Islam in Australia

Who are the real dividers?

Something that is growing increasingly evident, is that the so called majority of peace- loving Muslims, who abhor Islamist movements in all their forms, is more like a minority. Whilst beheadings, or other savage punishments are enough for Muslim leaders to redeliver their scripted condemnations, our problems with Islam, delve far deeper than this.

While awareness of these events are limited due to an inexorable lack of media coverage, yesterday witnessed a vicious Islamist attack in North Queensland, after a French Muslim, stabbed a British backpacker to the cry of ‘Allahu Akbar’. It seems apparent, that public discourse regarding the motivations behind jihadis, has been so saturated with claims of ‘mental health issues’ or ‘socio- economic problems’, that Islamic terrorism is no longer seen as compelling news.

However, in response to the attack, Ali Kadri, a spokesman for the Islamic Council of Queensland, provided us with a glimpse into the sinister, more covert resistance from the mainstream Muslim community, when it comes to fighting acts of terrorism.

“We have to be careful about trying to connect every single murder committed by a Muslim to terrorism,” he said. “To speculate it’s (an act of) terrorism … what is going to happen now is Isis are going to pick up on it, they’re going to claim it, and they’re going to look stronger than they are.”

Note how Kadri offered no sympathy towards the victim of the stabbing, or condolences to family and friends. Instead, without a second of hesitation, Kadri quickly turned an attack committed by a Muslim, as an opportunity to present his community as victim. To provoke this subtle, yet clear narrative, that our main concerns in response to Islamist attacks should be with Muslims, demonstrates an extraordinarily callous, cruel and cold- hearted disregard for disbeliever life.

Moreover, this attempt to scapegoat the infidel as the oppressor despite them being the oppressed, is inherently divisive, and reveals the true intentions of much of the Australian Muslim community’s leaders. They are more upset, more angered, and more frustrated, at actual discussions and policies aimed at solving terrorism, than they are at terrorism itself.

This was reflected in 2014, when dozens of Muslim organisations, includingWe are not fooled by those who speak against violence and terrorism but are its proponents at an institutional level through military and foreign policies, at length excoriated the newly- introduced anti terror laws, which have since led to numerous arrests and foiled. No matter how or why you try to apologize for the reasons and motivations behind this letter, it must be asked; where was a similar letter condemning ISIS, or any other terrorist organisation?

This combative, defensive approach pursued routinely by the Muslim leadership, is aimed at avoiding all criticism, nullifying integration, and fundamentally, whether intentional or not, excusing and enabling Islamism. Thus, we must no longer not sit idly as exercises of free speech and opinion are falsely critiqued as fear mongering, and causing disunity, when the real offenders are those who hide behind such shallow labels.









20 thoughts on “Who are the real dividers?

  1. Freedom: When your only comment to your opposition is “They had to go to the media”, you’ve lost. Why should someone who is doing something good not publicize it, if only to draw attention to the work that still needs to be done and inspire people? Why should good people be silent and let evil people babble on like psychopaths? That’s even before we take into account that, as a Muslim, he’s also having to represent not only for himself but an entire religion, who even according to people like you need more positive voices out there. Do you see how vile you are being? On the one hand, you say that Muslims are violent and not speaking out against violence enough; on the other, when they do, you accuse them of being media whores. What exactly could Muslims do to make you not judge them, Freedom, and would you accept being held to that standard?

    1. This is a silly apologist argument. But I’ll counter your claim twofold. Number 1: I am contending that the majority of mainstream Muslims are not fully committed against counter terrorism, radical Islam etc. they scream islamophobia whenever there is a violent act undertaken in the name of Islam. They as a whole, act to distract the efforts of counter terrorism and law enforcement (while not supporting the actual terrorist act. And your second point about Christian countries invading Muslim countries. Don’t be fooled by this apologist argument. Because right now Christians are being genocidally wiped out off the face of the Middle East. Isis is in effect a state right now, and in a way that differs to Christian countries invading Muslim countries, their goal is to massacre as many civilians as possible. No American invasion in Iraq etc (which I never supported), ever had this goal. Moreover, when was the last time a Christian said in the name of God we will quote the bible and kill you Muslims? Never

    2. And the problem with both of your points is that neither actually addresses the point: Christians are more likely to endorse torture and yet you are not holding them to task.

      As for point one: How the hell do you know? Are you psychic? What if I applied this logic to Christians and said that Christians don’t really mean it when they say that it’s wrong to bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortion doctors? Hell, Christians sure as hell scream that Christian oppression is occurring when they don’t get their red cup, let alone when someone points out that the Catholic Church centrally protected child molesters!

      Why does someone in Indonesia have a duty to call out Saudis who share their faith? Do you have a duty to call out every neo-Nazi who claims to be a conservative, individually? If so, better get to your endless 24-hour Twitter war buddy!

