Board index Politics Australia and New Zealand Extreme Measures

Extreme Measures

Discuss Aussie and Kiwi stuff here

Moderators: Grrrrrrrrrr, Spot of Borg, Kat, BORG, AusPol Managers

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
Line 12 - But let's be clear, this wasn't simply a protest about a film. It was a protest intended to address years of abuse suffered by the Muslim community and in particular by a section of the community that clearly feels marginalised and disenfranchised. The inconsistent messages on the placards being paraded by protestors were as clear an indication of this as anything could be.


It is at this point we have the victimhood statement: "It was a protest intended to address years of abuse suffered by the Muslim community and in particular by a section of the community that clearly feels marginalised and disenfranchised".

Really?

So the violent response by proponents and practitioners of Islam was justified. Those poor Muslims were disenfranchised and marginalised.

How were they disenfranchised? How were they marginalised? Have they marginalised themselves? Have they brought a bad reputation on themselves? Are they really responsible for their outcomes?

I remember the demonstrations by rioters at the Mohammed Riot were well-enough organised. They knew enough about their democratic rights to abuse them. They knew how to get on television. They knew how to fight Police as they came ready for battle with weapons and signs to match. They did not look disenfranchised, powerless. They had a mission. They did not look marginalised. They were members of the Muslim community. But, I see, the Krayems do not want them responsible as they are members of the Muslim communty.

The Krameys do not look at responsibility, but work to absolve the Mohammed Riot rioters of their wrongdoing.

That is in contrast to what they asserted in the first line: "(n)or is it a defence for the disgraceful display of human behaviour".

I see how it works. As Australians they were wrong and embarrassed the Muslim community, but their intent as proponents and practitioners of Islam was pure and cannot be questioned.

Those proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot were merely responding to a rude insult, one directed at their icon prophet, Mohammed the Paedophile.

That argument is perverse.

Why are Muslims so sensitive?

Other minorities have had challenges and coped as they have become established in Australia.

The "Muslim community" deserves no special recognition even despite how they whinge.


Line 13 - Admittedly it did nothing, but give an already fearful section of the Australian community more reason to be afraid despite the fact the protests were not a true reflection of the way most Muslims choose to carry themselves.

- Why would "an already fearful section of the Australian community (have) more reason to be afraid" of proponents and practitioners of Islam?

Have proponents and practitioners of Islam not conducted themselves in a manner acceptable?

Have proponents and practitioners of Islam earned a reputation for bad manners?

Have proponents and practitioners of Islam been allocated the descriptor "Lebs" or 'thuggish brutes' in polite conservation for no reason?

Are those proponents and practitioners of islam not bent on destroying the civilised culture about them to establish the hegemony of Mohammed, the imperfect man?

Those questions would imply that mainstream Australians do not have much time for the dilapidated religious conviction and sorry behaviour of people in their midst who call themselves "Muslim".

The names 'Bilal Skaf', 'Taj Hilaly', 'Keysar Trad', and the recently invented terms, 'gang bashing' and 'gang rape' hang in the pantheon of Australian Muslim history alongside each other. "Fear" is not the word to use in this connection to describe how mainstream Australians feel about the "Muslim community".

The appropriate word is "disgust"!

After the Mohammed Riot, mainstream Australia has more reason now to be disgusted!

Moderate Muslims have sympathy for thuggish brutes in their midst describing them as justified and forthright: "This is not to suggest that the cause of the protest (Mohammed Riot) was not valid."

Another flaw in the Islamic School of thought has been exposed.

Mainstream Australia is disgusted that the Muslim community has not learned how to control its own excreta!

Mainstream Australia represented by the Police and the Courts has to clean up the Muslim community's mess.

- In reply to the Krayems' pompous assertion about "fear", Australian society has bequeathed to practitioners of Islam a level of respect, freedom and rights that Islamic countries have not seen fit to extend to non-Muslims.

I note particularly the history of the Islamic world in such places like the Balkans under the Ottoman Caliphate.

"An aspect of Ottoman rule that was not popular then, and which has been held up as an example of the cruelty of Turkish rule since then, is the practice of devshirme, or blood-tax, in which children from Balkan Christian families were taken away from their families and raised as Muslims".

(http://www.cotf.edu/earthinfo/balkans/BKhis.html)

It would be more judicious of moderate Muslims to conduct themselves with probity.

Instead, Muslims descend into a world where they abuse the freedoms, rights and respect granted them.

The Krayems then lecture their Australian sympathetic carers like impudent children.

Mainstream Australia finds the temerity of such people in their midst who are of little recommendation, offensive!

Fortunately for moderate Muslims mainstream Australians have learnt how to control excreta.

Mainstream Australia will not dump on moderate Muslims. Australians have better manners.

When the Muslim community extends itself too far, however, it will have nowhere to run, no sympathy to find. Moderate Muslims will have to beware of a mainstream Australia tired of listening to bleatings about poor persecuted Muslims.

Mainstream Australia can snap, exasperated,too!

- "The protests were not a true reflection of the way most Muslims choose to carry themselves".

The Mohammed Riot was not a "protest".

So how do "Muslims choose to carry themselves"?

By the use of effrontery to diminish the crimes committed in their name? That seems the case.

The Krayems' appeal to the sensibilities of Australians is brought asunder by their haughty disposition lecturing a humble people about how they should think.

The Krayems do not seem to comprehend that mainstream Australians regard proponents and practitioners of Islam a nuisance.

The Krayems assert moderate Muslims are better than those who now condemn them. In fact, anyyone who disagrees with them is an Orientalist!

The Krayem's haughty tone and sophistic arrogance have brought them down.

Line 14 - It's safe to assume that nobody came off looking their best, not the protestors, not the police and more sadly not the Muslim community.

The assertion "that nobody came off looking their best" beggars belief!

The Police were confronted not by "protestors" but by Moihammed Riot rioters, proponents of Islam bent on conflict!

Mohammedans attacked Riot Police hospitalising a number and attacked a Police dog!

The Mohammedans practised their religion as they rumbled against Riot Police showing disrespect for the dog!

"Islam forbids Muslims to keep dogs"

(http://islamqa.info/en/ref/69840)

The Krayems conveniently overlooked that Islamic practice at the Mohammed Riot.

For the Krayems, it was not "safe to assume" anything.

The assertions they make throughout their piece to create an argument fall very quickly flat.

When the crimes of the proponents and practitioners of Islam at the Mohammed Riot are anted up for appraisal, there is not much room to assume any sympathy.

The Muslim community "sadly did not come off looking (its) best" because the Muslim community never has looked any better!

The pantheon of Australian Muslim history will be daubed with images from the Mohammed Riot like stories about the rapes of Bilal Skaff.

How dare the Krayems try to diminish the crime committed in their name for a reason they strongly support? The rest of us have responded to the Mohammed Riot with outrage. It was an attack on Australian society by a people from a backward culture given succour in the land of the free that has an abundance that no Islamic caliphate could ever provide.

The Mohammed Riot was a display that engendered this "Protests undermine the true message of Islam" response from well-educated "moderate Muslims". Their response was compiled and presented on an internet website for all to read and appraise. The website belongs to a distinguished national broadcaster. What one reads in this expulsion by moderate Muslims is that they have no inkling of gratitude for what they have been given.

This response merely indicates that moderate Muslims have assumed the full benefits of Australian society with no inclination to fathom why they have received such benefits, and a complete lack of an ability to reflect or be aware of how they came to be what and who they are. The message they communicate instead is that Australian society is a society they do not feel a part of, but that they quietly, behind their veils, covet.

The Krayems speak for moderate Muslims who really despise Australia for its liberality and resent it for its opulence. They seek to control Australia to decide who reaps its benefits and thereby replace its moral code with their hegemony.

Line 15 - Regardless of what the intentions of the proportionally small group of protestors were, this action did nothing for a community that already has a serious PR issue. The entire community is implicated and left to deal not with facts, because most people have already made up their minds about the 'facts', but with an image of a religion that appears to use brutality or at the very least disrespect the notion of peace. An image that most Australian Muslims believe does not accord with the message of the greatest flag bearer of Islam, the Prophet Mohammed.


The charade is complete with this final line opining that the Mohammed Riot and the actions of rioters should be disregarded as a true reflection of what it means to honour and respect the 'flag-bearer' for Islam, Mohammed the Paedophile.

Anyone who has made up their minds about the Muslim community from seeing the Mohammed Riot displayed on television is a sorry, ignorant sod because we Muslims are better than that!

The Krayems persist that those repeated instances of thuggish brutality, uncovered on television or released in the press, conducted by proponents and practitioners of Islam are the exception, extremely infrequent, and are not the rule for moderate Muslims and should be dismissed.

Yet, they have no example for the norm they try to promote as typically Muslim. Moderate Muslims have, however, been presented as a people who hold the same sentiment as those at the Mohammed Riot.

Moderate Muslims it is argued, simply do not act on their inclination.

Because they do not act on their inclination, it is argued, they are cultured and are the best example of what an Australian could be or should be living in or persisting with the hegemony of a liberal, free democracy.

The Krayems cry out for mainstream Australians to look at "the facts" about the Mohammed Riot like in some television detective investigation programme. Yet, they have diverted from the facts at hand in their piece presenting arguments that amount to nothing more than assertions supported by assertions. Their piece is nothing more than an ill-informed opinion piece.

The Krayem's opinion piece does nothing more than display for those observing what is the mindset of people from all walks of life in the Muslim community from extremist to moderate Muslims.

The response by the Krayems to the Mohammed Riot was, in fact, quite revealing.


In summary, the opinion piece is formulaic and does not present a credible argument. From two people of such high education one would think that they would be able to cobble together something a bit more convincing than this piece. It is an opinion piece iinstantly ripped to shreds. It is not consistent and confuses facts and nonsense,

Their argument in defence of Islam after the Mohammed Riots, "Protests undermine the true message of Islam", fails to resonate. It lacks any credibility.

The Krayems are talking tartuffery about the tablecloth rather than about the meal on the table. The provocation of the film Innocence of Muslims legitimises the Mohammed Riot? The Krayems are sophists. Why? They have combined two facts to create nonsense. The film legitimises nothing. The Krayems do not even address the content of the film.

I would hope that the Krayems regret what they have written looking at what has evolved from the Mohammed Riot and about the proponents of Islam involved. I think they would recognise they have made some seriously poor judgements constructing their opinion piece to rationalise the motive of Mohammedan rioters maneuvring about in their moderate Muslim midst.


What is being taught in Islamic schools?


God is Great




Hannibal

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 264l1.html

He's my brother - why angry Muslim youth are protesting in Sydney

Date September 19, 2012

Category Opinion

Mohamad Tabbaa

Since the weekend's protests in Sydney, a number of high-profile Muslims have felt the need to speak out, to condemn the violence and to remind the broader population that this was a minority group - that not all Muslims are violent terrorists.

This seems the logical thing to do. After all, we can't let this ''violent minority'' tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims, right?

The problem is that such analyses miss the point. They zoom in on one incident and frame their entire discussion around that, as if it occurred in a contextual vacuum. When viewed on its own, of course, the protest makes no sense at all.

Why were some protesters chanting ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''? When prominent Muslim leaders cannot even begin to fathom how some Muslim youth have mentioned corpses when apparently protesting about a movie, we need to question whether the real problem is that such leaders are incredibly out of touch with the reality of Muslim youth in this country. Waleed Aly has correctly identified that, ''This isn't about the film''. Correct.

Rather than dismissing these protests as an excuse for these youth to ''feel good about themselves'' or as a public statement of righteousness, we need instead to give genuine consideration to why our youth are acting in this manner. We need to give the situation context.

The reference to corpses made by these protesters is not at all surprising to anybody who has worked closely with the Muslim community. They are referring to those killed in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; they are referring to the many children killed by US drone attacks; they are referring to the Rohingya Muslims burnt to death in Burma; they are referring to Uyghur Muslims being persecuted in China; they are referring to the daily oppression of Palestinians; they are referring to the war on terrorism which they see as targeting Muslims; they are referring to Kashmir, Guantanamo Bay, Chechnya, and the many other places around the world where they witness injustice and persecution.

So no, this is not entirely about some poor-quality YouTube clip. These youth are basically protesting against the broader context of Islamophobia, within which this clip is not only being produced and propagated, but also defended as freedom of speech.

Beginning to make sense?

But there is still a problem. How do we know if these are the real concerns of the youth since they haven't articulated them in such a manner? And why on earth are they so angry at events entirely unrelated to them?

