Why We Do, In Fact, Need To Talk About Islam

IN THE wake of TV identity Sonia Kruger being all but crucified for suggesting Muslim immigration be halted — and after the ABC’s latest, awful #QandA show, which quickly descended into a pack attack on Pauline Hanson — Australia, whatever the Left thinks, must openly grasp and deal with the issue of Islamic arrivals. Failure to do so will, now or in future, rip the country apart: as it will Western society generally if the challenge is not resolved.

If Australia, like the rest of the Western world, has a growing problem with Muslim immigration and the rise of radical Islamic terrorism — and I believe that it does — then it has several inter-related other problems, too, almost all of which are entirely of its own making.

That is not to say the scourge of Islamic terrorism is the fault of liberal democracy, or even the product of “invading their countries” (it isn’t), but just as there is a problem — and it is potentially an existential one, where the future of Western society is concerned — it isn’t good enough for the aggrieved to point the finger at “towel heads” from “stone age lands” following a “religion of slaughter” and some of the even less savoury insults that are being bandied around these days, nor to slap such idiot-simple and incendiary provocations down with the insistence that Islam is a subject only discussed by bigots.

Even so, the vast majority of Muslim people are decent people who don’t actually harbour any wish to visit death and terror on Western society; I believe that to be a factually correct statement, and it has been borne out from time to time in my dealings with some of these people as they have crossed my path: people who simply want to get on with their own lives, some of whom most people would not even recognise as Muslims — they’re not all called Mohammed, or wear the niqab — and who to all appearances are no different to anyone else.

On the other hand, it is also a factually correct statement that those countries which have experienced the highest levels of Muslim immigration in recent decades — Belgium, the Netherlands and, of course, France — also have the biggest problem with Islamic terrorism and religiously motivated violence against majority populations, and no amount of finger shaking or character destruction crusades by the Left can change that fact.

But the default position of major political parties these days is to play down any suggestion that a problem exists with this newest source of mass additions to the Australian population, with rhetoric about social cohesion and tolerance and acceptance being spouted in the absence of anything more substantial (or even pertinent); the default position of the media — to its shame — is, and especially where the mouthpieces of the Left are concerned, not to report on the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, lest this shatter the integrity of carefully constructed diatribes around inclusion, humanity and social justice; and the default position of the Muslim community itself (or more particularly, those charged with acting as its mouthpieces) appears to be to refuse to add its own voice of outrage to wider condemnations whenever any of its own are involved in committing unspeakable atrocity, followed by lengthy justifications that their own “condemnation” should be withheld on the basis it’s merely a trophy sought by bigots wishing to drive them out of their adopted country.

These realities are more or less uniform throughout the Western world, and whilst our discussion today is focused on Australia it could as easily relate to Britain, or France, or Belgium, or the USA.

But Australia has witnessed in recent times the rise, on its far Right, of political candidates and parties which seek to foment public unrest over the presence of an expanding Muslim community and/or advocate some pretty heavy duty measures with which to “deal” with it (such as the compulsory deportation of every Muslim in Australia) and this is no solution to what is, as I said at the outset, a problem, and one that isn’t going to be resolved in any constructive way by the series of default positions it attracts depending on where the response comes from.

Serial troublemaker Pauline Hanson — well versed in whipping up hysteria over “problems,” but never with the hint of a meaningful solution in sight — isn’t looking at leading a Senate team of perhaps three Senators merely through a protest vote against Malcolm Turnbull by so-called “Del-Cons:” she has been elected by those who, for whatever reason, are deeply concerned by an issue they know is not going to be addressed by either of the major parties: the ALP because it harvests the overwhelming majority of Muslim votes; the Coalition because it doesn’t want to rock the boat.

The Australian Liberty Alliance, which is perhaps even uglier in its approach to social issues than Hanson could ever dream of, performed an electoral belly flop, scoring less than 1% of the national vote.

But if you look at the Senate, and factor parties and candidates that might be characterised as “far Right,” almost 10% of voters cast a primary vote for these entities: the support base might be fractured, and spread across a competing and disparate number of recipients, but a far Right vote nearing 10% is a phenomenon it would be dangerously unwise to dismiss as a protest.

