Grand Mufti of Australia slammed over Paris attacks comments

[jerome2]

Islamofobia come from your not cleaning your mess ... killings .underage weddings. Rape .forced marriage of raped girls Family murders and violence against girls or children. Revenge .killing of sheeps in the bathrooms.. in an endless stream without clear protest against it or jail term

its the same in deep india but they dont break our balls here

Edited November 17, 2015 by jerome2

[Equalizer]

''highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of terrorism are not working'' I know, this is because they are born in the Mosques and predominantly Asian neighborhoods throughout Europe. To have so many Muslim individuals take up arms from all over the Muslim communities everywhere in Europe clearly shows us that the sentiment within these communities are leaning a little to the other side in general. They all have an inner feeling of sympathy for people who are perceived as defending Islam and its ideology. Not necessarily committed terrorist but they do subscribe to a hard line. Many many Muslims must have turned a blind eye to what they are seeing around them and so i would say to the grant Mufti, look this has been said a thousand times and yet you all refuse to shame them as a community in the early stages. Shame your Mosques, shame the communities into activism. Let people see all the Muslims marching through there own neighborhoods with banners condemning anti western values. Show morale support for your adopted country. There is your strategy so go try it, you maybe surprised at the response.

[Morch]

Because thebterrorists are not acting in accordance with islam. They are not real muslims.

Yes buddhists, christians and hindus have been doing quite a bit of terrorism. Buddhists against muslims in myanmar. Hindus against christians in india. Its only that those acts are not committed in western countries that western people identify more closely with that it just doesnt seem to matter.

A day before Paris was the Beirut massacre. Cant find the Lebanon flag colours on any monuments. Cant find the outrage, cant find western people in the street demonstrating.

The muffti is totally correct. Though i agree he could have waited a while. But he is correct although the timing of it can be called a Trumpism.

Might have to do with other parties keeping their activities in-country. When the Buddhists and Hindus start really get going by exporting their act to other countries, I am pretty sure we would witness similar levels of outrage. But anyway, that's the best you can come up with? Myanmar and India? Because jut off hand it is easy enough to think of 10 countries where instances of Islamic terrorism are prevalent. Obviously, these are either not real Muslims or were simply provoked....

Most people are not theologians, and cannot be expected to differentiate between not-really-Muslim-Islamic-terrorists and legitimate-Muslim-Islamic-terrorists. This falls on the shoulders of Muslim leaders world wide. On that front, the Grand Mufti failed miserably.

There were actually condolences and outrage expressed over the Beirut attack as well. That it was not to the same degree might reflect that Lebanon is pretty much a failed country, whereas France is not. It is also a fact of life that some countries play a more central role on the world stage, and therefore get more attention than others. Arguing that this "shouldn't" be this way, is rather pointless. Why would Western citizens take to the streets over one Muslim (sorry, meant not-real-Muslim) sect blows up members of a different Muslim sect, in another country? Were the attackers claiming to represent Western ideals?

[p_brownstone]

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.

Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

Timing is everything.

I rank the Mufti up there with Archbishop Pell as religious leaders with EQ's in the negative. Pell for his basic silence on child abuse in the Catholic church.

And both of them need to go.

I think most people - well, OK, perhaps Westerners - would opine that Terrorism is the cause of Islamophobia, not the result.

Patrick

Islama phobia is just the latest whipping boy of the rednecks. Even if there wasn't terrorism they'd have found another reason by now.

These blokes are as predictable as they are unimaginative.

Transport them back 30 years and it would have been the Vietnamese. 60 years and it would have been the '<deleted>'. 70 years the Japanese. Federation the Chinese. Before that, the Irish of course.

Same lines which spew out of their mouths, regardless of the era. As said, these fellas aren't very imaginative.

First of all, sorry Samran, I made a mess of my "Quotes" - I was actually replying to "Seastallion".

However you do raise an important point:

"Terrorism" has always been an important weapon in the hands of an oppressed minority who simply want to preserve their Culture and way of life from invaders: From the Tribes of Europe and Asia who tried to oppose the Roman advance through their lands - and even before that - up to the examples you cite : Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese - even the Irish - simply, basically, wanted to be left alone to live as they wanted. However without the resources to wage face-to-face warfare they resorted to what we would now call Terrorism against their enemy - the common term "Guerrilla war" means "small war" and dates back - at least - to the small actions peasant groups took against the French in that war.