To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them. So, when a Muslim woman is killed collecting firewood in Afghanistan, these youth are angered at the fact that their sister was murdered. When a Muslim man is crushed to death in Palestine, they lament the loss of their brother. It may not make sense to a Western audience, but that doesn't matter. This is what is angering our youth, and until we start discussing it honestly and genuinely, the confusion will remain.

As to the question of articulating these grievances correctly: this is the ironic and very sad part. These youth have been relying on their leaders - their representatives - to do exactly that on their behalf. Instead what they see is a leadership almost exclusively concerned with ''portraying the correct image'' of Muslims in the media. Rather than voicing their grievances, they see their leaders capitulating to representatives of the governments they accuse of Muslim oppression. Instead of protecting them from what are seen as some of the harshest anti-terrorism laws in the world, they see their leaders thanking police for raiding Muslim homes; they see their leaders as siding against them, rather than with them; they feel betrayed.

And so the anger rages inside them. They're frustrated, with no avenue for effective expression. They reach breaking point, and decide to do something.

They take to the streets.

Yes, perhaps there is a feeling of catharsis in the waving of fists and chanting of slogans. Yes, it's obvious that the way they express themselves betrays the message they claim to be carrying. But we should not place the blame entirely on them. We should look towards what's really lacking in the Muslim community, and for that, we cannot look past the real superheroes in this episode: the present leadership. These Muslim leaders who come out in full force when it's time to condemn other Muslims in the public, only to welter away and become invisible again once the tide settles. These superheroes, who, rather than voicing the very real grievances of the youth, and defending the interests of the whole Muslim community, seem more intent on representing the voice of an exclusive, overly image-conscious minority.

So what is the solution, then?

Well, here's one radical idea: rather than having a collective anxiety attack each time Muslims are mentioned in the media, how about we actually genuinely engage the youth for a change, and speak to them rather than about them?

Mohamad Tabbaa is a PhD candidate in law and criminology at the University of Melbourne. He researches issues of discrimination against Muslim minority groups in the West, particularly Australia.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... z2L1XiS1sP



COMMENT

Here again we have another academic from a leading university in Australia trying to rationalise the behaviour of Mohammed Riot rioters in Sydney on Saturday, 15 September 2012.

I took note that Tabbaa quickly diverges from the content of the film "Innocence of Muslims" to pose his argument. Tabbaa also quotes Waleed Aly, a lecturer at another Victorian university and the current media pin-up boy for Muslim Australia, who said of the Mohammed Riot, ''(t)his [riot] isn't about the film''. Consequently, Tabbaa diverges from the content of the film simply by finding agreement with Aly that the film was circumstantial. That is dissimulation.

(http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/waleed-aly/3725696 and http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/waleed-aly/3725696)

While the sentiment held by people in the Lebanese, particularly Muslim, community in Sydney towards Australia was reflected by particpants at the Mohammed Riot, it is fair to argue that the cause for the riot was not simply the film "Innocence of Muslims". It was not the sole provocation. However, "Innocence of Muslims" ostensibly acted as a catalyst for the riot. Hence, any failure to address the film's content by proponents and practitioners of Islam talking about the Mohammed Riot is like avoiding the elephant in the room.

Tabbaa like Aly is a Melburnite. As Melburnians, they are removed from the Lebanese Problem in Sydney. Yet, they try and infuse the Mohammed Riot in Sydney with their reasoning. It is like a doctor trying to diagnose a patient's healthcare problem by listening to them on the telephone. Those doctors might have a good swing at diagnosing the problem by telephone, but the patient should go for a proper examination before any medication is prescribed. Tabbaa and Aly are equally removed from the Mohammed Riot, or "event", in Sydney. Tabbaa and Aly do not care. They conduct their interpretation from a distance, diagnose the problem, and then assert that their interpretation is "correct".

Also, there have been numerous examinations by proponents and practitioners of Islam of the Mohammed Riot. While they diverge fron the film "Innocence of Muslims", they fail to look at the film's content. Those examinations fail to tackle the arguments that the film "Innocence of Muslims" worked to present about Mohammed, like about his sexual depravity. Their shock at the film has helped silence anyone who dares to publically support or talk about the film's content. However, it is interesting to observe that proponents and practitioners of Islam who do nothing more than disparage the film, claim they have not seen the film.

Those numerous examinations done by proponents and practitioners of Islam are all different in their interpretation of the Mohammed Riot. There might be some common ground, but generally they diverge widely. They all try to make excuses for the rioting Mohammedans, but the excuses all differ. Tabbaa's interpretation is different frrom that of the Krayem's above in Post No.s 8 and 9 MODERATE MUSLIM RESPONSE TO THE MOHAMMED RIOT. That is different again from Aly's interpretation. Hence, like the Krayems, Tabbaa is creating a story, a straw man, so that the Mohammed Riot rioters can become the "victim", crucified by societal pressures and an ignorant Public dismissive of their plight.

6. Proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot find reconciliation with non-Muslims in a non-Islamic environment. Consequently, they project out behaviour consistent with the Muslim delusion.

[Posts No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM as copied across from Orb.Mogkat and Extreme Measures to Aussie-Site]

As Tabbaa is creating a story, a straw man, his argument should lack consistency when measured against the facts. Tabbaa might incorporate "facts" in his argument, but the bend behind those facts will diverge from what one sees as the true interpretation, or the truth. The argument or story created then will simply be an effort at dissemblance.

I found Tabbaa's piece inconsistent. Who is Tabbaa talking about at times and who is he talking to? Is Tabbaa talking about Muslim youth in general or in connection with the Mohammed Riot? Is Tabbaa adopting the position of Muslim youth at the Mohammed Riot or is he lecturing broader Australia about the mentality, generally, of the Mohammedans in their midst? It is never really clear.

The piece reads like a wafer-thin excuse trying to rationalise reaction by the Mohammedans at the riot to the film "Innocence of Muslims" while at the same time trying to deny the purported cause for the riot, the riot itself, and all done in an effort to obscure the heinous crime committed and point fingers for individuals' responsibility elesewhere.

Tabbaa's argument resonates with the same circular logic detected before in pro-Islamic arguments (see Post No. 244 INSIGHT INTO THE ISLAMIC SCHOOL OF THOUGHT as copied over like above from Extreme Measures at Orb.Mogkat). The Mohammed Riot rioters rioted because they were poor, "frustrated", sods. Why were they frustrated? Because they could not get their own way in Australia. They are proponents and practitioners of Islam. Now that they are in Australia their problems are ours, too. That is, those poor, fustrated, sods at the Mohammed Riot had staked a serious claim on Australia, a claim that cannot be dismissed.

How does Tabbaa rationalise the fact the majority of the Lebanese Muslims at the Mohammed Riot were likely born in Australia? If they were born in Australia, did they not then grow up in a more mature society with a culture different from that he asserts his Mohammed Riot rioters are a part? If they have become proselytes of Islam, how did that alien culture become inculcated? Tabbaa does not explain. Tabbaa does not feel a need to explain.

But, Tabbaa justifies the mentality of the Mohammed Riot rioters: "we should not place the blame entirely on them".

Really?

Why? They were just poor sods. They had nothing to do. They did not have real jobs. They were not academically adept. They felt an injustice - one too many - and simply let fly with their frustration! We should have sympathy for them.

What was the rationale for their release of frustration targeting Police and pedestrians going about their normal daily business harming no one? Why did they feel the need to create havoc and try and shut down a major world city?

"(M)any Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them."

That is an all-encompassing excuse not only for the Mohammed Riot rioters, but for all Muslim youth and, more broadly, the Muslim community in general. In Sydney, it provides legitmacy for the entire list of crimes and anti-social cultural displays by Lebanese.

If people in the Lebanese Muslim community are informed by the media about events affecting co-religionists in other parts of the world, they can then justify their egregious behaviour in Australia. That sets them above the local law. Those negative international events that affect the Muslim community, notably in the Middle-East, affect vulgar Lebs and feral Muslims in Australia directly, too. We Australians must sympathise with them and accomodate them. We must console their bruised egos and forgive them their crimes.


So, Tabbaa rationalises the Muslim delusion in the Australian context. Those proponents and practitioners of Islam at the Mohammed Riot were really quite sophisticated. They conducted themselves in a sophisticated manner, it is deduced. Those proponents and practitioners of Islam at the Mohammed Riot were, actually, globally-conscious raconteurs, they came armed for and dressed with the intent of pleading their case to an ignorant Public.

Those proponents and practitioners of Islam who rioted at the Mohammed Riot had a serious case to make. As proponents and practitioners of Islam are now in our midst, we Australians must listen to them about their trials and tribulations and try to help them solve their problems. It is our duty. Everybody should be aware by now that Muslims all round the world are downtrodden and persecuted.

In fact, Muslims in Australia are persecuted too!

Tabbaa assumes there is no doubt about that persecution in Australia.

In fact, Tabbaa even provides evidence.

Look -

"These youth have been relying on their leaders - their representatives... Instead what they see is a leadership almost exclusively concerned with 'portraying the correct image' of Muslims in the media.... they see their leaders capitulating to representatives of the governments they accuse of Muslim oppression... they see their leaders thanking police for raiding Muslim homes; they see their leaders as siding against them, rather than with them; they feel betrayed.".

I see the leaders of the Muslim community who applaud the enforcement of the law in Australia, in New South Wales, in Sydney, have really "capitulated". They are at odds with the Muslim community. That is, the Muslim community has a war-like mentality. The laws of New South Wales do not apply to them.

The Muslim community is in quasi-defensive stasis. When the barrier between the Muslim community and mainstream Australia is breached by those who seek to enforce the law of New South Wales, somehow a wrong has been committed against the Muslim community in its entirity. Those poor Muslims have become persecuted.

Forget about any crime they may have committed. Beset by the 'Boys in Blue' with the border breached, the affront experienced by people in the Muslim community collectively is greater than any perceived crime committed.

Tabbaa says that is the way many people in the Muslim community think, but he works to perpetuate a double standard. Tabbaa does not provide a real solution. Tabbaa merely evaluates that that double standard will become increasingly aparent and must be accepted.

I found Tabbaa's case revealing. He made that statement aware that the Muslim community in Australia has a terrible reputation. The image of the Muslim community in mainstream Australia does not conjure positive description.

In the eyes of the Public, it seems, the so-called "leaders" of the Muslim community are a ragtag bunch. They are the likes of Taj Hillaly, of the infamous Catsmeat sermon, and Keysar Trad, who is of the opinion that the 'criminal dregs of white society colonised this country' (Australia) and their descendents think they are better than Muslims.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keysar_Trad)

(See also Post No.s 9 and 10 MODERATE MUSLIM RESPONSE TO THE MOHAMMED RIOT)

Leading Muslim institutions in Australia are organisations like the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) and the Lebanese Muslim Association (LMA). The former-President of AFIC, Ikebal Patel, is now under investigation for what amounts to fraud with Public money. He was alledgedly involved with setting up another controversial Islamic school at Hoxton Park by mis-directing Government funds from a school at Greenacre to Hoxton Park. The LMA is closely linked to Trad. Trad personifies the LMA's demeaning attitude towards broader Australia. The "leaders" of the Muslim community in Australia carry a heavy weight with them. They struggle to earn what they demand is appropriate recognition and proper respect from mainstream Australia. In the eyes of the Public, they are people and insitutions of dubious character with an agenda.

(http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... wa-removed)

(See Post No. 244 INSIGHT INTO THE ISLAMIC SCHOOL OF THOUGHT)

"The former president and assistant treasurer of the nation's peak Muslim body have been stood down by their board amid an audit into alleged financial irregularities at the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

"Ikebal Patel, the former president and current vice-president of AFIC and the assistant treasurer Ashraf Ali were suspended after an executive committee meeting on December 9, and an external auditor brought in to examine the use of hundreds of thousands of dollars of the organisation's funds.

"Mr Patel was also suspended from the boards of all AFIC schools pending an investigation into millions of dollars in funds being charged by AFIC to Muslim schools of which he was also a board member."


(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6537924005)

Those Muslim institutions are viewed somewhat negatively.The Public is conscious that those Muslim institutions represent both guardposts to keep the Muslim community separate from mainstream Australia and an offensive weapon, like a sword, working to assert the dominance of Islam over Australia.

1. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are prepared, willingly, to conspire to pursue the Muslim delusion, the imperative that Islam is to dominate society and polity.

