Thread: Two worthwhile articles on Islam in Australia

I'm a big fan of digressions and more guilty of it than most, but we lost the Thread as we entered page two .

So just getting back on topic for a couple of posts, before another three pages of fashion, I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.

Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.

This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.... if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated .

Oops, I think you just denounced them as nutters.

Orf with 'is 'ead then!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I'm a big fan of digressions and more guilty of it than most, but we lost the Thread as we entered page two .

So just getting back on topic for a couple of posts, before another three pages of fashion, I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.

Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.

This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

Very well said Paul. Couldn't agree more. They are bloody nutters!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Oops, I think you just denounced them as nutters.

Orf with 'is 'ead then!

Brett

I suppose it doesn't really matter what you denounce them as, providing you disassociate yourself with them. If you don't do that you tend to be judged by the company you keep even if it is very infrequent or in some instances non-existant.

History, to which I alluded, has had many such types. There was the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Third Reich, numerous instances in Africa (some still ongoing), Cambodia and of course the current Middle eastern question just to mention a few.

There was also Alice in Wonderland.

"Off with his Head."



Regards
Paul

Bushmiller, I think your point that you'll get your head whacked if you say anything about this issue is a real one. I'm pretty uncompfortable with the 'cognitive dissonance' I see between the daily reports of Islamic war across the world, and the demand in Australia that we treat anyone so concerned as 'Islamophobic'. Imagine if back in 1939 the Orwellian newspeak of 'Facistophobic' had been invented. Fascism was an ideology of peace too ... once all the non-fascists had been dispensed with. Absolutely no doubt 'most muslims' are very unlikely to be violent. Most women, most old people, most kids, most disabled people, most of the religiously uncommitted ... but that doesn't prove there is no problem. No matter what war is fought, 'most people' are not combatants. It's fit young men who do the fighting, and old blokes who feed them the motivational ideology. In this case, 'the Left' seem very keen on shutting down the whole debate, but mainly through ad-hominem attacks, ridicule, appeals to victimhood, and the aforesaid newspeak. I haven't read an actual philosphical argument from the Left that upholds Islam as a pluralist, liberating, value system. That's not surprising, beacuse the Left philosphically is against any form of supremacism. I keep wondering what happened, that 'the Left' have decided to attack anyone concerned about Islamic extremism, and pushed it into being a 'Right wing' concern. I really can't see it. Last year, before the federal elections, there was a quiz on the ABC website where you answered a large number of questions about where you stood on various issues. I found out that I was left of the Greens. I guess that was because I believe in sustainable development, social diversity and a welfare safety net - so I am apparently 100 country miles away from being "Right Wing". On top of that, I've never identified as being 'Right wing'. And yet, I am deeply uncomfortable with all the Left ridicule of anyone thinking there is a real problem with Islam. At some point, it seems to me that Muslims are going to have to draw a line under the 700-year old edicts to subjugate and kill all non-muslims. Because until that happens, the potential for supremacism and homicide lies at the heart of Islam. If they can't draw that line, then their version of Mein Kampf lives on in the hearts and minds of just enough of the Muslim community to always pose a threat to everyone else. Sorry, lefties, but that's how I see it. Righto, I'll just lay my head on the block and you can chop me off - maybe move that I be excommunicated from Woodwork Forums? Or simply label me as Islamophobic? I worry about where our value systems have gone to. But before you attack me, please just read all of the above carefully.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.

This attitude right here is part of the problem, for several reasons. (1) most of the muslim community does this. You either choose to ignore this or you read media that doesn't report it. Either way it's your fault, not the fault of the muslim community, though to treat such a diverse range of people as some monolithic block is fairly stupid as well. (2) Why is this standard applied to the muslim community, and not to others? Why don't people yell and scream about the Catholic community denouncing the acts of kiddy fiddlers? Because of hypocritical double standards.

Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.