The end destination of such a movement is likely to be arrived at in France next year, when leader of the far Right Front National, Marine Le Pen, is expected to get as far as the runoff round in France’s presidential elections; this wouldn’t be the first time such a divisive contest had been joined, of course, for Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie made it to the final round against Jacques Chirac in 2002. The elder Le Pen was trounced by Chirac on that occasion. But Frances’s problems with its Muslim community have arguably grown far worse in the years since.

So let’s be clear: the capacity for some kind of popular uprising, should people take matters into their own hands if they feel the establishment parties will not, cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Whilst France’s problems stem largely from its botched management of settling immigrants from its former African colonies, the problem in Australia is almost the reverse: too much “tolerance” and “generosity,” but the wrong kind of each — the kind that is legislated by governments, and funded by a tax paying public that is prevented by law from having an opinion and/or roundly abused by Left wing champions of “diversity” and “understanding” whose ideas about free speech boil down to people being free to say whatever they like, so long as it’s the message that has been predetermined and approved for them by people who know “better.”

Whether you like it or not, Australia is a Christian country founded on the same Judeo-Christian and liberal capitalist principles that underpin almost all of the societies of the Western world.

It is true that Australia is a nation of immigrants, and indeed everyone that lives here (including, at least partially by blood, a goodly number of those identifying as “Aboriginal”) possesses at least some cultural heritage than can be traced to other parts of the world; readers know I identify as Scottish as much as Australian, and I’m proud of both traditions. Millions of our fellow Australians have their own unique stories in this regard.

But the very nature of immigration, and certainly since 1945, means that those coming to this country are joining it; the onus is not — irrespective of what any Left-wing imbecile likes to proclaim — on the rest of Australia to be modified and to adapt itself to fit the specific requirements of one particular group of newcomers.

The key to making immigration work (and the reason Australia has historically been so successful at it) is to get the new arrival communities fully involved in mainstream society; if you live in Melbourne (as I do) half the people you meet are from a Greek or Italian background; go to Sydney, there are Vietnamese people everywhere you look; in Brisbane, I see a greater Chinese presence these days, along with the residual (much smaller) Greek and Italian communities that were there when I was growing up. People from Eastern Europe have joined us over the past 20 years or so in great numbers, and Melbourne is of course the largest Jewish community outside Israel and excluding New York. These are general examples only, and they are intended to be, but the point is very simple: having these people with us works, and it works very well indeed.

Some of these nationalities have brought great cultural enrichment: think food, think music, think the arts. Apart from absolute rednecks, does anyone seriously think we’d be better off without them? Even the Asians Pauline Hanson so famously launched her political career claiming would swamp Australia seem to get along with everyone else just fine. Yes, there are concerns about the sale of Australian infrastructure to China, but not through any racism; rather, it’s because most of the buyers are state-controlled companies with links directly to a Communist regime. But are their people welcome here? I think they are, absolutely, although others may disagree.

Every time there seems to be a national intake of breath over one migrant community or another — think the Japanese, with their investments on the Gold Coast and in Cairns in the 1980s — it has always worked itself out.

But just as I’ve taken a rather circumlocutory route to come back to the issue of Muslim immigration, people from all of these countries of origin have, by and large, come here and made a go of it in their new country. The fish and chip shops once run by the Greeks (and famously, by Hanson) are now run by the Vietnamese. Indians and others of South Asian origins increasingly form the backbone of the local IT industry.

We could give other examples. But by and large, for the first time, we are confronted by something very different indeed.

If you go to your local supermarket now, you are as likely as not to buy “Halal compliant” goods. Go to the butcher, and there’s a good chance the meat you purchase will be Halal as well. It is no longer acceptable to celebrate Christmas in some schools, or to wish people a Merry Christmas: “Happy Holidays,” grotesquely, is now the approved nicety. Human rights bodies exist to uphold the rights of minorities — and let’s not kid ourselves, an awful lot of this nowadays means Muslim minorities — and anti-discrimination bodies and legislation exist to stop anyone making a serious attempt to lawfully outline legitimate grievances with these communities or groups. Many Muslims live in relatively closed communities, and most of their leaders don’t even speak English. People are unsettled by the sight of those walking around wearing the niqab. Mosques are closed shops for Islamic preachers to communicate to Muslim audiences. Community “leaders” gently sell the “compatibility” of Sharia law with Western law. There are gender-segregated sporting facilities in some parts of Sydney, and it’s well known that bacon is not sold in fast food outlets in areas with high (but not majority) levels of Muslim residents.