This is NOT the same as the actions of the Muslim Terrorists however, their Terrorism is offensive, not defensive.

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Accept the ISIS Caliphate in Europe or we will bomb your civilian population in places where they feel safe, until they realise they will never be safe unless they convert and accept the Caliphate.

Patrick

Edited November 17, 2015 by p_brownstone

[ilostmypassword]

Seastallion, on 17 Nov 2015 - 11:45, said:

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.

Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

God forbid you blame the Muslims for what is going on with ISIS, why is it that all the ills of this world, well,

99% of it, is associated with Muslims? why not Buddhists? not Christians, Hindu, Shinto and many other

religions only Muslims? may the fact that Islam is the source of all evil? and Islamphobia is just what

the world need to rid it from those bad Muslims?

So global warming, HIV, Ebola, are all the fault of Muslims. Interesting

Edited November 17, 2015 by ilostmypassword

[Andaman Al]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

[samran]

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.
Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

Timing is everything.
I rank the Mufti up there with Archbishop Pell as religious leaders with EQ's in the negative. Pell for his basic silence on child abuse in the Catholic church.

And both of them need to go.

I think most people - well, OK, perhaps Westerners - would opine that Terrorism is the cause of Islamophobia, not the result.

Patrick

Islama phobia is just the latest whipping boy of the rednecks. Even if there wasn't terrorism they'd have found another reason by now.

These blokes are as predictable as they are unimaginative.

Transport them back 30 years and it would have been the Vietnamese. 60 years and it would have been the '<deleted>'. 70 years the Japanese. Federation the Chinese. Before that, the Irish of course.

Same lines which spew out of their mouths, regardless of the era. As said, these fellas aren't very imaginative.

First of all, sorry Samran, I made a mess of my "Quotes" - I was actually replying to "Seastallion".

However you do raise an important point:

"Terrorism" has always been an important weapon in the hands of an oppressed minority who simply want to preserve their Culture and way of life from invaders: From the Tribes of Europe and Asia who tried to oppose the Roman advance through their lands - and even before that - up to the examples you cite : Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese - even the Irish - simply, basically, wanted to be left alone to live as they wanted. However without the resources to wage face-to-face warfare they resorted to what we would now call Terrorism against their enemy - the common term "Guerrilla war" means "small war" and dates back - at least - to the small actions peasant groups took against the French in that war.

This is NOT the same as the actions of the Muslim Terrorists however, their Terrorism is offensive, not defensive.

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Accept the ISIS Caliphate in Europe or we will bomb your civilian population in places where they feel safe, until they realise they will never be safe unless they convert and accept the Caliphate.

Patrick

I make a distinction between ISIS thugs and those muslims who are escaping them. The latter I will not vilify. The former, I'll happily open the bomb bay doors.

The rednecks seek to tar the latter. I won't do that.

[samran]

Seastallion, on 17 Nov 2015 - 11:45, said:

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.

Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

God forbid you blame the Muslims for what is going on with ISIS, why is it that all the ills of this world, well,

99% of it, is associated with Muslims? why not Buddhists? not Christians, Hindu, Shinto and many other

religions only Muslims? may the fact that Islam is the source of all evil? and Islamphobia is just what

the world need to rid it from those bad Muslims?

My first sojourn outside of Australia in 1969 was to Indonesia where all but the Balinese are muslims.

They were normal everyday people doing normal everyday things.

The terrorism that we face today was instigated by the Arabs and only copied by the Asians.

I believe that we are somewhat blaming a religion for what has been done by extremists.

If we do not want their religion in our countries then we should ban them but we will not.

You can go to the farthest reaches of the Australian outback and there you will find a Chinese family. They know full well how to assimilate.

The problem with the arabs is that they will not assimilate.

They lack the moral fibre of the Chinese and that is why they hide behind their religion.

I think this is a very interesting point.

Look up Bashar Houli and Waled Ali. I think they'd care to differ.

[JHolmesJr]

With social media you have to think hard before you open your mouth....one guy slagging you off soon turns into a tidal wave of disapproval.

The mufti blew it by qualifying his remarks with some misplaced remarks.

[Linky]

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.

Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

Have you not recognized the likelihood that his condolences are for the muslim victims of French police gunfire?