[Posts No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM, as above]

Proponents and practitioners of Islam are now being placed under seige. When that seige is lifted, the momentum will reverse and they will begin again work to assert Islam over Australia. Tabbaa's opinion blithely slides over that fact. Tabbaa grants more power to the "leaders" of the Muslim community in terms of influence, as a component in broader Australian society, than they can seriously now muster.

In fact, where Tabbaa asserts "leadership (is) almost exclusively concerned with 'portraying the correct image' of Muslims in the media" he fails to acknowledge that that effort has been a total failure in Australia.

The Muslim community has a reputation that ranks somewhere below the reputation of drug-traffickers and child sex-traders. Mention of the term 'Muslim communty' conjures images and descriptions one associates with the likes of the Mafia.

In fact, leading Muslim institutions even comment about the reputation of the Muslim community in Australia to the point instances like the Mohammed Riot depicting Lebanese Muslim youth on television and over the Internet "damaged the reputation of Islam, to the point where Islam has become synonymous with the word Terrorism".

(http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/iisna-about-us/)

So, how does Tabbaa expect the "leadership" he blames for "siding against them (Muslim youth), rather than with them" to proactively behave? Should the "leaders" of the Muslim seige engine on Australia openly declare jihad?

(See http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/iisna-about-us/)

(Also, see http://www.onislam.net/english/news/asi ... slims.html)

Maybe the "leaders" could just assert that Sharia Law should be included alongside the laws of New South Wales and accomodated under the umbrella of arbitration or permitted like how Aboriginal tribal or customary law is now treated in the grand scheme of things?

What?

That push is already on...

[Examined at Post No. 248 SHARIA LAW CONDEMNED at Orb.Mogkat as copied across and compiled here at Aussie-Site]

Also, Tabbaa includes this line amidst his polemic: "they(Muslim youth) see their leaders capitulating to representatives of the governments they accuse of Muslim oppression".

Wow! I did not know Muslims were oppressed in Australia!

I am astounded. Our heinous Government should overturn those laws that target Muslims for simply being Muslim.

That only seems fair and the Australian way of doing things.

What was that? There are no laws targetting Muslims! There are simply laws that apply to all Australians?...

So, what is Tabbaa talking about? Tabbaa is talking about laws that impede proponents and practitioners of Islam from implementing the Muslim delusion where Islam is to dominate society and polity.

Next, Tabbaa launches into an attack on Police who uphold the law: "they see their leaders thanking police for raiding Muslim homes".

"Muslim homes"?

Are "Muslim homes" different from non-Muslim homes?

Not by the law, nor in the eyes of the Government or people of Australia.

Why would Police "raid" "Muslim homes'?

Because the inhabitants are "Muslim"? No. They raid those homes because they are looking for crime suspects.

The Auburn Riot is a case in point. Suspected drug trafficking behind closed doors, storage of illegal firearms used in crimes and stolen property taken from innocent individuals come to mind as reasons for the raids.

Does Tabbaa think that Muslim youths are above the law? Doe Tabbaa think that "Muslim homes" deserve a special reprieve from raids because they are owned or occupied by Muslims?

Tabbaa is creating and justifying a double standard.

"The police raids in Auburn were in response to a shooting at the weekend, in which the victim refused to talk to officers, a senior detective said today.

"His comments come after about 100 police officers - including the riot squad - had to break up a crowd that threw bottles at police as officers raided four homes in Auburn last night."

(http://www.smh.com.au/national/ramadan- ... -fg9z.html)

[Examined at Post No. 122 AUBURN RIOT at Orb.Mogkat as copied across and compiled here at Aussie-Site]

Were the raids unjustified because it was Ramadan?

Tabbaa asserts that because that double standard is not recognised in Australia where "Muslims" get a free ride at the expense of everybody else, Muslim youth is oppressed.

That is, now that we have proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia we also inherit their worldview.

We Australians, through our Government, must accomodate that worldview or else we are justifiably the cause of their displeasure as shown by the release of their frustration at the Mohammed Riot.

Those poor, oppressed, Lebanese Muslim boys deserve our sympathy. We should bend over backwards to accommodate them. Hence, let proponents and practitioners of Islam get their own way - or pay the price!

Tabbaa's polemic is a fatuous lie. It is an effort at denial.

Australia does not have to adapt to the perceived needs of the Muslim community, or "ummah", and allow the Muslim agenda to unfold in Australia. Proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia must obey the law. If they do not and organise in contravention of the law then they pay the price. It is quite simple. Although, Tabbaa tries to moralise against mainstream Australia and the foundations of the Law in this country.

So Tabbaa asks "what is the solution, then?"

He then patronsies Australian society.

Tabbaa could, however, in a surreptitious way be addressing the Muslim comunity in Australia alone. I noted he tries to distinguish the Muslim community as something separate from mainsteam Australia.

Thus,

"How about we actually genuinely engage (Muslim) youth for a change, and speak to them rather than about them?"

I thought that there had been numerous moves to engage with Muslim youth, particularly after the Cronulla Riot and the Revenge Attacks of December 2005, to help allay communal fear of or anger over their behaviour at that time.

It seems that that effort was wasted.

Why?

Because the Mohammedans organised themselves far better for the Mohammed Riot. They dressed for the occasion, brought signs to support their cause, did their level best to inflame the Public, and held Sydney hostage for 5 hours on Saturday, 15 September 2012!

That was the "jihad" that Tabbaa says we should now expect because Muslim youth has not got its way.

I thnk it was the "jihad" we had to have. It helped wake mainstream Australia up from its complacency.

Tabbaa's explanation is incredibly sad for someone from such a prestigious university. It is formulaic.

Tabbaa has merged the mentality of Muslim youth and of many within the Muslim community into a cultural whole that must be recognised and accomodated. It is a separate culture within the Australian multicultural mix, one that cannot be denied.

Tabbaa passes judgement with the tone of someone of infinite wisdom able to moralise to those lesser than himself.

Tabbaa patronises: "Beginning to make sense?".

Tabbaa works to legitimise the push of Islam on Australia.

Tabbaa has legitimised the Mohammedans at the Mohammed Riot.

The Mohammedans at the Mohammed Riot were rioters who worked to intimidate and manipulate their opponents, the people of a mainstream Australia. That must not be forgotten. It is the kernel of truth Tabbaa tries to fragment.

Tabbaa has also diverged and drawn attention away from the content of the film 'Innocence of Muslims", a film that has been described as "provocative".

(See Post No.s 8 & 9 MODERATE MUSLIM RESPONSE TO THE MOHAMMED RIOT)

The revelation about and exposure of Mohammed's paedophilia is not addressed. Tabbaa's effort is a play at al-Taqiyyaa, dissemblance by dissimulation.

Mohammed's hands are kept clean. Mohammed's paedophilia does not raise an eyebrow in the Muslim community. The burden handling the reaction to Mohammed's paedophilia rests, in this case, on the broader, non-Muslim, Australian community. The finger is instead pointed back onto the person, people or population that bothers to recognise Mohammed's acts of paedophilia. That is, back at mainstream Australia. It then becomes the duty of people from mainstream Australia to explain away Mohammed's paedophilic deviancy. That explanation is required in order to stave off such things as a riot conducted by proponents and practitioners of Islam. Mainstream Australia should feel uncomfortable about having to reconcile with good morals dirty, old Mohammed's sexual penetration of 9-year old Aisha who was merely an object of his desire. To waste any time making excuses for Mohammed's paedophilia with baby Aisha is to succumb to the Muslim delusion. Mainstream Australia then is being intimidated and manipulated.

To use Tabbaa's own words, (t)he problem is that (Tabbaa's) analys(i)s miss(es) the point. (He) zoom(s) in on one incident and frame(s) the( ) entire discussion around that, as if it occurred in a contextual vacuum. When viewed on its own, of course, ( ) (Tabbaa's explanation) makes no sense at all. Tabbaa has created a story. It merely represents the practice of denial of responsibility in connection with the Mohammed Riot.

Where does the denial as practised by Tabbaa lead?


Next:

http://www.topix.com/forum/au/sydney/T6 ... JT711OV/p4

The Guy Next Door

Sydney, Australia

#78 Wednesday March 13, 2013


Proud Australian Leb wrote:

"How dare you say that about the prophet of (I)slam. You clearly are an ignorant and uneducated prick who has no idea. Get your facts right(.) (P)riests today are being done for raping women and leaving them miserable from the confession booths."


Are you REALLY going to debate that your "prophet" was a pedophile?. Despite being a great war-general/military leader (and) politician he was also a murderer, a warlord and a rapist (all mentioned in Hadith) and he married his last wife 'Aisha' when she was 5-6 (and) copulated with her when she was 9. A 50+ year old man who Fux a 9 year old child is called a PEDOPHILE (!)/End of story.

Why the F*ck do you bring up priests? (A)s if people aren't seeing Catholicism as the farce that it is. I'm sure most of us here would agree that Catholic Priests are all pedophiles, so what's your f*cking point?- (T)hat doesn't make your 'holy prophet' mo'Ha_MAD NOT-a pedophile does it?


Proud Australian Leb wrote:

"At least our women dont lose their virginity at 15. Get inducted into the porn industry at 18, get drunk and have group sex and come home at 4am."


HA!...you're right, yours lose their virginity at 12 OR 14 (or in Aisha's case - 9) when they're married off to their own cousins or some MUCH older man, friend of their father.

The only reason there's no porn in the Arab world is because the people are $hit scared for their lives, however - look up a site called 'muslima$$ <dot> com'/check out twitter too, and you'll see PLENTY of your hijabi-bitches gladly whoring themselves for everybody to see (very nice by the way) because they don't have to be scared of the laws while in cyberspace.

What's my point?- (P)ersonally i hate f*cking p(o)rn, it fux up people's minds (and) some SHOULD (in my humble opinion) be made illegal, BUT ...human nature is f*cked (and) you thinking that your backward Islamic-indoctrinated people are SUPERIOR to the 'kaffir' non-muslims is complete bullshit. There are good people, there are bad people, there are moral people there are immoral people - muslims and non-muslims - so get real.


Proud Australian Leb wrote:

"Islam is way too pure for you to even critici(s)e. And (I) challenge you to criticise it becuase (I) will humiliate you in seconds".


ummm...'too pure'- HA!:oD you mean the Islam that considers the copulation between a 9 year old girl & a 50+ year old man Good & noble? or the Islam that says that anyone who decides to leave the *religion of peace*(apostate) should be murdered? YES...REAL pure that - well there you go I've just gone & critici(s)ed it. Salaam

[Grammatical and spelling errors noted considered anomalies have been corrected]


COMMENT

What is evident from this rendition taken from Topix: "My view on Lebanese people in Australia", is the denial practised by Lebanese, by people in the Muslim community, unable to confront the truth.

Proud Australian Leb denies Mohammed's paedophilia. He or she will not even talk about it. Meanwhile, Proud Australian Leb spends time practicing al-Taqiyya in discussion. Proud Australian Leb diverges from Mohammed's paedophila by condemning the Catholic Church, insulting all the young women of modern Australia, notably those non-Muslim, and then somehow tries to resurrect Islam's reputation as something pure and above reproach.

Proud Australian Leb failed dismally. Proud Australian Leb displayed ignorance.

The film "Innocence of Muslims" revealed Mohammed's paedophilia. The film was purported to be the "provocation" or 'cause' for the Mohammed Riot.

Both Tabbaa and Proud Australian Leb fail to confront that truth.

In Posts No.s 8 and 9 MODERATE MUSLIM RESPONSE TO THE MOHAMMED RIOT above, the problem of Mohammed's paedophilia was explored.

Tabbaa and Proud Australian Leb have not had the courage to either raise the question or to properly address it and accept the truth. Proponents and practitioners of Islam feel no qualms in avoiding the truth to protect and maintain the Muslim delusion.

7. Proponents and practitioners of Islam must defend and protect the Muslim delusion at all costs: deceit and manipulation are permissible.

[Posts No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM, as above]

That mentality leads to the creation of an alien culture, one created dismissive of facts, that derives its own identity from within.

As the name suggests, "Proud Australian Leb" is concerned about both his pride and honour. Proud Australian Leb's pride and honour as his or her identity is sown into Islam and the Teachings of The Paedophile.

That culture created has its own laws and is dismissive of the truth about it. Both Tabbaa and Proud Australian Leb in their different ways demonstrate that same, odd Islamic thinking. Tabbaa creates a story and diverges from Mohammed's paedophilia. Proud Australian Leb abuses anyone who calls Mohammed a padophile describing them as ignorant.

"How dare you say that [Mohammed was a paedophile] about the prophet of (I)slam. You clearly are an ignorant and uneducated prick who has no idea. Get your facts right(.)"