Now, of course, Australia has witnessed three recent examples of Muslim terror on its own soil — the slaying of two Police officers in Endeavour Hills in Melbourne, the murder of NSW Police civilian worker Curtis Cheng, and most insidiously, the Lindt siege in Sydney perpetrated by an individual who ought to have been thrown out of the country 20 years ago.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the do-gooder lunacy of the Left that infests every issue it concerns itself with has also infected the judicial system; jail is a last resort, they say; mitigating factors (such as marginalisation, oppression, blah blah blah) warrant leniency for doing the wrong thing, they say; and penalties and sentences seem to grow more divorced from community expectations with every year that passes.

But just as white, Anglo-Saxon Australians — and others — get away too often in the court of public opinion with a slap on the wrist for criminal misconduct, Muslim miscreants benefit to the same degree; there are those who use this point to suggest that White Australians don’t get deported for committing crimes, and that therefore neither should Muslims. But this country already has a bad enough (and worsening) problem with crime, committed by people who are Australian citizens by birth, without merely adding to its scope on the specious pretext of “compassion.”

There are those who suggest that Islamic terrorism is the West’s fault. “We invaded their countries,” they screech. But we hadn’t when New York was attacked by radical Islamists flying hijacked aeroplanes on 11 September 2001, and such a simplistic justification for future acts of terror by radical jihadis ignores the fact that just as they increasingly seem to want to inflict carnage upon Western society, they have been doing the same thing to each other for decades — if not for centuries.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, for instance, was a conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims; in many respects, the current quagmire that is Islamic State — whilst aspiring to a global Islamic caliphate — also involves a similar conflagration between disparate Muslim factions as a precursor to establishing internal supremacy.

The point is that the radical elements of Islam (as opposed to the moderate ones who really don’t want to go down this track at all) have been fighters by nature long before they came to our shores; of course, the scourge of radicalisation — fuelled by regimes such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda and its various proxies as galvanised by Osama bin Laden — has given such endeavours an “anti-infidel” flavour directed malignantly at the “decadence” of Christian Western society, and I contend (although it’s an argument for another time) that the “clash of civilisations” bin Laden sought to ignite would have found a spark irrespective of whether George Bush and Tony Blair led a Coalition of the Willing into Iraq in 2003 or not.

Now, we agonise over what to do with “radicalised” Muslim youth who want to go to the Middle East to fight for or against Islamic State; I actually think the best thing to do in this particular instance is to let them go, but make damn sure they never come back: fighting a civil war is not an Australian way of life, and those who wish to do so probably shouldn’t be here anyway.

But in terms of a broader discussion of Muslim immigration, the Muslim community and the way it is treated and conducts itself, these are fraught issues that are as good as forbidden to speak of in this country.

I’m no apologist for Pauline Hanson (quite the contrary, as past articles in this column will show) but the approach of the “social justice” Left was belligerently illustrated on the ABC’s ghastly #QandA programme on Monday night: Hanson was outnumbered and cornered, 5-1, by a stacked panel and a hostile audience that for three-quarters of the show focused solely on the issue of Islam with a lynch mob mentality and the determination to skewer Hanson in a wild pack attack. It was as unedifying as it was disgraceful.

Earlier that day, Nine network identity Sonia Kruger opined on national television that she thought Muslim immigration should be stopped altogether: there wasn’t to my mind a great deal of cogency in the remarks, which were slapped down the following day by Muslim TV personality (and host of Network 10’s The Project) Waleed Aly on the grounds Kruger was “scared.” I almost thought, for once, that I would agree with the insidious Aly, over whom my objection has nothing to do with the fact he’s Muslim but everything to do with the fact he’s a socialist gnome with a very big soapbox to spruik from. But even then, he lost me: Aly’s column twisted the issue to allow himself to talk about how “scared” he was — of his, and his (Muslim) friends,’ treatment by the majority community.

Part of the problem is that the Muslim community’s leaders seem to think they are presiding over some kind of closed shop; if members of their flock do wrong, unequivocal denunciations are rarely heard.

What the majority community does hear, though, is lunatic pronouncements that Western women are like “plates of uncovered meat” in explanation of sexual assaults they suffer — and similarly offensive rhetoric — that might hold sway in some of the places they come from, but which has no place in Australian society.