Have you not regonised that you are wrong?

[Linky]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

Neither do real followers of islam

[samran]

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Anybody who has the mildest acquaintance with Islamic history knows that this is nonsense. For instance It was the Christians who expelled the Jews from Spain after retaking it from the Arab Moslems. Jews and Moslems lived mostly in amity in Spain for 700 years. And it was the Turks who took in huge numbers of those Jews expelled by the Christians. In fact, until the 20th century the majority of the residents of Istanbul were Christians and Jews. Lately, we've been hearing of the native Christian population fleeing Iraq and Syria. The Christians have been there for about 1400 years of Moslem rule. As were the Jews until the creation of Israel. Generally Jews were treated better in Moslem kingdoms than in Christian ones. Although that varied and even in highly enlightened Moslem Spain, there were some bad patches. Whereas in Christian Europe Moslems were not allowed to live at all.

Not my quote...

[ilostmypassword]

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Patrick

Anybody who has the mildest acquaintance with Islamic history knows that this is nonsense. For instance It was the Christians who expelled the Jews from Spain after retaking it from the Arab Moslems. Jews and Moslems lived mostly in amity in Spain for 700 years. And it was the Turks who took in huge numbers of those Jews expelled by the Christians. In fact, until the 20th century the majority of the residents of Istanbul were Christians and Jews. Lately, we've been hearing of the native Christian population fleeing Iraq and Syria. The Christians have been there for about 1400 years of Moslem rule. As were the Jews until the creation of Israel. Generally Jews were treated better in Moslem kingdoms than in Christian ones. Although that varied and even in highly enlightened Moslem Spain, there were some bad patches. Whereas in Christian Europe Moslems were not allowed to live at all.

Edited November 18, 2015 by ilostmypassword

[up2u2]

An in depth interview was conducted today exclusively with right wing radio shock jock Justin Smith with the Grand Mufti today. A number of questions were put to the Mufti by the show producers and instead of forwarding written answers he extended an invitation for a recorded interview to answer the questions put to him by the producers.

Most of the allegations raised on this thread are answered without reservation by the Grand Mufti.

Daesh / ISIS are un Islamic and performs actions that Islam does not accept whatsoever. He without reservation condemns the actions of Daesh / ISIS and has done this on many occasions.

The Muslim community has an obligation to protect Australia and make it a safe place.

Daesh / ISIS even attacks the Grand Mufti himself labelling him an apostate and issues Fatwa's against him.

His response to the question "do you see yourself as a Muslim first or an Australian" was very revealing.

etc etc etc

The entire recorded interview can be found here:

https://audioboom.com/boos/3825634-his-eminence-the-grand-mufti-of-australia-dr-ibrahim-abu-mohamed-speaks-exclusively-to-justin-smith

Some background. The Grand Mufti is a theological scholar on Islam. He does speak some English but is not fluent and but discussing the complex issues of Islam prefers to speak in his native tongue, Arabic. The Grand Mufti answers in Arabic and are translated to the interviewer. The Grand Mufti does not speak on behalf of ALL Muslims in Australia he is more a scholarly expert on the teachings and interpretation of Islam.

[h90]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

Neither do real followers of islam

I can't see millions of Muslims demonstrate against violence....can't see some candle light demonstrations in Berlin or Riyadh.

Read the Quaran it is very pro-violence.

99% of the Muslims might be good non violent people, but I can't see them getting very upset....how many millions demonstrate today for peace in Riyadh, Gaza, Baghdad? How many would demonstrate if someone burns the Quaran.

[Linky]

Because thebterrorists are not acting in accordance with islam. They are not real muslims.

Yes buddhists, christians and hindus have been doing quite a bit of terrorism. Buddhists against muslims in myanmar. Hindus against christians in india. Its only that those acts are not committed in western countries that western people identify more closely with that it just doesnt seem to matter.

A day before Paris was the Beirut massacre. Cant find the Lebanon flag colours on any monuments. Cant find the outrage, cant find western people in the street demonstrating.

The muffti is totally correct. Though i agree he could have waited a while. But he is correct although the timing of it can be called a Trumpism.

Might have to do with other parties keeping their activities in-country. When the Buddhists and Hindus start really get going by exporting their act to other countries, I am pretty sure we would witness similar levels of outrage. But anyway, that's the best you can come up with? Myanmar and India? Because jut off hand it is easy enough to think of 10 countries where instances of Islamic terrorism are prevalent. Obviously, these are either not real Muslims or were simply provoked....