It is patently clear from that comment that proponents and practitioners of Islam are the true ignoramuses.


Where does that mentality lead?


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/vicious-shoot ... 2g6xp.html


'Vicious' shooting not random, say police


Date March 16, 2013

Stephanie Gardiner

Reporter



The street is taped off as police investigate the shooting. Photo: Gordon McComiskie

Early in the evening, loud music and a series of loud bangs rang out in Wilbur Street, Greenacre.

It was another shooting in Sydney's southwest, with a man dying on the road in the leafy suburban street after being shot in the head.


The victim was 30-year-old Khaled Kahwaji, who was once accused of the shooting murder of a convicted drug dealer.

In 2010, Kahwaji was charged with shooting Saba Kairouz, 26, while he played touch football at Roberts Park, Greenacre.

It's understood Kahwaji spent about 10 months behind bars but the murder charge did not proceed to conviction.

He did not have any other convictions.

Detective Inspector Russell Oxford, from the homicide squad, said police were trying to piece together Kahwaji's final movements, including what brought him from his home in Rhodes, in the northwest, to Greenacre.

Uniformed police conducted line searches and used sniffer dogs to examine the front yard of the house Kahwaji was shot in front of, while detectives spoke to residents throughout Saturday afternoon.

Residents said they heard a car playing loud music on Friday before four or five gunshots were fired and they saw a man lying on the road.

One woman, who was watching her two young children playing outside on Saturday morning as police searched the street, said the shooting was worrying.

"It's really quiet, lots of people around. It's very scary," she said.

"You don't see a lot of it, you hear about it, but we don't see a lot of it."


The people of west and south-west Sydney have been hearing a lot about gun crime lately, with several shootings there in the first three months of the year.

A week ago an aunt of convicted murderer and Brothers For Life gang founder Bassam Hamzy was shot in the legs outside her Auburn housing commission apartment.

NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson said Friday's incident was the eighth fatal shooting since October. There have been more than 30 shootings in the first three months of this year.

Speaking at the crime scene, Mr Robertson said the government had to act.

"We need more police resources thrown at the problem and we need cash rewards for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of these criminals and thugs.

"What we're seeing grow now in Sydney is a culture where young men think it's OK to take matters into their own hands, get a gun and resolve their differences down the barrel of a gun."

Premier Barry O'Farrell said the public could have confidence in the NSW police force to track down offenders.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/vicious-shoot ... z2PAFu4h6N


COMMENT

Lovely Greenacre. Wilbur Street. Waterloo Road. Napoleon Road. Noble Avenue. Great names associated with famous historical figures and a battle won by the British at a time when the colony of New South Wales was but young. I used to play there as a kid. It was boringly quiet. The most exciting thing was hearing a neighbour's lawn-mower start up on a Sunday or seeing kids ride down the street on their pushbikes.

Then, the Lebs moved in. We were told by our Government about the excitement, the new foods, and the next phase of maturity for Australian society, one generated by the implementation of a new policy called "Multiculturalism".

We were promised much. Gone was "White Australia" and, we were told, good riddance. We were promised a new Europe in our free and open country with images of houses themed with terracotta roof tiling, olive trees in the garden, all those Roman influences mixing with the setting sun to provide a vision of a cosmopolitan, suburban Sydney. But, the potential for cross-cultural friction was ignored, downplayed, or was not yet properly understood. Those new migrants would all become Australians. Problem solved!

But, look what those Lebanese, particularly Muslims, brought with them.

Sophistication? A cosmopolitan culture? Terracotta roofing? No.

Those Lebs brought with them an alien mentality.

The Lebanese Muslim brought with him a dominant culture, one that would assert itself over our vision of terracotta rooftops, of olive trees, and of that sophisticated, cosmopolitan, surburban Sydney with which we were to aspire.

Those people with that alien culture would claim territory to establish their own hierarchy. That alien mentality is now manifest.

Khaled Kahwaji was killed, shot dead in the head, on the streets of Greenacre in broad daylight when mums were out with their kids. Was KK Lebanese? Was KK a Muslim? By the crime committed, almost certainly.

This shooting is an ethnic crime. It happened right in the middle of the Jihad Belt. Parry Park is not too far away.(See Post No. 209 PRONOUNCEMENT AT PARRY PARK, as above). It was a drive-by murder done with total disregard, with actual contempt, for the innocent people about who happened to be non-Muslim Australians. It was done by people to people with a sick mentality finding identity within their own culture, perhaps one criminal as well, separate from mainstream Australia.

The murder in broad daylight was about pride and honour. Pride and honour we understand, but this is pride and honour - without virtue - nested within a sick culture, a culture that worships the depraved rantings of a paedophile. This is an example of what that depraved thinking generates. The crime will increase as the culture of proponents and practitioners of Islam starts to take a stronger hold. That murder in broad daylight is an example of the sick Muslim culture nestling into modern day Australia.

Khaled Kahwaji died a good Muslim with honour and pride, a victim of Australian society, according to Tabbaa's logic. That is the Muslim story.

For the rest of us, Khaled Kahwaji was shit killed by shit. Do it at night in the dens of iniquity amidst other members of Mohammed's mutinous clan and we will applaud you. But, keep it off the streets of Sydney and away from innocent people.

The reaction in mainstream Australia is starting to build, particularly after the Mohammed Riot. Lebanese, particularly Muslims, are on borrowed time.

Khaled Kahwaji's gun-death, shot in the head in the middle of the day in front of mums and kids in previously quiet suburban Sydney - a crime with an ethnic flavour - is evidence that the policy of Multiculturalism with all its promises has failed.

Multiculturalism does not account for cross-cultural friction and incompatability.

The sophisticated, cosmopolitan Sydney suburban environ promised has not evolved. Greenacre has earned the reputation of a debauched suburb dominated by Lebanese Muslims, proponents and practitioners of Islam.

It seems that pride is the result of inculcating the Mohammed imago as central to one's identity. Defence of that pride involves a sense of honour. If the Mohammed imago is insulted, one's sense of pride has been hurt. It must be defended, the wrong made right. At a communal level, the response is something like the Mohammed Riot. At the individual level, it is abusing that person who caused the harm and, at the extreme, honour killings. The social norms about them those proponents and practitioners of Islam, like the law, simply do not figure in their base, tribal thinking.

Could that deduction be tested? Yes. Insult Mohammed the Paedophile in front of a Muslim and check their reaction. Be careful!

I also noted on the front of a shop in Greenacre:

'No men allowed in this shop! Do not enter! We sell women's clothing'.

"(I)f in a gathering, women are not observing complete (or proper) hijab ( ) or there is ( ) bodily contact taking place between the men and women, then this type of mixing becomes haram [forbidden]."

(http://www.al-islam.org/a-code-of-ethic ... omen/6.htm)

Multiculturalism in Greenacre on show! Sharia law in practice. Discrimination anyone?

Religion is being used to assert culture. Culture is being used to conceal religion.


How much more of the Muslim delusion must we now allow to be implemented?

What is being taught at Islamic schools?

God is Great.

Hannibal
Last edited by Hannibal on Sun May 12, 2013 11:38 am, edited 10 times in total.

Post Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:48 pm
Brendiggg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 703
Location: India
Slogan: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind (unless you are a fly)

That's nice.

Post Fri May 03, 2013 5:29 am
magpie User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 159
Slogan: tba
Hannbal, pardon the delay in responding to your very detailed expose on these things Muslim. But given that there are lots of them (muslims), and spread across many cultures, who is the Head Mullah who actually talks on their behalf? Like the Pope, or the Dali Lama does for some religions.
If you could tell me that then, maybe I could address some of the points mentioned in your posts where you fail to ferret the finer points that has your argument collapsing under its own weight.

:|
"Israel's heart is blackened by the blood of innocent Palestinian children." © Pansi

Post Sat May 18, 2013 8:01 pm
Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
Magpie,

At Post No. 12, you wrote:

"Hannbal, pardon the delay in responding to your very detailed expose on these things Muslim. But given that there are lots of them (muslims), and spread across many cultures, who is the Head Mullah who actually talks on their behalf? Like the Pope, or the Dali Lama does for some religions.

"If you could tell me that then, maybe I could address some of the points mentioned in your posts where you fail to ferret the finer points that has your argument collapsing under its own weight."



COMMENT

First, I would like to thank you for replying to my last post: POST NO. 10. ANOTHER MOHAMMED RIOT REPLY: REPLY TO TABBAA. I do not know how much of Extreme Measures you have read or if you have followed the history of the topic with its posts as it has moved between sites. Consequently, I will have to provide an answer to your question from within the framework of Extreme Measures.

At Extreme Measures, "the basis for that discussion (is) from an interpretation of how Muslims responded to an enquiry made about them and their position in Australian society on an SBS programme of the same name: Extreme Measures", a number of years ago. That is from the header of the topic: Extreme Measures. The discussion has evolved. The key focus since inception has been on Lebanese. That topic is commonly referred to as the "Lebanese Problem". After the Cronulla Riot and the Revenge Attacks of December 2005, particular focus was given to the Muslim component. Lebanese Muslims were the chief proponents of the anti-social atrocities committed over several nights following the so-called Cronulla Riot.

However, the framework is not exclusive and includes vulgar Lebs as well as feral Muslims. Some people might be influenced by the people in focus and seek to copy them to be part of their dysfunctional sub-group.

It was deduced after some time that Lebanese Muslims were influenced by stories heard or watched on the news about how Islamic states were fairing in the world with their trials and tribulations. That is one component of how their identity was formed in Australia. It rationalised their behaviour. They have sought to express themselves to the world on the streets of Sydney with a mix of resentfulness and machismo.

Some people have read up about Islam and have this opinion:

http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comme ... atter_how/

"But the problems I have with the religion of Islam itself are:

-It is an obsolete, tribalistic and hateful religion that breeds homophobia, misogyny and anti-intellectualism. In some cities in Europe with large Islamic populations it is now unsafe for gays to walk around at night because of gay-bashings by Muslim gangs. In other words, years of progress towards equality are being reversed.

-It is fundamentally anti-democratic (the idea that the rule of god always overrides the rule of man) and is necessarily opposed to the idea free speech. As a proponent of democracy I don't like this.

-It creates rifts in our society. E.g. the young child holding a sign reading 'behead all those who insult the prophet'. When you have a group coming out and basically saying 'fuck you' to everyone else in society I think that's a problem.

-I believe in equality before the law, which has long been a fundamental tenet of liberal societies. In some countries we are now seeing a move toward certain groups demanding a situation in which we are not all equal before the law, but where Sharia law can in certain cases be applied to Muslims who commit crimes. I think this is inherently wrong and divisive."

As you have asked the question about a multifarious Muslim community, one without a head, I reply my exploration of Islam in connection with the "Lebanese Problem" has helped me decipher what is happening in the Lebanese, particularly Muslim, community in Sydney, in Australia.

From my research, Mohammed the Paedophile is the icon of Islam, his philosophy is as espoused in a book called the Koran and is further expressed in stories told about his life, the sunna and hadiths.

(http://www.nicheoftruth.org/pages/sunnah.htm)

Those sources influence the lives and social interactions of those who claim to be Muslim.

As you point out, there are many variations in the interpretation of those sources. The biggest division is the one between Sunni and Shia. But, there are many differing sub-groups like Sufis and Wahaabis and what have you. I think it is all a rather tiring mess.

In connection with Lebanese and Muslims in Sydney as they adapt to Australia, we must put to the test what they say and use an understanding of their social and cultural background to help give what they say and how they behave context. Islam as a religion has to be explored, broken down, rebuilt and adapted to Australia to be socially acceptable. Therefore, the examination, in and of itself, is valid.

However, as the topic is open, if you would like to offer your insights I am waiting with bated breath.

If you think my "argument collaps(es) under its own weight", make your case. I hope you can provide insight into how to solve the Lebanese Problem.


NB: I also noted your subscript: "Israel's heart is blackened by the blood of innocent Palestinian children."

Does that mean you have an irrational dislike for our brothers in Israel who have been confronted by and suffered the loss of innocent lives from terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas and Hezbollah?
Last edited by Hannibal on Sun May 19, 2013 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Sun May 19, 2013 3:14 am
magpie User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 159
Slogan: tba
Magpie,

At Post No. 12, you wrote:

"Hannbal, pardon the delay in responding to your very detailed expose on these things Muslim. But given that there are lots of them (muslims), and spread across many cultures, who is the Head Mullah who actually talks on their behalf? Like the Pope, or the Dali Lama does for some religions.