It looks at the UK, where British Labour now routinely gender segregates attendees at major televised election functions, or at France, where random acts of mass slaughter committed by Islamic terrorists are on the rise, and then it looks closer to home where so-called “lone wolf” attacks are dismissed as not examples of Islamic terrorism at all, but of dislocation resulting from the refusal of the majority population to accept Muslims into its midst.

And it hears the e’er gentle suggestions from the Islamic community that Islam is a “religion of peace,” often made in tandem with helpful ideas about how Sharia law can “co-exist” with Western common law: people see the thin edge of the wedge, and they don’t like it.

Having a proper, open, candid discussion about the place of the Muslim community in Australia is, ironically, potentially as much to the benefit of the Muslim community itself as to anyone else living here.

But through a labyrinth of politicians, social commentators, the finger-shaking Chardonnay drunks of the Left and a wall of legislative and regulatory prohibitions on daring to raise the matter at all, it’s only a matter of time before the current approach of stifling debate completely (and attempting to destroy those who attempt to start one) leads directly to vigilantes and other undesirables taking matters into their own hands — which, to be clear, is every bit as unacceptable as the grievances, legitimate or imagined, they purport to hold.

This is the wake-up call Hanson, and others like her, represent: they may not advocate lawless behaviour and vigilante conduct themselves, but the very fact of their growing support means that the core issue can no longer be ignored, wished away or countered by legislated silence and personalised malice.

As I said at the outset, I think most Muslims don’t want to hurt anyone; like every barrel, there’s a bit of shit in the bottom of that particular one where the couple of rotten apples have liquefied into a lubricious scum: and in this sense, the same is true of any mass grouping of people, be they Islamic, Christian or otherwise.

I think the real solution here is enhanced screening — of candidates for settlement in Australia — backed by an improved regime for weeding out undesirables before they arrive, and getting rid of those who quickly show they simply don’t belong here, which means most would get to stay, but some would never set foot here in the first place.

But a growing number of Australians, as inelegantly expressed by Kruger this week and as explosively needled by Hanson for years, are finding an awful lot to be apprehensive about where the presence of Muslim immigrants in this country are concerned, and looking at the countries of Western Europe — where the problem has been percolating for some years longer than it has been here — they see precedents they do not wish to see repeated in Australia under any circumstances.

Stop the abuse, stop the name-calling, make sure everyone is involved and grasp this issue in a proper national debate, for even if the Muslim community doesn’t destroy our society and way of life under its own steam, the reaction to it — if left unchecked, or not conducted on more reasonable grounds designed to find a solution — will almost certainly do so.

Wishing this out of existence and ignoring it just aren’t options. The longer it takes, the harder it will be to fix.



13 thoughts on “Why We Do, In Fact, Need To Talk About Islam

  1. Of course, the more concessions made to misbehaving Muslims and blacks the worse their misbehaviour will become. During segregation, black families survived intact, as did a high percentage of white families. There were clear guidelines then, and blacks were less likely to commit crimes like murder, rape and robbery. Now that blacks have been given the whip hand, a twit tweeting a joke has become a thought criminal on a level with a murderer, rapist or robber-in fact, he has committed the ultimate crime of expressing a racist remark. And of course all the other beneficiaries victimhood have climbed on the victim gravy train, and it has become criminal to make truthful videos about a so-called religion that sends trucks to run down hundreds of festive pedestrians on their national day in Nice and guns down Munich residents doing their shopping. But saying these murderers are typical Muslims is a crime worse than the mayhem they inflict. Control of the asylum has to be taken away from the lunatics.


  2. The right/left dichotomy is no longer apt. The real division is between globalists who want to flood the West with third world hordes claiming concessions for imagined wrongs, including the evils associated with the climate alarmist hoax, and nationalists who want to preserve their traditional way of life and who value the contributions their cultures and traditions have given the world.