Most people are not theologians, and cannot be expected to differentiate between not-really-Muslim-Islamic-terrorists and legitimate-Muslim-Islamic-terrorists. This falls on the shoulders of Muslim leaders world wide. On that front, the Grand Mufti failed miserably.

There were actually condolences and outrage expressed over the Beirut attack as well. That it was not to the same degree might reflect that Lebanon is pretty much a failed country, whereas France is not. It is also a fact of life that some countries play a more central role on the world stage, and therefore get more attention than others. Arguing that this "shouldn't" be this way, is rather pointless. Why would Western citizens take to the streets over one Muslim (sorry, meant not-real-Muslim) sect blows up members of a different Muslim sect, in another country? Were the attackers claiming to represent Western ideals?

Seems you missed the part that I was responding to, that buddhists, hindus etc do not commit terrorist acts. So the terrorism i referred to in india and myanmar was in direct response. So no its not the best i can come up with, its just that i wanted to answer the specific question.

Something you should perhaps consider.

[Morch]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

Neither do real followers of islam

You mean like fake-red-shirts? (since Thailand was used as an example)

[Linky]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

Neither do real followers of islam

You mean like fake-red-shirts? (since Thailand was used as an example)

No i mean exactly what i said. Thought that was quite easy to comprehend.

[Morch]

"His said strategies used to combat terrorism were not working and that "causative factors" such Islamophobia and duplicitous foreign policies had to be addressed."

He's totally right.

Why is it Un-PC to mention some of the causative factors?

Give him a break. He was offering condolences.

Timing is everything.

I rank the Mufti up there with Archbishop Pell as religious leaders with EQ's in the negative. Pell for his basic silence on child abuse in the Catholic church.

And both of them need to go.

I think most people - well, OK, perhaps Westerners - would opine that Terrorism is the cause of Islamophobia, not the result.

Patrick

Islama phobia is just the latest whipping boy of the rednecks. Even if there wasn't terrorism they'd have found another reason by now.

These blokes are as predictable as they are unimaginative.

Transport them back 30 years and it would have been the Vietnamese. 60 years and it would have been the '<deleted>'. 70 years the Japanese. Federation the Chinese. Before that, the Irish of course.

Same lines which spew out of their mouths, regardless of the era. As said, these fellas aren't very imaginative.

First of all, sorry Samran, I made a mess of my "Quotes" - I was actually replying to "Seastallion".

However you do raise an important point:

"Terrorism" has always been an important weapon in the hands of an oppressed minority who simply want to preserve their Culture and way of life from invaders: From the Tribes of Europe and Asia who tried to oppose the Roman advance through their lands - and even before that - up to the examples you cite : Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese - even the Irish - simply, basically, wanted to be left alone to live as they wanted. However without the resources to wage face-to-face warfare they resorted to what we would now call Terrorism against their enemy - the common term "Guerrilla war" means "small war" and dates back - at least - to the small actions peasant groups took against the French in that war.

This is NOT the same as the actions of the Muslim Terrorists however, their Terrorism is offensive, not defensive.

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Accept the ISIS Caliphate in Europe or we will bomb your civilian population in places where they feel safe, until they realise they will never be safe unless they convert and accept the Caliphate.

Patrick

I make a distinction between ISIS thugs and those muslims who are escaping them. The latter I will not vilify. The former, I'll happily open the bomb bay doors.

The rednecks seek to tar the latter. I won't do that.

Escaping from ISIS is, by itself, not a certified voucher of moderation. There is a range of unsavory points of view, which while less extreme than ISIS's, are still at odds with Western way of life. This is not intended as tarring all those escaping ISIS with the same brush, quite the opposite. Recognizing that not all are the same can play in more than one way.

[Andaman Al]

Well I experience Farangaphobia and racism in Thailand but it's just another day - no issue- and I don't go down to Robinsons and the cinema whacking 150 innocents because they call me Farang and charge me more to get in certain entertainment venues.

Neither do real followers of islam

Watch and weep! For those (like me) that the music drives you bonkers just go to 3mins 15 Sec.

This is a British 'meeting' of 'normal Muslims'. Wake UP people!!