      As for Christians being genocidally wiped out: One accounting of jihadi deaths for about a decade is less than 50,000. That’s less than a year’s worth of deaths from workplace injuries and illness in America alone. But sure, jihadi terror is a problem, including when it’s spread by the US ally Saudi Arabia so Christian-owned companies and Christian-majority countries can make money.

      How serious is Christian violence? I call on you to name me a case in the last fifty years where a Muslim-majority country invaded a Christian-majority country that had not previously attacked it (that will exclude the Azeri-Armenian conflict). I can then list both times the US bombed Iraq, the bombing of Afghanistan, and plenty of other war crimes and atrocities. Worse, that isn’t even counting the overthrow of Mossadeq and the backing of the Shah, the overthrow of Suharto and the backing of Sukarno, the support of Siad Barre, etc. Add all that up and Christian-majority countries have killed orders of magnitude greater than jihadis have killed in decades, easily.

      Do you care about that?

    3. Many things said here. And I’m not excusing the west of everything it’s done wrong. Of course we are critical of Christians: in my own country we launched a royal commission (investigation? on child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. I’m happy to talk about that. And we are self critical when needed. And besides, if you brought numbers up about everything, than you’d have to include the millions massacred under Saddam husseins leadership, and the millions more persecuted historically and currently in Islamic countries across the world. This is a slippery slope. But I think once you realise that the ideology of Islam is supremacist in nature in a manner that differs from all other belief systems, you start approaching things differently. Until you acknowledge this element you are factually flawed in any analysis.

    4. I am not saying that you think the West has. My point is that you hold Muslims collectively accountable in ways that you do not for any other group. No investigation in Australia said that a random Catholic in Latin America was responsible for molestation. Yet that would actually make more sense than your claim that moderate Muslims in Indonesia would need to do something special to disprove that they were like ISIS.

      Saddam Hussein did not massacre millions, and you can add that number to our column too because the US installed the Ba’ath Party and gave Saddam the critical support to stay in power and murder the tens to hundreds of thousands that he did.

      Nor were we “self-critical” enough to stop the Iraq War. All of those imams who are “self-critical” of ISIS, all of the fatwas proclaimed after every single act of terror that someone even scarcely notices, doesn’t count to you, but the fact that we rub our hands and lie to ourselves after wars and molestation does. Again, a double standard.

      Islam is not supremacist any more than Catholicism is. You are repeatedly making the same error. You’re looking at iterations of modern Islam, not even all such iterations (for example: Muslims in America are actually more moderate and liberal than the general population on many issues, especially things like torture), then assuming that all Islam historically and Islam in the future must be like that. If you did that calculus for Christianity even a century ago, you’d see Leopolds and a few nice people. It took the end of World War II and the process of decolonization (pushed forward not primarily by Europeans or Christians but by people in the Third World) for us to be at the point of relatively high civilization we are today, in terms of getting along, not constantly having world wars, actually trading productively, etc. Even if America had done nothing neo-colonialist in the intervening time period, we’re talking about a brutal, ugly colonial legacy that stopped within the living memory of some. Frankly, Christian atrocities even in the last sixty years are far higher (Rwanda alone is a pretty hard number to beat, when we’re actually measuring properly and not just making up millions like what you tried with Saddam). Of course they are: Christian nations at the moment are more likely to have the guns.

      In reality, any ideology can become far uglier than its baseline incarnation. I don’t like nationalism, but not all nationalism is white supremacy. I don’t like the ideals of capitalism, but not all people who propose capitalism are Milton Friedman.

    5. There’s lots here. But I’m
      Not talking about Latin America Muslims or Catholics here. I’m talking about Australian Muslims and the actions of their community. As for the nature of Islam, and the idea it is less supremacist than Catholicism, I don’t know where you got that from. Clearly jihad and sharia law meant nothing. But here is the best contrast. Jesus spent his life helping the poor, performing miracles, and gaining followers through his divine appeal and conduct. Muhammed on the other hand, had sex with a nine year old, beheaded tribes of Jews, and performed dozens of military expeditions, conquering much land around him. And don’t tell me that was for that context and in that era. Because that awful prophet is the divine example for Muslims for all time. Just check Surah 33 verse 21

    6. Polls of Aussie Muslims indicate that they overwhelmingly repudiate terrorism, even if some don’t like the “moderate” label because it implies laziness. Meanwhile, non-Muslim Aussies get the size of the Muslim population wrong by a factor of nine and the negativity rating in Australia for Muslims is quite high. So who’s being the bigot, exactly?

      Catholicism insisted that it was the one true faith (and really still does) for millennia, to the point of pushing men like Charlemagne to outright genocide (of the Avars among others).