  3. I have to agree with Andrew Bolt and Sonia Kruger, as do the majority of Australians.
    I am disgusted at the scandalous behaviour of those on the left and far left who have vilified her – something that is never tolerated when a black or moslem person voices their opinion.
    Unlike you Yale, I do not believe that there are truly assimilated moslems – a point made clear by the Grand Mufti who claims there is no difference between radical and moderate Islam and to suggest such is a crime – if a person purports to being a moslem, they do so because they honour the Quoran, worship Mohammad and obey Sharia Law – all of which are incompatible with western laws and culture.
    If and when push comes to shove, and it will, how many of these so called moderates will side with us when they cannot even stand up and speak out against the terrorist acts?
    If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
    ALA my not have done so well this time around, but if you read their policy document (as I have) this party has a lot going for it.
    Pauline Hansen is not the issue either, she simply states what most Conservatives feel and it is manipulated by the media to make a sensational news story.
    Her interviews on Paul Murray and Bolt are a testimony of her love for this nation and our culture.
    When did it become a crime for an anglo Australian to have and voice an opinion?
    Why is a black man allowed to verbally abuse Pauline Hansen and yet another (white man) with an opinion of Nova Peris was charged for the very same thing?
    That is the greater issue as Aboriginals and moslems are given more leeway with their opinions and granted leniency simply because of their culture.
    If we do not stop the moslem immigration – at least for a period – Australia and the future for our generations, will be in deadly danger.
    We, in this generation, are very lucky that our forebearers had courage and didn’t put their heads in the sand when our very existence was threatened – they fought for our culture and freedoms and must be watching with sadness that their efforts are in real danger of going to waste.
    Wake up and smell the danger Australia.

    • As a proud blackfella, Im also very lucky my forebears had strength and courage when their very existence was threatened. They fought for my culture and freedom and like yours continue to watch with sadness and no doubt plenty of frustration.

      I’m not happy with the state of the world but I can’t afford to think everyone from a specific culture or religion is a pain in the ass.

  4. ‘Even so, the vast majority of Muslim people are decent people who don’t actually harbour any wish to visit death and terror on Western society”
    A qualitative statement, but did you ever wonder what the numbers are in fact?

    Yes indeed, we need a dialogue about the issue. How does one go about differentiating those who do not abide by the words of Big Mo from those who do? It is now more than ten years since Irshad Manji’s comprehensive study of her own religion was published. How many have read it? How many understand it?

  5. Quite a few Jewish and Meccan tribes thought exactly the same in the early 600sAD. Unlike them, you have the opportunity to educate yourself about Islam. I would strongly recommend ‘The Story of Mohammed’ which is a free e-book to download. When you have the knowledge you can discuss what to do about the problem of Islam and hopefully have a better outcome than those early tribes did.

  6. Muslims – the question for all Australians, do we accept them as a people ,warts & all, as our elected representatives & the bleeding hearts would have us do without conducting thorough & extensive checks into peoples background, or do we set a few ground rules? Personally I believe the latter is the way to go, not only for Muslims but for all overseas nationalities that want to make Australia their permanent home. I would support:

    > No dual citizenship; and

    >There being only one set of law (the laws that have prevail in this country for over two centuries); and

    >The Christian traditions of Australia be kept to the forefront and not relegated to the back room because of the perceived need for political correctness (fear of embarishment to immigrants) ; and

    >Every person or persons to be treated equally with no preference or special treatment being given because of race, religion, gender, age, disability or marriage status. (Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that the basis of our own Anti-Discrimination Act); and

    >Every immigrant should be compelled to speak English – the language of this country; and

    >A non citizen who commits a major crime/s in this country should be expelled, together with their families.
    (Tolerance is one thing, however immigrants of all races have to earn the right to stay in our country and not assume the attitude they have the right to stay because they are poor refugees.) Why should Australian citizens have to pay for them being incarcerated?

    > European Immigrants after World War II and the Ten pound POM had to look after themselves after they arrived in this country or at the very least have assistance or sponsors before making the journey. The current level of assistance to immigrants should be limited to the provision of food, clothing , shelter, medical and a small monetary allowance, not the thousands of dollars that are currently be handed out.

    Everyone must admit that what has happened in a number of European countries recently certainly doesn’t make one want to take muslims into our country, that is for sure. If you believe the statistics that are doing the rounds on the internet i.e. when the muslim population in Australia reach 5% of the total population, we will have the same thing to look forward to. If you believe the media, it has already started here, planned gang rape, murder, terrorism plotting etc. Will the polititians who agreed to taking muslim immigrants with out reservation, accept responsibility if the stats are right – I don’t think so!!!!!

    If it is to happen it is generally thought that it will be in our grandchildren or their children time and they will have to pay the piper!!