Now after watching Linky, come back and talk to me about 'real followers of Islam'.

[arjunadawn]

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Patrick

Anybody who has the mildest acquaintance with Islamic history knows that this is nonsense. For instance It was the Christians who expelled the Jews from Spain after retaking it from the Arab Moslems. Jews and Moslems lived mostly in amity in Spain for 700 years. And it was the Turks who took in huge numbers of those Jews expelled by the Christians. In fact, until the 20th century the majority of the residents of Istanbul were Christians and Jews. Lately, we've been hearing of the native Christian population fleeing Iraq and Syria. The Christians have been there for about 1400 years of Moslem rule. As were the Jews until the creation of Israel. Generally Jews were treated better in Moslem kingdoms than in Christian ones. Although that varied and even in highly enlightened Moslem Spain, there were some bad patches. Whereas in Christian Europe Moslems were not allowed to live at all.

The argument that jews and christians lived better under islam is true, from a very narrow perspective. Islamic social structure is significantly based on the caste system of dhimmis, "people of the book," who choose to pay that tax, "feel subjugated," and continue to practice their faith as alternative to death or conversion. So, there was always some various and relative to islam and the times, enlightened caste system in islam for jews and christians. So, if we disregard entirely all the lessons learned of the modern world, plural democracy, the right to freely worship and associate, we can conclude that the christians were not as kind as islam was. But an honest appraisal makes this a relative observation. They were either slave or subordinate members of the society. To suggest there was plural harmony is simply convenient, or an undeveloped observation. This is taqqiya.

Regarding "conversion:" It is absolutely true the former post is correct, though not for christian and jews- "people of the book." People of the book must be given a chance to convert or pay the jiyza- tax. Pagans can only be presented with the option of convert or die. This crux is among the errors of DAESH with regard to the Yazidis; they are only giving them the option to convert or die. The Yazidis, a generally accepted offshoot of christianity, has an odd recognition regarding the Angel of Light, whom the muslims consider Iblis, Lucifer. By this extrapolation they conclude they are not christians. But there is coercion.

The Imams of AU have come forward to clarify the Grand Mufti's remarks and while on its face it both seems to repudiate and remain silent on what the mufit said, it is really quite deceptive and feeds into the incorrect narrative above. Read the quote below. Why develop the context for the west? Why? To develop the context further adds to the sense of endorsing violence. Better to add words and admonishment that are both true, and utterly false, depending on the audience.

"There is no justification for taking innocent lives" is correct, from a 7th century perspective and rings true in the 21st equally. But the sharia makes clear upon whom this injunction applies, and when. You cannot divorce this statement from the context. Sharia proscribes when lives can be taken all the time, and ipso facto those lives are not considered innocent. This rule applies to muslims, "people of the book," slaves, and pagans- hindus, buddhists, etc.

Edited November 18, 2015 by arjunadawn

[samran]

Islama phobia is just the latest whipping boy of the rednecks. Even if there wasn't terrorism they'd have found another reason by now.

These blokes are as predictable as they are unimaginative.

Transport them back 30 years and it would have been the Vietnamese. 60 years and it would have been the '<deleted>'. 70 years the Japanese. Federation the Chinese. Before that, the Irish of course.

Same lines which spew out of their mouths, regardless of the era. As said, these fellas aren't very imaginative.

First of all, sorry Samran, I made a mess of my "Quotes" - I was actually replying to "Seastallion".

However you do raise an important point:

"Terrorism" has always been an important weapon in the hands of an oppressed minority who simply want to preserve their Culture and way of life from invaders: From the Tribes of Europe and Asia who tried to oppose the Roman advance through their lands - and even before that - up to the examples you cite : Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese - even the Irish - simply, basically, wanted to be left alone to live as they wanted. However without the resources to wage face-to-face warfare they resorted to what we would now call Terrorism against their enemy - the common term "Guerrilla war" means "small war" and dates back - at least - to the small actions peasant groups took against the French in that war.

This is NOT the same as the actions of the Muslim Terrorists however, their Terrorism is offensive, not defensive.

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Accept the ISIS Caliphate in Europe or we will bomb your civilian population in places where they feel safe, until they realise they will never be safe unless they convert and accept the Caliphate.

Patrick

I make a distinction between ISIS thugs and those muslims who are escaping them. The latter I will not vilify. The former, I'll happily open the bomb bay doors.