"If you could tell me that then, maybe I could address some of the points mentioned in your posts where you fail to ferret the finer points that has your argument collapsing under its own weight."


thank you for posting that I have asked a question and then telling everyone what the question was.

First, I would like to thank you for replying to my last post: POST NO. 10 ANOTHER MOHAMMED RIOT REPLY: REPLY TO TABBAA. I do not know how much of Extreme Measures you have read or if you have followed the history of the topic with its posts as it has moved between sites. Consequently, I will have to provide an answer to your question from within the framework of Extreme Measures.


Ok, to summarise:
Question: who is the Head Mullah who actually talks on their (muslims) behalf?
Answer: I will have to provide an answer to your question from within the framework of Extreme Measures.

Ah, I see, it's all very clear now.. your response was laser sharp in its focus.. chillingly so..

However, as the topic is open, if you would like to offer your isights I am waiting with bated breath.
If you think my "argument collaps(es) under its own weight", make your case.


no I would not like to offer my insights unless we can come to some agreement on royalties and on the issue of 'baited breath:
the earliest known citation of the phrase is from shakespeare's merchant of venice, 1596, which I remember beacuse I studied it in year 12 and amongst other things can quote the quality of mercy speech, but that's an aside because, back to the point about 'baited breath'..

Shakespeare wrote:
What should I say to you? Should I not say
'Hath a dog money? is it possible
A cur can lend three thousand ducats?' Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman's key,
With bated breath and whispering humbleness, Say this;
'Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurn'd me such a day; another time
You call'd me dog; and for these courtesies
I'll lend you thus much moneys'?


I hope you can provide insight into how to solve the Lebanese Problem.


until they start behaving, I would place sanctions on their cucumbers, and freeze all their cucumber assets.

NB: I also noted your subscript: "Israel's heart is blackened by the blood of innocent Palestinian children."


well that is a quote by Pansi and is duly copyrighted. I have permission to use it, but I don't remember you asking. She might be a little pissed over that..

Does that mean you have an irrational dislike for our brothers in Israel who have been confronted by and suffered the loss of innocent lives from terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas and Hezbollah?


nope, my dislike of someone's brothers in Israel has nothing to do with what you said, whatever that was... perhaps you could explain it to me within the framework of Extreme Measures.

k, that was fun, kinda, lets do another lap.

your turn..
"Israel's heart is blackened by the blood of innocent Palestinian children." © Pansi

Post Wed May 22, 2013 2:05 pm
Hyperion User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 39
Slogan: watch this space
:?
So excellent a king, that was to this, Hyperion to a satyr, so loving to my mother,
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven  Visit her face too roughly; heaven and earth,

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/vi ... 6601928100

Backlash against Muslim enclaves

By: John Masanauskas

From: Herald Sun March 20, 2013 7:17PM

A federal multicultural inquiry has been told that complying with Muslim demands for separation is a dangerous move. Source: AFP

GOVERNMENT compliance with demands for Muslim schools, prayer rooms, segregated swimming pools and halal food is a dangerous trend, a federal multicultural inquiry has been told.

The joint parliamentary committee on migration said in its final report that it had received many submissions claiming multiculturalism was laying the foundations for ethnic separatism amid rising Islamic immigration.

"References were made to Muslim 'enclaves' in Sydney and Melbourne, and the riots in Cronulla in 2005, to suggest a lack of willingness on the part of Muslims to embrace the Australian lifestyle, values and behaviours," it said.

Several Melbourne councils, including Monash, Casey and Greater Dandenong, hold separate sessions for women at public pools after requests by Muslim groups.

Monash even paid $66,000 for special curtains to ensure Muslim women's privacy during the sessions.

Last year, the AFL introduced multi-faith prayer rooms at the MCG and Etihad after lobbying by Muslim player Bachar Houli.

Former premier and Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett described it as "political correctness gone mad".

Several planning disputes involving plans for mosques and Islamic schools are before councils and VCAT.

Many submissions claimed demands to conform to Islamic cultural practices were "the first step towards calls for ... Sharia law".

"Government compliance with demands ... under the banner of respect for diversity was thus cited as a dangerous trend," the report said.

The committee didn't support legal pluralism and recommended the Federal Government promote the message multiculturalism entailed respect for cultural diversity and commitment to Australian laws and values.

john.masanauskas@news.com.au


Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/national-ne ... z2UHQ6R7PI


And,


http://www.news.com.au/national-news/in ... 6476936303

Inquiry swamped with racist submissions

By: By Tory Shepherd

From: news.com.au September 19, 2012 1:28AM


Tensions are high from recent Islamic protests in Sydney and around the world.


A PARLIAMENTARY inquiry into multiculturalism has been swamped with anonymous Islamophobic and racist submissions.

The draft report is due out soon and will be released as tensions run high from recent protests in Sydney and around the world.

Of 513 submissions many are anonymous and contain lines such as:

"I do object to the current policy on immigration allowing predominately (sic) Muslim so called refugees into this country they are the biggest manipulative group around, are lying deceitful and dangerous."

Many of them have very similar themes; that multiculturalism has failed, that Muslims are to blame, that they threaten democracy in Australia and refuse to assimilate.

The submissions have been accepted by the inquiry into the “economic, social and cultural impacts of migration (which will) make recommendations to maximise the positive benefits of migration”.


The right-wing extremist group Australian Defence League’s submission says they plan “to take every lawful action and use every lawful means to inhibit Islam in Australia”.

“It might seem like pushing poo uphill and beating a dead horse, but we are adamant that Islam is not welcome in Australia,” it reads.

The fundamentalist Christian group Salt Shakers call for an end to the policy of multiculturalism. Research director Jenny Stokes writes:

“Multiculturalism has become a divisive policy in Australia. It has passed its ‘use by date’ and should be abandoned.” Ms Stokes would prefer more promotion of “our Christian heritage”.

People say they are concerned that Australia will turn “into another Bosnia”, or “will be known as the trash bin of the West”.

Andrew Jakubowicz is an expert on multiculturalism and race relations and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney. He said he believed the chairperson “may have been spooked by those racist submissions”, but that they would take many other difference sources of information into account.

He said research showed that up to 20 per cent of Australians were actively prejudiced against people “who are not like them” but that most people don’t really care too much unless it “intrudes into their personal space”.

“My guess is (the inquiry will) come up with a report that doesn’t have a minority report because (Ms Vamvakinou) has already said two crucial things: that Islamophobia is a big issue and that there’s no way there’ll be legislative outcomes from this,” he said.

Committee chair, Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou, said they had to be ‘open minded’ about the large number of submissions that held the view that Muslims wanted to take over the country and implement sharia law.

"We received a large number of these submissions … and we felt that from the very beginning we would adopt an attitude of looking at everything that was put in front of us. We were very open minded. We weren’t going to censor any material,” she said.

“So we got this large number of submissions from individuals; a lot were templates.”

She said people seized on events such as Saturday’s protests as evidence of problems with Islam, wrongly lumping all Muslims together.

“Muslims are not a homogenous group, a homogenous faith. Before September 11 we knew them as part of the migrant experience. We have to stop that (generalising), it’s just not true,” she said.

“(You can’t allow) a minority to actually determine a stereotype for the majority.”

Ms Vamvakinou said she could not discuss any details of the report or deliberations of the committee until the report was tabled, but emphasised that they were not considering allowing sharia law.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/in ... z2UHR1A7UV



And,



http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai ... fferences/

Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences

by Nicolai Sennels (May 2010)



Introduction by Nancy Kobrin, author of The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing[1]


When I first read about Nicolai Sennels’ work concerning therapy, which he had conducted with criminal Muslims in Denmark, I knew that it would be groundbreaking. I hope that you the reader will listen closely to what he has to say.

I also had the opportunity to conduct prison interviews of Muslim detainees, which were not interrogations. Minneapolis has the largest diaspora of Somali Muslims outside of Mogadishu, and there was an overload in the county jail. I was trying to decide if I wanted to draw up a research project. Pressured for time and with too many other responsibilities plus receiving a death threat during one of the interviews, I decided against it.

Like Sennels, I came away with a similar sense that Western law enforcement and the general public did not understand why there was so much crime in the Muslim population. And why there has been this problem of jail house converts to Islam who then become radicalized through contact with other criminal Muslims during incarceration.

Islam is the perfect religion to give justification for those who feel under attack and to maintain the eternal “victim" fantasy. Islam is also “higher” than Christianity because it comes last in co-opting the revelations of Sinai and the New Testament. What a perfect receptacle for projecting hatred. Islam incites, encourages and permits hatred of the Jew and Jihad. It’s perfect for a fragile personality that has the need to hate and the need to have an enemy. There are billions of people out there who share those sentiments and that profile. As an underdog religion, Islam provides great mass appeal, which even Eric Hoffer, the author of the True Believer, noted in 1951. It should come as no surprise that its numbers are growing. If one has a grievance, Islam will take care of it.

Sennels adeptly outlines the key problems of why Muslims are not able to integrate into Western culture. What he doesn’t say, I shall name. We are dealing with nothing more than paranoia. Sennels stresses that the West must set boundaries because otherwise they will kill you. This kind of rage is malignant borderline behavior as in serial killing. We must come to understand such politically incorrect observations as Sennels does in order to connect the dots concerning criminal Muslims even though it is brutal.

Happy well-adjusted children do not become suicide bombers nor do they become criminals. Let us choose to know what we are dealing with rather than bury our heads in sand out of terror. Let us meet the challenge straight on as Sennels has. If the Swedes had intellectual fortitude, Nicolai Sennels, the Dane, should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for standing up and proclaiming that the “Emperor Has No Clothes.” But then again, that is a Danish tale and the Swedes are left with Ingmar Bergman’s drama. Need I say more?



[1]Dr. Nancy Kobrin is a psychoanalyst with a clinical specialty in trauma. Her Ph.D. is in romance and semitic languages, specializing in Aljamía, Old Spanish in Arabic script. She did a two volume dissertation on Ahadith Musa. She began to study the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the early 80s as the truck bombs went off in Lebanon. Residing in Minnesota for many years she was asked to teach Radical Islam to the Sheriff's Deputies of Hennepin County. She is an expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human Terrain System program at Leavenworth Kansas and was slated to go into Helmand Province. Her new book is The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing.

___________________________________________________________________


Background


February 27th 2008. On a cold and windy Wednesday (for cyclists like myself), I took a deep breath, grabbed the microphone and did something that changed my life. In front of the Copenhagen Mayor’s Integration and Social Services Office there were gathered several journalists, a faithful Muslim musician from the famous MTV-band ‘Outlandish,’ dozens of Imams and Muslim spokesmen and a couple of hundred social workers with Muslim and Danish backgrounds. I began to say what everybody already knew, but, what nobody either wanted or dared to say: that those who are referred to as foreign criminals, religious extremists, or terrorists in the making and who are the cause of lawless parallel societies (what the conference "Diversity and Safety in the City" was about) are all Muslim. I argued that we should stop talking about "criminal foreigners" and start using the more precise term, "criminal Muslims." As a psychologist, having had more than a hundred Muslim clients, I told them that politicians and professional social workers need to understand the cultural and religious backgrounds of criminal foreigners. That is, if we want to come up with, at least, somewhat effective and targeted plans on how to reduce the social unrest, anti-democratic religious movements, the violent and anti-social forces among foreigners.

I was met with strong criticism from all sides and no support at all!

Just as most soldiers in the front lines die in the first attack, many of those who attacked political correctness have experienced negative professional or social consequences. I was no exception. The Mayor of Social Services was clear. I should either refrain from using stigmatizing expressions or find myself another job. Actually I was trying to stop the so-called stigmatization of all the non-Muslim immigrants by focusing on the one group that creates all the problems. But you can't fight City Hall. Our biggest national newspapers and radio news programs got hold of the story and the mayor was strongly criticized by the media experts on free speech and by the Danish blog-sphere. For about a month there was not a day when my name was not in one or more newspapers and the fighters for free speech took another round. I was no longer an anonymous psychologist. My name was known by everybody who read newspapers in Denmark and especially Islam-critical blogs on the internet put me in the spotlight.

Instead of keeping my mouth shut, I decided to write a book about my experiences with Muslims based on hundreds of therapy sessions. The whole circus that had happened concerning my case had already shown the necessity of breaking the taboos around criminal Muslims. Further, a serious discussion about the relationship between the Muslim culture and criminal, antisocial behavior is, indeed, very much needed. I managed to negotiate a deal that gave me four months severance pay. I am probably the first psychologist in Copenhagen who was offered $20,000 dollars for quitting his job voluntarily. I guess they just wanted to get rid of me, ASAP. I found a well-paying job as a Military psychologist doing psychological screening of soldiers returning from the war in Afghanistan. I also started writing my book, in which I describe a psychological profile of the Muslim culture. The title of the book is Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality. (Free Press Society, 2009).


