them a noisy, ignorant few. It might surprise you that these ignorant few are not as few as you imagine, and tolerance does have a limit.”
I’ve labelled ‘critics of Islam’ as no such thing. I do though specifically label the supporters of the UPF, PFF, ADL, RA etc with the term ‘ignorant’. But only because I find them overwhelmingly ignorant. And no it doesn’t surprise me that they also lack tolerance.
>>”Tell us what Islamic State has done that mohammed did not do. Members of Islamic State seem, to an informed outside observer, to be following the example of mohammed to the letter. They are practising islam in its purest form. Why would any peace loving person want to do that.”
I’m not aware of any peace loving person who does (follow IS). Peace loving Muslims overwhelmingly don’t (follow IS). I doubt you’re an ‘informed’ outside observer, since your proposition and conclusion re Muhammad(sa) is fictitious. Almost nothing of substance which IS engages in mimic the practices of Muhammad(sa).
As one informed ‘insider’ relates, the religious motivation of IS members may be somewhat overblown.
>>”I take it from your last paragraph that you don’t consider yourself and the so called ‘vast’ majority of muslims as jihadists.”
The popular use of the term ‘jihad’ denotes violence for the purpose of religious domination/hegemony. I don’t consider such a definition to be Islamic.
>>”Jihad is integral to islam, until the whole world has submitted. Allah said so, according to the koran”
Did He really? Where in the Quran does He say that? Jihad literally just means ‘struggle’ in the way of something. For instance, what is termed ‘jihad e akbar’ (literally: the greater jihad) is the struggle for personal reformation. Jihad e kabeer is to struggle for some great purpose with the truth. For example, this includes what is in contemporary times popularly termed, ‘jihad of the pen’. Jihad e asghar (literally: the lesser jihad) is to physically struggle for a purpose. This includes armed struggle, but subject to the restrictions placed on it in the Quran. Personally I only know and associate with Muslims who engage in jihad e akbar and jihad e kabir. The conditions for jihad e asghar no longer exist.
>>”And don’t quote peaceful verses, we know about Mecca and Medina verses and abrogation”
There is no abrogation of Quranic verses. So I’m not sure what it is you (we?) think you know.
Rossleigh: “I think the muslim population of Australia must be around 5% at the moment.”
The 2011 Census has the Muslim population of Australia at 2.2%. There’s no way it will have increased to 5% in that time.
Some other interesting information is in an article in The Guardian today, setting out attitudes amongst Muslims in France:
“The irony is that not only is France’s North African population predominantly secular, but even practising Muslims are relatively liberal in their views. According to the Ifop poll, 68% of observant women never wear the hijab. Fewer than a third of practising Muslims would forbid their daughters from marrying a non-Muslim. Eighty-one per cent accept that women should have equal rights in divorce; 44% have no problem with the issue of co-habitation; 38% support the right to abortion; and 31% approve of sex before marriage. Only on homosexuality is there a deeply conservative stance: 77% of practising Muslims disapprove.”
This is hardly what you’d expect if Muslims generally were the sort of people that Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front say they are.
As a third point, all religious texts are subject to interpretation by their readers and the dominant interpretation changes across time and place. If people want to damn all Muslims on account of what some verse of the Koran says, or (with even less justification) some hadith, they should also damn all Christians and Jews because of the following passages from what Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Old Testament:
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.” (Leviticus 25:44) This allows slavery, as long as it’s not people from your own country.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” (Exodus 21: 7) This allows a man to sell his daughter into slavery.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Exodus 18:22) and
“For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Exodus 18:29) Together, these prescribe capital punishment for homosexual activity.
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” (Exodus 35:2) Capital punishment for working on the Sabbath!
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken (Leviticus 21:16-20) Establishing discrimination against sick and disabled people.
“Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” (Leviticus 19:27) Forbidding haircuts and beard trims for men.
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:16) Capital punishment for blasphemy!
“And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.” (Leviticus 20:14) Capital punishment for incest – even for the man’s wife!
Finally, it should be pointed out that the means of execution mentioned above are some of the most brutal as the ones for which Daesh is deservedly criticised. If you criticise one religion’s sacred text as proof of the brutality of the entire religion, you logically have to do the same for all.