The rednecks seek to tar the latter. I won't do that.

Escaping from ISIS is, by itself, not a certified voucher of moderation. There is a range of unsavory points of view, which while less extreme than ISIS's, are still at odds with Western way of life. This is not intended as tarring all those escaping ISIS with the same brush, quite the opposite. Recognizing that not all are the same can play in more than one way.

I take your point. But if they aren't harming others, and are not likely to, what is there really to fear? Are we that scared that our liberal democracy can't handle divergent views?

Do we stop strict catholics migrating because they hold certain strident views on things like abortion, homosexuality and the like?

Edited November 18, 2015 by samran

[arjunadawn]

Yes! Another muslim scholar has posted an online video that drastically differs from the mufti or scholars in AU. I will not post the link to this video here as the words are quite spicy. However, Muslim scholar says F--- y to extremists is hopefully a video/symbol of renewed voice for the long labored majority of muslims who want none of this violence. Without question, one of the prime targets are muslims in France, though this does not seem apparent. It is! The effort predictably posits French muslims against the plural west. I am grateful for everyone of these people standing up today.

Edit: This has a January date. The point still stands. That these individuals and groups are surfacing speaks to the frustration felt by many. It also serves to illustrate exactly where the AU mufti really is.

Edited November 18, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Morch]

I make a distinction between ISIS thugs and those muslims who are escaping them. The latter I will not vilify. The former, I'll happily open the bomb bay doors.

The rednecks seek to tar the latter. I won't do that.

Escaping from ISIS is, by itself, not a certified voucher of moderation. There is a range of unsavory points of view, which while less extreme than ISIS's, are still at odds with Western way of life. This is not intended as tarring all those escaping ISIS with the same brush, quite the opposite. Recognizing that not all are the same can play in more than one way.

I take your point. But if they aren't harming others, and are not likely to, what is there really to fear? Are we that scared that our liberal democracy can't handle divergent views?

Do we stop strict catholics migrating because they hold certain strident views on things like abortion, homosexuality and the like?

Considering the potential security issues connected with the current migrant/refugee crisis in Europe, blanket claims regarding candidates not posing a danger are to be treated with due caution.

As for the aspect of being a threat to liberal democracy, that would depend on the numbers and pace in which they arrive. The Australian handling of this is more sensible than the EU's, and therefore less likely to cause further issues down the line. Divergent views are alright, if all accept the right of others to divergence. It could be said this is not a cornerstone of certain cultures and certain countries of origin. Not an outright reason that new ways cannot be learned, but ignoring it as a factor with regard to fitting in, is a mistake.

Catholic immigrants, to the best of my knowledge, are somewhat more likely to express their displeasure in acceptable ways. I'm sure that there are examples to the contrary, but Muslim do seem to be more inclined to public outrage over more issues, compared with other groups.

[samran]

I make a distinction between ISIS thugs and those muslims who are escaping them. The latter I will not vilify. The former, I'll happily open the bomb bay doors.

The rednecks seek to tar the latter. I won't do that.

Escaping from ISIS is, by itself, not a certified voucher of moderation. There is a range of unsavory points of view, which while less extreme than ISIS's, are still at odds with Western way of life. This is not intended as tarring all those escaping ISIS with the same brush, quite the opposite. Recognizing that not all are the same can play in more than one way.

I take your point. But if they aren't harming others, and are not likely to, what is there really to fear? Are we that scared that our liberal democracy can't handle divergent views?

Do we stop strict catholics migrating because they hold certain strident views on things like abortion, homosexuality and the like?

Considering the potential security issues connected with the current migrant/refugee crisis in Europe, blanket claims regarding candidates not posing a danger are to be treated with due caution.

As for the aspect of being a threat to liberal democracy, that would depend on the numbers and pace in which they arrive. The Australian handling of this is more sensible than the EU's, and therefore less likely to cause further issues down the line. Divergent views are alright, if all accept the right of others to divergence. It could be said this is not a cornerstone of certain cultures and certain countries of origin. Not an outright reason that new ways cannot be learned, but ignoring it as a factor with regard to fitting in, is a mistake.

Catholic immigrants, to the best of my knowledge, are somewhat more likely to express their displeasure in acceptable ways. I'm sure that there are examples to the contrary, but Muslim do seem to be more inclined to public outrage over more issues, compared with other groups.