    In summary Yale, it is a bit late to close the gate after the horse has bolted but it is not to late to set some pretty clear ground rules that will make it clear to all concerned the basis that Australia accepts migrants both initially & ongoing!

  7. Good article…didn’t agree with everything, but some of it.
    Unfortunately its a very complex problem…first thing is a lot of people address Islam as tho its a race, and not an ideology, so this colors a persons view immediately.
    So of someone slams Islam..they are either a bigot, troublemaker or worse, what I am trying to say is if someone trashes someone cause they are white, black or yellow, the racially abused person cant change their skin color, so its total racism.
    However if someone points out and challenges what Islam really stands for, the Islamic person who is on the receiving end is perfectly capable of changing their religion or world view if they happen to agree (that is if they can leave Islam with their head intact) so where is the question of racial abuse etc?…if its a clear logical statement backed up by evidence and history as well.

    Now there are basically 2 kinds of Moslems…Moderates and Radicals (everyone knows this)
    But what they may not know is moderates don’t really follow the Koran, maybe they have never read it even, they are Islam in name only, but they stay in it, cause their mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts are all Muslims, often they were born into it.
    Now many of the radicals have actually read the Koran or Quaran, especially the Medina section, the radicals also understand that Islam and Sharia are inseparable, that means Waleed Aly should not play his guitar ever…why? because Sharia forbids it.
    So some may call him a Muslim, he may even call himself a Muslim, but he is no Muslim according to the Hadith, Quaran or Sira because he does not live by Sharia.

    So most commentators on Islam have it round backwards really, they say Moderate Islam is the real Islam and Radical is a strange offshoot from the real deal (thus the word radicalized).
    The actual truth is the radicals are the real face of Islam…and the ones that want to get on with their lives (the nice ones) are Islam in name only, this is not my view BTW its supported in all their scriptures.
    Now historically the real Islam… when they invaded India killed over 50 million Hindus over a period of 600 years or more, if you read the story ..which the Indian Communists (much like the left here) tried to whitewash from History..I can guarantee you will be horrified, it makes what is happening today look like a boy scouts picnic.
    Hindu Kush for example 100 thousand Hindus a day beheaded by the commands of the Bahmani sultans in about 1347-1480

    So what is this important? first off, this was not a few radicals doing this, this was highly organized armies, ships etc…
    They smashed temples, charged the jizya, exported pious Hindu woman as sex slaves etc…this is the “face” of Islam…sadly, the moderates are not the face of Islam, they simply don’t follow it at all…or just a little bit, or at best they read the Mecca section of Quaran and follow that, because there is a message of tolerance in the Mecca section, whereas the Median over rode that to state tolerant only if you are outnumbered, once you have the numbers (20% or higher)…force Islam on the infidels, strike fear in their hearts, and they will enter a state called dhimmitude and subject to many types of humiliation.

    They have consistently done this throughout history and they have been consistently protected by the socialists, facists and left wing and also communists, this is sometimes called the “Unholly Alliance’
    So how do you combat this?

    No one wants a bloody showdown, and as Yale mentioned ignoring it is not going to make it go away either as Turnbull, Shorten etc…are keen to do, labelling people like Geert Wilders or even ALA as right wing nut jobs is not going to work either,
    because although many may not agree with their approach, they are largely right and they make many very valid points, in fact Wilders predictions for Europe have been devastatingly accurate.
    So how do we deal with it?…if you are inclined to learn stuff, then the best thing to do is fully educate yourself in their history and world view, then take up the argument and get that message across before its too late.
    Over time those that are nice people in Islam will fall away from the theology (many have), and those that are not will stay, then the enemy and their motive is clear.
    And make no mistake, they are our enemy, not all, but definitely those that follow the Commands of their Scriptures to the letter.
    I wont bore you with a thousand quotes why, if you are inclined to read you will soon realize what Islam in its “pure” form really is, and history confirms it.

    • You are very, very near the mark, RP_Man, and it’s a matter of record we ourselves were drawn into the essentially tangential argument about race vs ideology a week or two ago.

      Even so, your points echo what I was driving at, and the key here is that it isn’t some platitude short of being solved: it’s a complex, intricate, labyrinthine problem that owes as much to the “response” it has elicited as to the evils of ultra-conservative, doctrinal, theological Islam.