After having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims’ cultural and religious experiences played a central role in their psychological development and criminal behavior. "Criminal foreigners" is not just a generalizing and imprecise term. It is unfair to non-Muslim foreigners and generally misleading.


Discussing psychological characteristics of the Muslim culture is important. Denmark has foreigners from all over the world and according to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven out of 10, in the youth prison where I worked, were Muslim.


The book was reviewed in several magazines and newspapers and it kickstarted the Danish debate on the relationship between cultural background and criminal behavior. The Danish magazine for professional psychologists reviewed it:


….Among Criminal Muslims is a provocative eye opener, convincing and well founded with many concrete examples.


The professional magazine for teachers of teenagers wrote:


Sennels’ reflections and critical discussion concerning our efforts towards young criminals deserves to be widely known.


Our biggest national news paper Jyllands-Posten, that printed the Mohammad cartoons, wrote:


The book is an original piece of pioneer work by focusing on the responsibility of the individual and involving the impact of religion in the shaping of the young person’s identity.


This is a summary of some of the things that I discovered.

Anger


Muslim culture has a very different view of anger and in many ways opposite to what we experience here in the West.

Expressions of anger and threats are probably the quickest way to lose one's face in Western culture. In discussions, those who lose their temper have automatically lost, and I guess most people have observed the feeling of shame and loss of social status following expressions of aggression at one's work place or at home. In the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face.

In the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes "…Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to." That saying is deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation. We see peoples’ ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.

The Islamic expression of "holy anger" is therefore completely contradictory to any Western understanding. Those two words in the same sentence sound contradictory to us. The terror-threatening and violent reaction of Muslims to the Danish Mohammed cartoons showing their prophet as a man willing to use violence to spread his message, is seen from our Western eyes as ironic. Muslims’ aggressive reaction to a picture showing their prophet as aggressive, completely confirms the truth of the statement made by Kurt Westergaard in his satiric drawing.

This cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to exploitation.


Locus of control


There is another strong difference between the people of Western and Muslim cultures; their locus of control. Locus of control is a psychological term describing whether people experience their life influenced mainly, by internal or external factors. It is clear from a psychological point of view that Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces – ourselves. This is reflected in our points of view, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivation, our surplus, and our way of communicating. These internal factors are what guide our lives and determine if we feel good and self confident or not. Every Western library has several meters of self help books. Every kiosk has dozens of magazines for both women and men that tell us how to create happier and more successful lives for ourselves. Our phone books have columns of addresses for psychologists, coaches and therapists. All these things are aimed at helping us to help ourselves create the life that we want. Some might argue that all this introspectiveness is too much and that just doing what is useful for oneself and others here-and-now would be more constructive, but this is how our culture is.

All these things do not exist in Muslim culture and countries. The very little psychiatry and psychology that is taught, in only a few universities in the Muslim world, is imported from the West. It is mostly taught by teachers educated at Western universities and does not have roots in the Muslim culture.

But Muslims have something else. They have strict external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have a God that decides their life's course. "Inshallah" follows every statement about future plans; if God wants it to happen. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community every Friday. These clerics dictate political views, child rearing behavior, and how or whether to integrate in Western societies.

The locus of control is central to our understanding of problems and their solutions. If we are raised in a culture where we learn that "…I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul," as William Ernest Henley wrote in his famous poem Invictus in 1875; we will, in case of personal problems, look at ourselves and ask: "…What did I do wrong?" and "…What can I do to change the situation?" People who have been taught throughout their entire lives that outer rules and traditions are more important than individual freedom and self reflection, will ask: "Who did this to me?" and "Who has to do something for me?"

Thus, the locus of control is central to the individual's understanding of freedom and responsibility. Even though our Christian based societies may, in certain situations, give too much emphasis on feelings of guilt; it also strengthens the individual's sense of being able to take responsibility for, and change one's own life. In societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influence there may be fewer feelings of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one's own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies, but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless demands on one's surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency, shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked me." Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free will. Even though one's own feelings, when experiencing an insult, can be moderated by one's own point of view, this kind of self reflection does not happen to the same degree among Muslims as it does among Westerners. It only takes one person to beat up another: the guy who is doing the hitting. It also only takes one person to feel insulted. Being beaten and feeling insulted are thus strictly different social events. The latter depends on ones self, while the former is solely caused by outer circumstances. Unfortunately, this fact is not considered in Muslim culture and apparently also not by the supporters of laws on hate speech, racism and defamation.

The difference in mentality is clearly stated by the old Indian proverb:


You can walk around softly everywhere by putting on a pair of shoes, or you can demand that the whole Earth becomes covered by soft leather.


It is a question of locus of control.


Self reflection vs. consequence


I have seen with Muslims, this cultural difference, concerning locus of control. It has been the source of countless failed social and integration projects. Besides the great support from our welfare systems, our state departments offer a variety of entertainment and guidance to criminal Muslim youngsters hoping that the thankfulness and trust that normally appears from such generosity will create a good relationship, respect and willingness to cooperate. But when the program of social events and appointments with patient social workers ends and the demands of mature behavior appear, the "mutual respect" often evaporates.

Westerners feel that it is "our standards" that determine real consequences for people. We like to think, that if they get some guidance and a second chance most people will learn from that guidance and make use of their chance to improve. We are afraid to set strict boundaries because we do not like people to feel punished, even though our motivation is to stop people from destroying their own lives and the lives of others.


What we have to realize is that we need to be flexible to think outside of our own cultural boxes. I would like to quote from our Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard from his book Either/Or: A Fragment of Life:


“If one truly wants to help a person, we should first of all start by finding where he is. This is the secret to the art of helping. Anyone who cannot do this is arrogant.”


European, Australian and North American politicians have spent trillions of Euros and Dollars in trying to avoid the apparently unavoidable; the failed integration of Muslims. Money has been spent on voluntary offers that our badly integrated foreigners can use if they want. They do sometimes try, but it very seldom works. What we have to understand is that we are dealing with people who grew up in cultures with an "outer - locus of control." Self reflection and self responsibility have much less importance to them.

During my years as a social worker, and later as a psychologist for antisocial individuals, I have realized that the only, reasonable way forward is to follow this three step procedure:


1) Provide guidance and help. If this does not work, then,
2) Establish Boundaries and limitations. If this does not work, then set
3) Consequences.


What I say here might seem to be more political than psychological. However, it is my extensive experience in giving therapy to Muslims that has led me to make this statement: We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies, with groups of roaming criminal Muslims overloading of our welfare system and the growing justified fear that non-Muslims have of violence. The consequences should be so strict that it would be preferable for any anti-social Muslim to go back to a Muslim country, where they can understand, and can be understood by their own culture.


Our mistake is that we start with too long a permissive leash and as the antisocial youngsters make mistakes we slowly restrict their freedom. During this process these young people, very often, manage to destroy their own lives with bad habits, bad friends and bad criminal records. My own experience, and that of many colleagues, is that the only functional way, is to start with a shorter leash. Then, as difficult people show that they can handle increasing amounts of freedom you can extend their options.


This way of starting with a short leash is actually very normal in our Western way of raising children. We start with strict expectations concerning school, doing homework, and behaving properly. Then, as children get older and more mature they will receive more freedom from their parents. When they are 21 years old they are expected to have learned enough to be able to handle life and are free to choose whatever education, partner, religion, life style that they want.


In Muslim culture it is different - especially for the boys. They have lots of freedom in their early lives and as they get older more and more cultural/religious restrictions and expectations appear to support the family structure. By the time they are 20 years old, their parents often have already chosen their future wives or husbands. Other choices are also less free: the expectation, for instance, to either achieve high status in education or to work in the little family run shop, to support the family's reputation by attending Friday prayers in the local Mosque. The "education pyramid" is standing upside down in the West; less freedom in the beginning, more self responsibility as one gets older. In Muslim culture the pyramid stands with its wide end down; few expectations to follow civilized behavior as a boy, and less freedom as one grows more competent, to support one's own family and religion.


Muslim identity


From my experiences with the 150 Muslims I have had in therapy, only a handful felt themselves to be Danish. Most saw themselves as Somalis, Turks, Moroccans, Pakistanis, and Iraqis who now live in Denmark. Almost none of them saw themselves as an integrated part of the Danish society. They felt alienated and in opposition to Danes and the Danish society. They did not feel at home here.

This was a real shock to me. Many of my Muslim clients were second or even third generation immigrants, but, still they did not feel Danish. Actually it seemed that many of them were even more religious and hateful towards non-Muslims than their first generation immigrant parents. It was clear to me that they saw themselves as quite different and even better than non-Muslims. Young Danes, who showed an interest in Islam, immediately received positive attention from even the non-practicing Muslims. So did the more hardcore Muslims. The power circles always appear around the more devout Muslims, fanatic, and powerful. The most popular among the Muslims were the true Islamists. The general picture of such an individual is a male with well trimmed beard, elegant glasses, arrogant attitude, fine manners and clothing, the Qu’ran lying on their bed along with C.D.’s of Qu’ran readings. Typically, they learn a handful of conspiracy theories "proving" that the West, especially the US and the few million Jews left on this Earth, are the cause of all the problems in the Muslim world.

I did not keep statistics of any kind, but my experiences clearly reflect several research projects on Muslim identity in Europe. A French survey in Le Figaro showed that only 14 percent of the country's estimated five million Muslims see themselves as "more French than Muslim." Research made by the German Ministry of Interior shows that only 12 percent of Muslims living in Germany see themselves as more German than Muslim. A Danish survey published by the pro-Muslim pro-democratic organization Democratic Muslims led by the Danish PM and Muslim Naser Khader showed that only 14 percent of Muslims living in Denmark could identify themselves as "Democratic and Danish." Naser Khader by the way also reviewed my book:


The professional expertise that Nicolai Sennels has, whatever party he may belong to, is exceptional and with Nicolai Sennels' clear practical examples throughout the book, the reader comes infinitely closer to understanding some of the integration problems. The book should be required reading for all school teachers, social workers and municipalities.


Since Khader himself is a Muslim and even published a book about Muslim culture (Honor and Shame) this is a real compliment to my psychological conclusions.

Being a Muslim clearly overrules whatever national identity one has. Samuel P. Huntington - author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order - described a "U" analogy. My findings are very close to those of Huntington. The tops of the two "towers" of the "U" are where Muslims feel "belonging to the Umma" (the world wide Muslim community), and "belonging to the tribe" (sticking together with other Muslims in the same geographical area). At the bottom of the “U” is national identity. For Westerners it is the opposite, our "U" stands upside down. Our feeling of obligation to the country where we live is stronger than our religion or group.

If integration just consists of learning the language and finding a job, it is not so difficult. But if integration also includes developing mental habits of equally respecting non-Muslims it is simply impossible for most Muslims. They see themselves as special, will always try to live together, create their own Muslim/Islamic parallel societies, feel separated and have less respect towards non-Muslims. True integration doesn’t have to, necessarily, imply religious conversion. However, for Muslims it certainly presupposes cultural conversion. Clearly, very few Muslims have the will, social freedom and strength of personality to go through such a psychologically demanding process.


So, this is THE question. Will integration of Muslims happen, satisfactorily, to the extent necessary? If you think yes, then on what basis do you make the assumption? If no, then what will you expect the consequences to be?


Honor


Honor is a central concept in the Muslim culture. Many Danish newspapers experienced mass rage from Muslims, when they published and re-published the Danish Mohammed cartoons. They have realized that Muslims are very easily offended.


What kind of honor needs to be protected by threats of terror and boycotts? Is this really honor? Maybe if seen through the glasses of a culture based on a book written 1400 years ago. However, when seen from the perspective of modern Western psychology, it surely is not. From our perspective such behavior is closer to being dishonorable.


Having to constantly keep up one’s appearances, becoming insecure and reacting aggressively when criticized is the result of low self esteem. Unfortunately the Muslim culture tells its men that criticism must be taken completely personally and met with childish reactions.


True self confidence would allow the individual the ability to think or say: “Ok. You have your own opinion about me or my religion. I have another opinion, and as I trust myself, I will not let my view of myself, or my central values, be disturbed by you.” Knowing one’s own strengths and weaknesses and accepting them is the core and basis of good self confidence.