Appriciate your thoughts. To be honest I've always taken those 'down down USA' marches in the ME with a grain of salt. State sanctioned BS. I mean a kid with Iranian parents just listed Tinder on the NYSE last night and made lots of money. So much for down down USA.

At a general level I think we in the west are more inclined to genuine public outrage over issues. It is actually one of our key checks and balances in our democracy, when all other governance efforts have failed, public outrage is allowed to make one final shot at rectification of issues. It is something simply not encourage either socially or politically in most other parts of the world.

Allowing people to come into a culture like this, I'd argue, encourages them to feel more included. I'd be loathe to discourage it (with the above mentioned caveats). Moronic ideas are then exposed for what they are.

On a slightly different topic, overnight the Telstra business woman of the year was selected. One of my friends has been on the selection committee in previous years - and they don't tend to do token nominations.

Impressive woman they chose. In charge of Australia's frigate missile defense system.

http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/13-14/profiles/profile-captain-mona-shindy-ran.asp

Edited November 19, 2015 by samran

[ilostmypassword]

Islam is the only religion (that I know of) which sanctions - indeed demands and approves - of conversion by coercion, "by the Sword";

Convert or die, convert or be raped, convert or your children will be sold into slavery.

Patrick

Anybody who has the mildest acquaintance with Islamic history knows that this is nonsense. For instance It was the Christians who expelled the Jews from Spain after retaking it from the Arab Moslems. Jews and Moslems lived mostly in amity in Spain for 700 years. And it was the Turks who took in huge numbers of those Jews expelled by the Christians. In fact, until the 20th century the majority of the residents of Istanbul were Christians and Jews. Lately, we've been hearing of the native Christian population fleeing Iraq and Syria. The Christians have been there for about 1400 years of Moslem rule. As were the Jews until the creation of Israel. Generally Jews were treated better in Moslem kingdoms than in Christian ones. Although that varied and even in highly enlightened Moslem Spain, there were some bad patches. Whereas in Christian Europe Moslems were not allowed to live at all.

The argument that jews and christians lived better under islam is true, from a very narrow perspective. Islamic social structure is significantly based on the caste system of dhimmis, "people of the book," who choose to pay that tax, "feel subjugated," and continue to practice their faith as alternative to death or conversion. So, there was always some various and relative to islam and the times, enlightened caste system in islam for jews and christians. So, if we disregard entirely all the lessons learned of the modern world, plural democracy, the right to freely worship and associate, we can conclude that the christians were not as kind as islam was. But an honest appraisal makes this a relative observation. They were either slave or subordinate members of the society. To suggest there was plural harmony is simply convenient, or an undeveloped observation. This is taqqiya.

I think it's you who's being narrow here. Does the fact of taxation of dhimmis in the islamic world mean that essentially life was worse for jews under Moslem rule than for those in Europe? For most of the time that Islam has existed, Jew are treated substantially better under Moslem rule. Anyway, special taxes were imposed on the Jews in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_of_the_Jews.

And does the word "ghetto' mean anything to you. For most of European history, Jews were not allowed live anywhere except in highly circumscribed areas. What's more they were restricted from practicing most professions. This was generally not the case in Moslem lands.

And there was often harmony in Moslem lands for Jews. There was a golden age for them in Moslem Spain. In Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and Syria, the Jewish community prospered for centuries.

As for the right to worship freely, how long has this existed in Europe? And it came about not from within the Christian establishment, but from those opposed to the role of the Church in the affairs of the state. Voltaire and those who came after him had little use for the Church. After anywhere from 18 to 20 centuries of Christian intolerance, to somehow give credit to Christianity for the institution of modern civil liberties, seems bizarrely congratulatory..

Edited November 19, 2015 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

Escaping from ISIS is, by itself, not a certified voucher of moderation. There is a range of unsavory points of view, which while less extreme than ISIS's, are still at odds with Western way of life. This is not intended as tarring all those escaping ISIS with the same brush, quite the opposite. Recognizing that not all are the same can play in more than one way.

I take your point. But if they aren't harming others, and are not likely to, what is there really to fear? Are we that scared that our liberal democracy can't handle divergent views?

Do we stop strict catholics migrating because they hold certain strident views on things like abortion, homosexuality and the like?