When your argument can be completely disproved by one junkee link, you need a better argument.
http://junkee.com/heres-a-quick-reca...his-week/42244

They are being persecuted because of their faith.

This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

Why not? We ignore this all the time. Whats the death count in Syria now? What did we do during the whole Rwanda genocide? As a nation we pick and choose what issues to get involved with all the time, and it usually involves the death of a westerner before we bother to lift a plane and bomb some civilians.

Originally Posted by Gunnaduit

. In this case, 'the Left' seem very keen on shutting down the whole debate, but mainly through ad-hominem attacks, ridicule, appeals to victimhood, and the aforesaid newspeak.

Thats just complete rubbish. One thing I have found is that certain people love to accuse the other side of the very faults they themselves hold in spades. You will notice this bunch of cretins that call themselves the government do this a lot.

I haven't read an actual philosphical argument from the Left that upholds Islam as a pluralist, liberating, value system. That's not surprising, beacuse the Left philosphically is against any form of supremacism.

This just doesn't make sense. Do you proof read or is it more stream of consciousness stuff?

I keep wondering what happened, that 'the Left' have decided to attack anyone concerned about Islamic extremism, and pushed it into being a 'Right wing' concern. I really can't see it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Last year, before the federal elections, there was a quiz on the ABC website where you answered a large number of questions about where you stood on various issues. I found out that I was left of the Greens. I guess that was because I believe in sustainable development, social diversity and a welfare safety net - so I am apparently 100 country miles away from being "Right Wing".

Well, on some issues. Clearly on this one you are pushing a barrow that is certainly not leftist.

On top of that, I've never identified as being 'Right wing'. And yet, I am deeply uncomfortable with all the Left ridicule of anyone thinking there is a real problem with Islam.

There is no problem with Islam, I'm identifying you as right wing on this issue.

At some point, it seems to me that Muslims are going to have to draw a line under the 700-year old edicts to subjugate and kill all non-muslims.

You have read leviticus, yeah? If not, I thoroughly recommend it, it's quite an eye opener. Now explain why you apply this standard to Muslims and not Christians.

Because until that happens, the potential for supremacism and homicide lies at the heart of Islam. If they can't draw that line, then their version of Mein Kampf lives on in the hearts and minds of just enough of the Muslim community to always pose a threat to everyone else.

This is why you are so completely wrong and biased on this issue. The exact same thing can be said of Christians.

Sorry, lefties, but that's how I see it. Righto, I'll just lay my head on the block and you can chop me off - maybe move that I be excommunicated from Woodwork Forums? Or simply label me as Islamophobic?

You are clearly biased against the religion of Islam, and I doubt you will change your mind no matter what argument is put forward. You clearly think that people will think you are islamophobic, so maybe you should stop spouting bollocks that makes people think that.

I worry about where our value systems have gone to. But before you attack me, please just read all of the above carefully.

I read it all and its largely rubbish based on bollocks with a large heap of crap on top. Where do you think our value system has gone?

Thanks Incognito. I guess you gave it your best shot. Quite emotional (well, angry, anyway), so your heart's in the right place I suppose. But again, lacking in substance. The defence side in this debate is going to have to do better than personal attack, colourful adjectives, value assertions and red herring arguments. While intimidating, it's not convincing. This is what I mean.

Originally Posted by DonIncognito

The exact same thing can be said of Christians.

Indeed. Just watching Kingdom of Heaven atm, which is a thoroughly engaging film (Ridley Scott). Now Ridley is not necessarily always historically accurate, and I get that this is just a movie, but a couple of things struck me, especially in the context of the current debate.

At one point someone suggests that they can live in peace with the Muslims in Jerusalem, as they have been, a some dickhead yells out "BLASPHEMY!", and then another yells "Assemble the Army" because "God wills it". What a load of crap. How do they know God wills it? Oh right, because he just said so.