      Very easy if you’re a Lefty just to slap down with the accusation of bigotry, or to ignore like a politician whilst parading tolerance in front of the increasingly affronted majority that knows governments don’t have the balls (or the ideas) to sort the good ones out and let them stay, and get rid of the others.

  8. Yes…We definitely agree on the main points, its not a simple thing, but somehow or other the dark points of their theology needs to be exposed clearly…and over and over.
    As you would know…the belief is that you cannot change any part of the Quaran because it is a carbon copy of the one in paradise, and is claimed to be the eternal word of God etc…
    But regarding the so called purity of the Quaran, there were actually several different versions of the Quran written by Ubayy B. Ka’ab and others (some say seven) and they were all burnt before the “official” Qur’an was created by Uthman.
    Many Muslims at that time did not accept it, but later Muslims did…and that’s the one they all read today.

    So based on this belief all the nasty violent stuff stays there, we are competing with a inflexible cult of immense influence over centuries.
    And sadly your statement here
    “As I said at the outset, I think most Muslims don’t want to hurt anyone etc” yes that is true…. but only partially true.
    Most peaceful Muslims don’t report planned terror attacks even if they know about it, there are dozens and dozens of examples of this in so many countries now.
    Trump has been right onto this and he is absolutely correct about this.
    There can only be 2 possible reasons they don’t report things
    1. They either agree with this (because they are commanded to do this in their scripture)…or
    2. They dont agree, but are too scared to say anything about it for fear of repercussions.
    There are so many incidents that show where the “moderate” Muslims stand, when that boy attacked the cops in Melbourne with a machete and they shot him after he gouged one of them with the machete…the Mosque was overflowing with mourners (they could not fit them all in ) and there was plenty of criticism for the cops, and hardly a word about the welfare of the cop that was in hospital…interesting, and worrying.

    Like I said, its the worlds biggest and oldest cult, and its largely held together by fear, and not the “fear” that left wing social toyboy Aly mentioned , but fear within his own community if he doesn’t call Hanson a bigot or Sonia Kruger a scared rabbit or whatever he’s no longer on “their side”…and no longer a left wing hero, its all driven by Islamic internal pressure from his own misguided beliefs and a lapdog media ready to listen to him.
    The saying “The truth has a certain ring about it” is so true, and virtually nothing that comes out of Waleeds mouth has the ring of truth, just pandering to the fawning politically correct media.

    And I totally agree with you about that silly argument…well we invaded their countries first etc…the crusades blah blah.
    Yes the so called Christians have done some nasty stuff, but its not supported in their scripture, and they no longer do it.
    Islamists have done massive amounts of nasty stuff, and it is supported in their scripture, and they continue to do it.
    Hindus have an absolute code of non violence, yet even they were forced to fight back against violent Muslims or risk being exterminated totally.
    The Muslims had invaded tons of countries and murdered millions and destroyed temples, societies, ravaged lands, enslaved people…long before George W Bush, Neo Cons, or even the Crusades…so any talk that claims its American evil etc…is not true, the history of Islam is written in the blood of innocents.
    That’s not to say the meddling that Hitlery Clinton has inflicted on Libya and Iraq etc…is Ok, its not and its caused even more problems in the middle east.
    But any talk (as you mentioned) that Islamic terrorism is mainly a response to Neo Cons, or “Bush” or whatever is pure garbage and needs to be exposed as that, the reality is they are driven by a blood hungry ideology..plain and simple.

    • RP_man, well argued! It’s difficult to believe that such incitement to evil domination and violence could actually exist in any “holy” scripture. But, unfortunately, if you actually read it straight from the source (including translated versions) then you instantly become aware of the problem: you begin to see the reason for the Islamic terrorism and the incompatibility of Islamic ideology with other religions and democracy. One might venture to suggest that part of the solution to the “Islamic problem” would be to ban such treasonous doctrine (which includes extreme “hate speach” such as calls to kill “infidels” whilst also referring to Jews as “pigs” and others “monkeys”) and teaching of same in our Homeland Australia. Such institutionalised mob hatred towards our multi-ethnic nation and our civilisation is unacceptable, unwanted and cannot be tolerated to any degree. We, as Australians, pride ourselves on multi-ethnic and multiracial inclusion. But Islam is not a race or ethnicity; it’s just another ideology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s