If you had ever spent time in a Muslim community you experience this very clearly. You would find yourself constantly trying not to offend anyone and you’d treat everybody like a rotten egg. Jokes, irony and, especially, self-irony is as good as non-existent. It creates a superficial social environment where unhealthy hierarchies appear everywhere because nobody dares to, for instance, point out the weaknesses of childish men and make fun of the powerful. There is an old Danish fairytale about a little boy that points out the nakedness of the King; "He has no clothes on!!” embarrassing the proud King wearing his non-existent magic clothes, which are only visible to "good people" (actually, the King was just naked - because the tailor had cheated him!). Such a story could never have been written in a Muslim culture.


Many young Muslims become assailants. This is not just because of the Muslim cultural acceptance of aggression, but also because the Muslim honor mentality makes them into fragile, insecure men. Instead of being flexible and humorous they become stiff and develop fragile, glass-like, narcissistic personalities.


Unfortunately, most journalists and media people use the term “honor” when describing cases of violence where the offender makes excuses for himself by stating that his honor was offended. Since the concept of honor is completely integrated in the social rules of Muslim culture, it is seen to be justifiable when honor is threatened. This extends to beating or killing women who want to claim such basic human rights as to choose, for themselves, their own sexual partners. By using this term, as used by the offender, the media automatically takes the perspective of a clearly psychopathic and narcissistic excuse for treating other people badly. Instead, we should take our own Western culture as a basis when describing such crimes. Terms like “family execution," “childish jealousy,” “control maniac” or “insecure” would be much closer to our cultural understanding of such behavior.


Consequences of failed integration?


The World Economic Forum published a report Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue 2008 in which they show the results of a survey conducted in 12 non-Muslim and 12 Muslim countries. The last point in the report concerned the question: "Do you think violent conflict between the Muslim and Western worlds can be avoided?" A majority of all 24 countries think that this conflict can be avoided. However, this is not the same as believing that such peaceful development will actually occur. Overwhelmingly, 22 countries out of 24, in the survey expected that the “interaction between the Muslim and Western World is getting worse."


This survey clearly showed that while there is widespread hope for a peaceful outcome between the tensions of Islam and the West, people are seemingly very pessimistic.

Things are not going in the direction of peace.


Personally, my own conclusions match those of the survey. I believe that a violent conflict can be avoided. However, the chances of achieving that are getting slimmer and slimmer every month. We passed the point of no return years ago when such a conflict could have been avoided without taking drastic measures. Draconian measures may have to include shutting down Muslim immigration; demanding reform of Islamic organizations and leaders in the West; tightening the thumb screws on integration; becoming less dependent on oil in the Middle East; providing incentives to extremely overpopulated, impoverished countries to have less children; creating an alternative to the UN exclusively for democratic countries; cutting the EU's ability to force European countries to receive more Muslim immigrants and refugees; and perhaps even sending Muslims who proved themselves unable to adjust to our Western secular laws back to their countries of origin.


Such drastic measures are probably necessary. However, our politicians have decided to give the "long leash" first, then slowly and with much hesitation, to shorten it as things get worse and worse. With such politicians the Islamists can lean back and enjoy the show. The destruction of the "perverted," free, non-Islamic West will happen by itself.


Since the Muslim world is already here – in thousands of Muslim ghettoes in Europe, Australia and North America – the possibility that violent conflict will happen in Western cities all over the world is very great.


We need to understand the Muslim culture much better if we want to be able to stop such a catastrophe. We need to understand that it is not possible to integrate masses of Muslims into our Western societies. We need to understand that our non-confrontational Western ways of handling conflicts make us look weak and vulnerable to Muslim leaders. We need to understand that Muslim culture is much stronger and more determined than our guilt-ridden, self-excusing Western culture. We need to understand that Muslims will only feel at home in a Muslim culture and this is why their religious demands for Islamization of the West will never end.


The moment when a popular Islamic cleric declares a Muslim area as Islamic (such declarations are the tradition of Islam, and are happening all over the world - in China, Thailand, ex-Yugoslavia, Russia, Africa etc.) and orders his followers to attack all non-Islamic authorities entering the area, we will have civil wars. No State can tolerate such an attack on its authority and will have to stop it from happening and stop it from growing. These “no go” self-governing areas are already full of violent criminals, weapons and Islamic extremists. They will probably not give up either their guns or themselves to the authorities voluntarily. Such Islamic declarations have already happened on an unofficial level. All Western European countries have such “no go” areas where policemen and authorities are met with threats and flying stones upon entering; all while Islamic authorities such as Imams and homegrown Sharia courts freely rule these “no go” areas, creating Muslim ghettoes.


After having heard the stories from Muslims themselves about their culture, religion, home countries, Muslim ghettoes, their views on non-Muslims, democracy, women and freedom, I have no hope that we can avoid “blood, sweat and tears” during this conflict. It will take many idealistic women and men many years before we reach a point where we can be sure that our freedom-loving culture will win such a conflict. As it stands now, such victory is not at all certain. I hope that many brave people will stand up for what we all believe in, and be mindful of how easily it can be lost. They could write letters to their newspapers, study the Qu’ran and the crime statistics (the only two sources you need to convince yourself that Muslim immigration is a very bad idea). Then they could present their opinions in a confident manner when conversation turns to the subject of Islam and Muslim immigration at lunch, work and at family dinners. A popular movement composed of average citizens standing up against the immature and psychologically unhealthy culture of Islam is the way and the goal. Nothing is more important than that.


The result of the "Diversity, and Safety in the City" conference on February 27, 2008 was a so-called “Catalogue of Ideas.” The Catalogue had more than 118 ideas concerning what the media, the police, the state, the politicians and the Danes could to do improve integration. There were virtually no ideas about what foreigners themselves can do to improve integration.


Mr. Sennels can be contacted at: nicolaisennels@gmail.com.



COMMENT

I have mused over this topic in the last while in an effort to filter out further what has been the resultant reaction by people of mainstream Australia to the Mohammed Riot of 15 September 2012.

The topic of Muslims and Islam, not just about Lebanese, but more often than not involving Lebanese, has now become part of the social discourse. People no longer hide behind hands and speak in hushed tones with whispers in an effort to dodge the police of Political Correctness who would chastise them with moral indignation. People feel justified to speak aloud about their apprehension about or sheer disgust at anything done in the name of or associated with Islam, anything done by Lebanese, in Australia today.

That observation I think is critical and gives framework to the selection of articles taken. The discourse in the halls of academia and at the level of government is somewhat removed from talk on the street. While people in government must be seen to speak properly with a higher moral consciousness about social issues and not indulge the vulgar, they cannot keep reiterating the same old apology in an effort to conceal a problem. The truth is not in words, it seems, but in actions. Steps must be put in place to address the Lebanese Problem or it will fester and escalate.

Let us look at that thinking.

I think with the first two articles combined with the last review of a seminal piece by Nicolai Sennels, one that incorporates the Australian experience, we have in place insights to help draw some conclusions.

The focus starts broad. The topic is Multiculturalism in Australia. It is then quickly reduced to the topic of Islam and how it fits within that overarching social policy. Finally, the Lebanese component - never stated, but implied - is rendered for examination.

Sennels's work is consistent with the findings here at Extreme Measures. Sennels has studied a criminal population of proponents and practitioners of Islam in Denmark and drawn some conclusions. He has presented some tools that can be incorporated into the examination of proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia at Extreme Measures and applied to the Lebanese, particularly, Muslim community.

I noted that in connection with the Inquiry into Multiculturalism conducted by a Government Standing Committee where about 50 per cent of submissions made were anti-Islamic:

"Andrew Jakubowicz ( ) an expert on multiculturalism and race relations and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, ( ) said he believed the chairperson [of the Committe of Inquiry into Multicultural Relations] 'may have been spooked by those racist submission(s)', but that they would take many other differen(t) sources of information into account."

I would have thought that Andrew Jabuowicz, a so-called expert on Multiculturalism and race relations and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, would be a bit more ingenious than to describe anyone who expressed a view with which he disagreed a "racist". Serously, if anyone expresses an opinion that does not gibe with the bureaucracy's overarching social policy of Multiculturalism by commenting negatively about any minority group, particularly members of the Lebanese Muslim sub-group, to describe them as 'racist" is to really defeat the purpose of an Inquiry into Multiculturalism.

The professor has lost the plot and is obviously padding his own bed of feathers, his source of income. Does the professor really know what "racism" is? What race are proponents and practitioners of Islam?

But, his comment gives some idea as to the ill-educated assumptions people on the committee have about a serious problem in their midst: the Lebanese Problem.

A great number of people expressed views less than flattering about Muslims. The people who expressed those views are Australians. Yet, people like the professor are condescending. They regard themselves as higher-minded and more sophisticated than the people of Australia who have bothered to submit submissions critical of proponents and practitioners of Islam. Mulsticulturalism is an ideal that cannot be challenged. However, that arrogance assumes that the people who have sumitted submissions critical of proponents and practitioners of Islam are uncultured dolts who just need education to appreciate the humanity of proponents and practitioners of Islam so as to see their way clear of any immature, infantile prejudices.

The shoe is on the other foot. The Inquiry into Multiculturalism is - amongst other things - to provide a solution for those from mainstream Australia who have angst over the proponents and practitioners of Islam in their midst.

For the Inquiry into Multiculturalism to not even recognise there is a problem with proponents and practitiioners of Islam is to render the Inquiry a waste of time and money. To infer that the people who have a problem with proponents and practitioners of Islam, as numerous submissions have rendered, have a problem with "racism" then the Inquiry into Multiculturalism has demonstrated that those on the committee are too far removed from everyday life and mainstream Australia to even be in a position to administer an Inquiry into such a social polcy.

The committee must be made aware that Australia's experience is not any different to the experience of those in other countries despite rhetoric chiming Australia's Multiculturalism is different, Australia's Multiculturalism works!

"The Australian model of multiculturalism is different" and ''the genius of Australian multiculturalism'' is what makes it work. - Chris Bowen, former Minister for Immigration.

[Post No. 215 INQUIRY INTO MULTICULTURALISM IN AUSTRALIA taken from Extreme Measures at Orb.Mogkat and compiled here at Aussie-Site for reference purposes]

That is propaganda reciting a lie like "Peace for our time!". Prime Minister Chamberlain waved a worthless Munich Agreement in the air debarking his aeroplane claimed "Peace for our time" before an audience at an aerodrome back in England after talking with Hitler in September 1938, just a day before Hitler marched into the Sudetenland ('German') land round the border of what was then Czechoslovakia. That was a move that would later see Hitler march into Poland in 1939 'causing' a Declaration of War (at the start of the Second World War). Australia has the luxury of being some way behind the evolution of the "Muslim Problem" as experienced in Europe, in England, but the same traits noted overseas are everywhere to be seen in Australia.

The Mohammed Riot is a case in point. The best response to that by the high and mighty like Peter Fitzsimons, historian, writer and celebrity, is to say that those who use that as evidence Multiculturalism has failed have lost the plot.

Thus,

"We have to ask: Do you have the first clue as to the ramifications of your actions? Do you not understand that the net result of such irresponsible, appalling action is to give ample fuel to every racist in the country to reinforce every bad stereotype they have ever had of you, and that will affect badly the hundreds of thousands of other peaceful and law-abiding Islamic Australians?"

(See http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 25ziq.html)

[Post No. 7 MOHAMMED RIOT IN SYDNEY: INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS?]

That is easy. It is a generic response that can be applied anywhere. However, here at Extreme Measures, contrary to what that high-minded expulsion asserts, otherwise has been demonstrated. That generic response passed through the filter at Extreme Measures exposes ignorance. Extreme Measures looks at the realpolitik.

The question then raised is will the Inquiry into Multiculturalism look at realpolitik or will it recoil into the safety of an ideal like Bowen's vision ?

"Our multiculturalism is underpinned by respect for traditional Australian values and if there is any inconsistency between these values and individual freedom and the rule of law, then these Australian values win out".

[Post No. 7 MOHAMMED RIOT IN SYDNEY: INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS?]

The ideal infers that Australian values win out by natural selection like with evolution. Bowen's assertion takes no account of the effort, the realpolitik required, to install that hierarchy into proponents and practitioners of Islam where Australian values dominate to guide behaviour.

"She said people seized on events such as Saturday’s protests {Mohammed Riot) as evidence of problems with Islam, wrongly lumping all Muslims together.