I said to my partner that this was exactly the same small minded extremism that some people accuse the Muslims in general of. The problem is that the Muslim extremists are currently guilty of it - kill the infidels, simply because they don't believe in my particular version of God.

But Christians have been guilty of just the same thing - anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? The corrupted and exterminated civilisations of South America?

How much has the spread of Christianity done for our Indigenous population, where the were taken from their families in the name of the bloody Church?

Make no mistake: wherever you find white colonialism you'll find their brand of religion right alongside, claiming to know the only true God.

Well I think it's about time God showed himself/itself/herself and declared who is right and who is wrong, and sorted out the mess that its so-called existence has created.

Gunna, I note that you have said you don't necessarily agree with everything posted on the Quadrant site, but the question has to be asked: what lead you you to reading anything from such an extreme right wing site in the first place? Furthermore, the fact that you don't necessarily agree with everything posted indicates that you must have spent a fair amount of time on there.

The headlines were enough for me to be completely disinterested. The opinions expressed on there do not seem to come from a balanced and fair mind(s). More like whipping up hatred.

Is the name "Quadrant" a vague reference to the four cornered Swaztika?

FF, I think the difference in my viewpoint from yours would be that I'm interested in the cogency of an argument, not it's supposed 'tribal' affiliation. So basically I don't care if it the argument is supposed to be from the 'left' or the 'right'. You'll notice that I said I did a quiz that categorised me as hard left, but I never said I identified that way. I try not to get into tribal loyalties, ever since uni days (in with the Socialists) I saw how that just leads you to agree with things that on reflection, you don't agree with (all looks a bit silly now, defending Stalinism back at the family table). Having learned my lesson from that and other political-tribe misadventures, all I look for is a substantive argument that uses reason well to convince. Sort of like how your teacher, Mr His-Knibs, used to mark your essays - on its internal merits (that's unless Mr His-Knibs was pushing a partisan line himself). It's a stance that comes from the historical period of the Enlightenment - it goes hand in hand with science. So far, in this debate, the only source of argument on this particular issue that fits those debative criteria seems to come from the 'right'. But as I say, I'll leave the 'left' and 'right' business for others - it sure must save time reading! (Op! That's from the Right - trash it! Op! That's from the left! Burn it!, etc.) But my understanding from the intellectual left is that such tribalism is a problem in itself - but I'll blame postmodernism for destroying the Enlightenment, and that is why the left has become deranged on this issue. Just as much as postmodernism has destroyed the 'right's' ability to assess the science of climate change, preferring on that issue to see scientists as just another political tribe. But look, just link me to a argument from the 'left' that fulfils the criteria of good argument (the emotive name-slinging stuff just bores me - I've read it all before - that's where I started out on this issue, reading that stuff and realising it was intellectually empty), and, unlike our friend's earlier presumption, I might be convinced. It really depends on the merits of the argument. Just give me a good argument. Let's not get to Godwin's Law too soon (you know, 'reductio ad Hitlerium') - actually, I just noticed the swastika thing - maybe we're already there.

Originally Posted by Gunnaduit

Thanks Incognito. I guess you gave it your best shot. Quite emotional (well, angry, anyway), so your heart's in the right place I suppose. But again, lacking in substance. The defence side in this debate is going to have to do better than personal attack, colourful adjectives, value assertions and red herring arguments. While intimidating, it's not convincing. This is what I mean.

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Gunnaduit

FF, I think the difference in my viewpoint from yours would be that I'm interested in the cogency of an argument,

Yes, it's fair enough to want to be informed of what the other side is saying - a bit hard to argue for or against otherwise.

However, in the case of Quadrant I don't really believe that I need to waste precious time reading what I know will be predictable. For example, I am in no doubt whatsoever as to where they would stand on gun control. Some things are just bleeding obvious.

Friday's headlines:

Open immigration and the damage done

The Islamic State and "religion of peace"

For Muslims, more Pillars of Peace.



Talk about predictable......