Considering the potential security issues connected with the current migrant/refugee crisis in Europe, blanket claims regarding candidates not posing a danger are to be treated with due caution.

As for the aspect of being a threat to liberal democracy, that would depend on the numbers and pace in which they arrive. The Australian handling of this is more sensible than the EU's, and therefore less likely to cause further issues down the line. Divergent views are alright, if all accept the right of others to divergence. It could be said this is not a cornerstone of certain cultures and certain countries of origin. Not an outright reason that new ways cannot be learned, but ignoring it as a factor with regard to fitting in, is a mistake.

Catholic immigrants, to the best of my knowledge, are somewhat more likely to express their displeasure in acceptable ways. I'm sure that there are examples to the contrary, but Muslim do seem to be more inclined to public outrage over more issues, compared with other groups.

Appriciate your thoughts. To be honest I've always taken those 'down down USA' marches in the ME with a grain of salt. State sanctioned BS. I mean a kid with Iranian parents just listed Tinder on the NYSE last night and made lots of money. So much for down down USA.

At a general level I think we in the west are more inclined to genuine public outrage over issues. It is actually one of our key checks and balances in our democracy, when all other governance efforts have failed, public outrage is allowed to make one final shot at rectification of issues. It is something simply not encourage either socially or politically in most other parts of the world.

Allowing people to come into a culture like this, I'd argue, encourages them to feel more included. I'd be loathe to discourage it (with the above mentioned caveats). Moronic ideas are then exposed for what they are.

On a slightly different topic, overnight the Telstra business woman of the year was selected. One of my friends has been on the selection committee in previous years - and they don't tend to do token nominations.

Impressive woman they chose. In charge of Australia's frigate missile defense system.

http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/13-14/profiles/profile-captain-mona-shindy-ran.asp

Not sure what Middle Eastern demonstrations against the USA got to do with it, but while many are organized by authorities or by other organizations having vested interests, it doesn't take much to gather up a crowd with these slogans. There's not much call for coercion, protesters are often enthusiastic participants. The Tinder boys grew up in the state, sort of well do to family, which immigrated to the USA around the time of the Islamic revolution. As a side note, they are not members of the Religion of Peace, perhaps already having some experience living as a minority is a positive one when considering fitting in a new society.

I see no issues with motivated, skilled and ready to adjust people seeking a better life elsewhere, just pointing out that it is in the host country's best interest to pick potential new residents according to relevant criteria, rather than simply because they are refugees.

Good on the lady and good on Australia for being open minded. The issue, though, is not finding token examples of immigrants who made it, but on how things work out over all. There is no argument that individuals can be anything - disengaging individual success from relevant conditions and comparative data is jsut missing the point.

[car720]

Grand mufti of Australia. Is that the equivalent of the archbishop of Saudi?

I used to be called a grand muffti, but I think it was for something else.

[spidermike007]

Part of the problem is that him, and many members of his community are NOT speaking out against the extremism. And they run a huge risk of alienating the planet. Influential men like him need to start speaking out, and denouncing extremism, and the bad seeds within the faith. And they need to do it immediately. I am starting to think they do not quite realize the PR issues that Islam as a whole, is starting to get. Maybe the influential among them can hire a PR agency that spearheads a campaign, aimed at making the world aware of the denouncement of the freaks.

The reality is, if the moderate among them do not start speaking out in a clear, loud, and very visible fashion, they run the risk of getting lumped into the category hate mongers like Trump are trying to create. And I am afraid of what that outcome could look like. People are getting angry. And a lot of that anger is justified. Paris was horrific. It could become an extreme reaction, to an extreme problem. There is nothing simple about this problem. It is not something simple minded men like Trump could solve, even on their best day. I am not saying he is dumb. But, he is definitely simple minded. And this problem requires the kind of creativity and genius he, nor Obama, nor Kerry, nor Clinton have. Not sure who could come up with a solution. But, I do know every moderate Iman, every moderate Mufti, every moderate Muslim politician, and every moderate Muslim needs to start speaking out, and they need to start doing it yesterday. It needs to be a very loud denouncement of the fools amongst them. We need to start hearing it. And it needs to be loud, and it needs to be voluminous, and it needs to come from all quarters. And the media needs to report it. The situation is nothing short of urgent.

Edited November 21, 2015 by spidermike007