"'Muslims are not a homogenous group, a homogenous faith. Before September 11 we knew them as part of the migrant experience. We have to stop that (generalising), it’s just not true,' she said.

"'(You can’t allow) a minority to actually determine a stereotype for the majority.'"

It is asserted Multiculturalism will work to accomodate proponents and practitioners of Islam and their expression of faith within the framework of Government policies and Australian laws. To deny such is simply wrong!

Anyone from mainstream Australia who disagrees will be labelled a 'racist" and dismssed from the debate. That is, just like Andrew Jabuowicz, the so-called expert on Multiculturalism and race relations and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, has already done!

The mechanism is already in place and the tentacles of Political Correctness have reached out to try and choke off and/or smother any disagreement thatwould counter the higher-minded, sacralised policy of Multiculturalism.

However, none of that has the rigour, evidence, analysis and demonstrated contiguity in connection with the Muslim community in Australia to lend it credibility. The prommulgation of Political Correctness works to silence the silent majority. Indeed, there might be episodes that render Australian Multiculturalism triumphant where some practitioners of Islam have crossed the line and embraced Australian values, but they will be the exceptions and will not demonstrate the rule.

In fact, the attitude of proponents and practitioners of Islam toward Australia is different from what the policy of Multiculturalism permits it to entail:

(http://www.islamcan.com/islamic-history ... alia.shtml)

The future of Islam in Australia


Islam is here to stay and Muslims are going to play a significant role in Australia's future. The Muslims have already put religion back on the agenda with secularism versus religion the debating point.

The mosque remains the most vital social structure in Islam and our association with it must be increased.

Secondly, we must ensure that the benefits that we as Muslims receive from Islam are also communicated to the wider non-Muslim community. We should be ambassadors of Islam and promote Islamically-based systems and alternatives as potential solutions to the problems faced by the wider community, such as: abstention to combat alcoholism; having a life-mission to prevent suicide, shared equity and rental instead of usury, etc.

Equipped with good will, hard work, increased faith, wisdom and dedication, Muslims in Australia will indeed ensure a brighter future for themselves and for Australia as a whole.

"You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind, you enjoin what is good and forbid what is bad, and you believe in Allah."

[surah ali-Imran; 3:110]


Proponents of Islam want to transform Australia into their image. It is their duty. Those unlike them are spiritually poor, work within a system that is flawed, lesser than one attained by guidance through the teachings of Mohammed, and one if implemented would be an improvment to the benefit of Australia.

It does not matter whether the rest of Australia concurs with that vision, the rest of Australia does not matter.

1. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are prepared, willingly, to conspire to pursue the Muslim delusion, the imperative that Islam is to dominate society and polity.

[Posts No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM as copied across from Orb.Mogkat and Extreme Measures to Aussie-Site]

In fact, the time has come to do what Sennels found necessary to do in Denmark, "the necessity of breaking the taboos around ( ) Muslims. Further, a serious discussion about the relationship between the Muslim culture and anti-social behaviour is, indeed, very much needed."

( http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai ... fferences/)

If the Inquiry into Multiculturalism pfaffs around and does not ask the same questions and does seek answers then what will it derive in response to its question looking at Multiculturalism.

Committee chair, Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou, pre-empted the findings, thus:

“(You can’t allow) a minority to actually determine a stereotype for the majority.”, said Ms Vamvakinou.

But, as business was to unfold:

"The joint parliamentary committee on migration said in its final report that it had received many submissions claiming multiculturalism was laying the foundations for ethnic separatism amid rising Islamic immigration."

"Committee chair, Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou, said they had to be ‘open minded’ about the large number of submissions that held the view that Muslims wanted to take over the country and implement sharia law."

If the Imquiry into Multiculturalism already had its conclusion predetermined by the ideological standpoint of government policymakers invested in the current system where they merely sought to have that position reinforced then it has all been a big song and dance and a waste of time and money. If, however, the Inquiry into Multiculturalism is true to its name then the dominant number of submissions reflecting "Islamaphobia", as it were, must stand as a testimony to broader community concern. With the report finalised, the Government needs to respond.

The question then becomes is the Government of Australia the bane of Political Correctness or the governing body of and for the people of Australia concerned about a dysfunctional sub-group that refuses to adapt and integrate into Australia, that is "Australophobic', per se, and seeks to transform all that about it into its own image, the Muslim delusion.

The submissions have been accepted by the inquiry into the “economic, social and cultural impacts of migration (which will) make recommendations to maximise the positive benefits of migration”.

If that is the case, then migration from Islamic countries should be halted until a programme is in place and is shown to derive benefits for Australia into the long term working with the current pool of "Islamic Australians".

Proponents and practitioners of Islam must be secularised. This could be done through education at state schools where the fanciful history of the Islamic world is ripped open and examined. The application of the socratic method, where Mohammed's paedophilia is exposed and confronted, must be made part of the process of acculturation to Australia for proponent and practitioners of Islam.

Australia is a democracy and people should not be compelled to do something they do not want to. However, if from the Inquiry into Multiculturalsim Islam can be deemed a threat to social cohesion then the Government will find itself compelled to put steps in place to derive that end. Otherwise, the Government is neglecting its social contract.

The Government should be aware from the finalised committee report Inquiry into Multiculturalism that pressure is building in the community anti-Islam. The Government needs to break the nexus before it erupts into something more catastrophic than the Cronulla Riot and Revenge Attacks of December 2005 and the Mohammed Riot combined.

Manistream Australia is sick and tired of not being listened to.

Former Minsiter for Immigration Chris Bowen has taken his pill and suffered his fate - not because of his support for Rudd - but because his understanding of his portfolio was seriously flawed. The "genius of Australian Muslticulturalism" was exposed as mistaken self-approbation by the multicultural violence at the Mohammed Riot.

If Australia's Multiculturalism was so ingenious then why is there a backlash against "Muslim enclaves": "A federal multicultural inquiry has been told that complying with Muslim demands for separation is a dangerous move."

(Continued below)
Last edited by Hannibal on Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Post Sat May 25, 2013 6:57 pm
Willard User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 47
Slogan: smell the coffee
@hannybull who said:

The best response to that


You seemed to have made that judgment without giving the reader an op to look at the other responses and form an orpinion. So Hanny would you be so kind as to fill in those missun bits.

I enjoyed, sort of, your post but thought it a little short, especially in the detail as well as the length. Size IS important.

:smoke:

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
MINDSET NOW ABOUT MOHAMMEDANS IN OUR MIDST (continued)

Is it possible that the people of mainsteam Australia are aware of some communal movement, some tension in the air, in certain suburbs of certain cities, notably in Sydney, where such enclaves are manifest? How would these enclaves be determined? Perhaps by a notable concentration of people of a certain ethnic persuasion.....

The gambit of denying ethnic, or Muslim enclaves, like a Lebanese Muslim enclave about Bankstown including suburbs like Greenacre, Punchbowl and Lakemba, is mere dissimulation. Extreme measures was created with the Lebanese, particularly Muslim, Problem at the forefront of mind. "The Jihad Belt" is a term defined at Extreme Measures and is one used that has long standing and correlates to the location in Sydney of the concentration of the Lebanese Muslim population. Those residents have decided to concentrate in those suburbs and set about colonising them or transforming them to their own cultural needs.

For example, butchers that only sell "Halal" meat, with signs only in Arabic and opening hours that are conducive only to the calendar of practitioners of Islam shutting down during Ramadan at certain times. Inside Australia, in New South Wales, where the trading hours are essentially prescribed by law if not tradition, where other people non-Muslim in a suburb might want to take advantage of what the butcher sells, they are excluded because of the enforcement of that alien culture in their midst.

Hence, Muslim enclaves become discriminatory. Proponents and practitioners of Islam bring their politico-religious culture to bear that begins to strongly demarcate differences, by inferred prohibitions, by invisible lines that cannot be crossed and work to exclude, by an unspoken, alien morality, one that is implied but never stated until tested, and a platform from which castigation can be justified, that politico-religious culture effectively separates mainstream Australia from the ethnic clan growing, colonising, in its midst.

Where people have commented that:

"(D)emands to conform to Islamic cultural practices (are) 'the first step towards calls for ... Sharia law'.

"'Government compliance with demands ... under the banner of respect for diversity was thus cited as a dangerous trend'.",

then it would be very ludicrous for people on the committee of the Inquiry into Multiculturalism to dismiss it with the same ease as Andrew Jakubowicz, an expert on Multiculturalism and race relations and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Technology, Sydney, above does.

The comments made by their sheer number represent a strong voice from mainstream Australia closer to the coal face, as it were, about a problem that committee members conducting the Inquiry cannot dismiss.

But, what did the Inquiry into Multiculturalism in Australia eventually find?

"3.34 Australia’s anti-racism framework was seen as inhibiting legitimate debate about these matters. It was argued that objections to a religious ideology and its practices should not constitute racism. Yet, it was maintained, under the prevailing ‘political correctness’, legitimate debate of these matters has become socially unacceptable and, at worst, potentially actionable under the race or religious vilification laws.36 Submission 302 expressed the prevailing sentiment succinctly: ’Complain about proponents and practitioners of Islam and be branded a racist low-life. You will be dismissed from the debate! You have not shown respect!’.37"

And,

"3.125 Finally, the Committee reiterates its belief that the policy of multiculturalism does not prohibit legitimate debate or evaluation of trends in Australian society, associated with migration or otherwise. Multiculturalism promotes communication between different cultures within a unified narrative, and recognises that intercultural understanding is important between all ethnic and religious groups."

But,

"3.107 Australians by majority are not racist; they are comfortable with our cultural diversity and enjoy its benefits. Nevertheless, a small but vocal number in the community hold racist views and are exacting a high toll both on emerging communities and on social cohesion within the community as a whole."

And,

"3.110 The Committee would support articulation of a clear definition of what multiculturalism is, and what it is not, as part of the anti–racism message. This is clearly necessary both to dispel politicisation of our cultural diversity and to develop an inclusive narrative meaningful for promulgation both to the Australian community more widely and to new arrivals."

The Inquiry into Migration and Multiculturalism by the Parliamentary Committee while comprehensive has provided a potpouri of recommendations. "Multiculturalism" is the virtue. "Racism" is the vice. If you do not agree with "Multiculturalism" then, by exclusion, you are racist. The concept of "Multicultralism" is evoked as unchallengeable. "Racism" is the scourge of Australian society. We are free to debate the topic and trends in immigration and what not, but by disagreeing with "Multiculturalism" one is branded a racist.

The Anti-Racism squad will be after you!

The word from the report, however, is that a significant "minority" of people within the Australian community are critical of proponents and practitioners of Islam.

Who would have guessed?

There are not any really startling observations in the report. The report defines much and categorises much, but does it set up an agenda? Is there an agenda hidden behind the veil of Political Correctness? Could that recommendation be "Social Inclusion"? Could that now be the overarching virtue that precludes respect for "Cultural Diversity" where it rails against Australian Law, for example?

So, it seems.

Sharia Law is out! That is to some relief. But, Islam is still on the menu with respect for Lebanese Muslim cultural identity. So, what does that mean then? The committee has not fully grasped that Sharia Law is an indivisible part of that Lebanese Muslim identity. So, we have conflict on the horizon. Lebanese Muslims are excluded from Social Inclusion, but are gung ho for Cultural Diversity.

Will we have to wait until the agenda proposed is facilitated by Government policy before we see protesting Lebanese Muslims in the streets? No, it has already happened because they cannot get their own way: Mohammed Riot (15 September 2012).

Fortunately now, people from the Australian Mainstream can add weight to Government policy in this regard. While Lebanese Muslims might want to remain aloof and apart from Australian society as they regard themselves as superior, any asssertion of their culture will see them marginalised further.

It will then result in conflict between Lebanese Muslims and people of mainstream Australia or their exodus from Australia. They will be tainted either way. They are tainted now.

The Parliamentary Committe's report only tacitly gave any support to the findings uncovered by the likes of Sennils. While saying Australia is different to Europe, the report does recommend research with ethnic minorities now identified as a consequence. That is supposedly in order to sus out who is discriminated against, but - if done properly - will also highlight the villains for clarity.

That is a longwinded, bureacratic way by which Government can officially uncover what is the talk on the streets and raise it from the vulgar to the academic where trends can more properly be interpreted.


Will it be too late?

Let us look at what Sennils dound and see if it can be applied to the Australian context as he asserts in a manner whereby some predictions can be made about "events" are likely to be seen if the future.


FOR THOSE WATCHING - THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS

PreviousNext

Return to Australia and New Zealand

cron