      Jesus told followers to leave behind their families to join him and to give up all worldly possessions, that he come not to bring peace but a sword, attacked people violently in all four gospels, insisted that those who do not believe in him will be burnt in hell for eternity, approved of the genocide and slavery in the Old Testament, insists that he uses parables to confuse people so that they go to Hell, outright excoriated his followers to take up arms, and in Revelations is depicted as engaging in mass murder. In Romans we are taught that those with “unnatural affections” are worthy of death; in Acts we see Paul make someone blind and excuse the war crimes that David committed. The New Testament is full of immense violence, torture porn and nasty nationalism.

      Muhammad reformed an area riddled with sex slavery, brutality and war. He wasn’t the first conqueror in the region nor would he be the last. But as far as actually improving things for women in the area by guaranteeing that concubines couldn’t exist (something later followers just ignored) and guaranteeing rights of inheritance as well as dealing with the very real issues of poverty and inequality by mandating alms, Muhammad was a substantial reformer, and got much more done than Jesus (if Jesus ever existed) did. Moreover, Mohammed actually had rules about not attacking the material existence of one’s opposition, including not attacking vineyards and other civilian infrastructure as well as not attacking retreating opponents. See Surah 60.9, Surah 22.40-41, Surah 2.193, Surah 8.61 and Surah 4.90. In fact, numerous scholars, including non-Muslim ones, have noted that Muhammad presaged modern just war theory by about a millennium.

      Now, to be clear: Muhammad was a brutal imperialist who murdered many people. Jesus had a lot of great things to say.

      Your problem isn’t that you’re criticizing Muhammad and defending Jesus. It’s that you’re doing so haphazardly. You’ve whitewashed the incredible atrocities in both the Old and New Testaments while demonizing the Koran. Near as I can tell, the only difference between Muhammad and Jesus is that Muhammad actually got power.

    7. There is so much incorrect stuff here. I’ll answer with one thing. Islamic terrorists are causing the problems in the world, not self- declared Christian terrorists. That is a fact and what matters. Too bad if it hurts someones feelings or is an inconvenient truth.

    8. And Christian-majority countries are causing the majority of the deaths and the majority of the global problems with their violence. That is a fact and what matters. Too bad if it hurts someone’s feelings or is an inconvenient truth.

    9. Christian countries don’t have it perfect, but never in the world today, are they actively engaging in empire building, seeking to plunder other countries, and start wars for glories sake. I will say something else. Remember who developed democracy, and these basic ideas of civil and political human rights. And without America in ww1, ww2 and the Cold War, democracy as we know it would not exist. So your view might have facts which support it but it is flawed in considering what the west has also done.

    10. You might want to tell that to the victims of Iraq. Tell them that the decades of support for Saddam Hussein, then the deliberate targeting of their civilian infrastructure when he got disobedient, then sanctions long after he had committed his worst crimes, then an invasion that directly established US control of the country and Western access to their oil reserves, wasn’t imperialism. See if they laugh. Because they actually know what imperialism is.

      World War I: you know, the imperialist murder party? World War II: you mean, the outcome of World War I’s brutal colonialism, which imposed victor’s justice on Germany leading Germany to embrace fascism, all the while supported by the West (as indeed all the fascist powers were until they became too unruly)? The Cold War: you mean, that period where the US tortured, killed, backed death squads, murdered democrats and installed dictators, all of which they eventually had to admit could not be placed at the “Kremlin’s door”? What democracy.

      But hey, as long as we’re justifying things: ISIS not only resisted imperialist aggressors but also are fighting a brutal autocrat, Assad. Why aren’t you applauding them? Right, because when it’s the enemy, you don’t let the excuse of good intentions or other good deeds cloud bad deeds. You only apply that standard to yourself out of sheer moral cowardice.

    11. Wait but should they have gone in for the gulf war and saved Kuwait? Of course oil and self interest play a role but what about that? Oh and now your the Isis sympathiser. That’s a whole different can of worms but if your willing we can go there. You imbecile Isis want to conquer the world not just people who attack them. They won’t stop until the last Japanese girl is wearing a head scarf. But as I’ve said, until you understand that Islam is inherently a supremacist force, you’ll struggle to go from there.

    12. If the goal was to save Kuwait, they could have clearly told Saddam not to invade: he was a US client before the war, remember? Barring that, they could have not bulldozed Iraqi soldiers or targeted civilian health infrastructure, with death tolls into the tens or hundreds of thousands. And then after the war, they certainly could have allowed the coup against Saddam to occur. Instead, we propped Saddam back up. Do you care about any of that? How much evil do you think is okay if you can pretend that there’s some good mixed in there too? How much charity do I need to do for it to be okay for me to shoot you in the head?

      No, YOU’RE the ISIS sympathizer. How are you not getting this? If your arguments are consistently applied, they excuse ISIS. Only I, and people like me, have the grounds to criticize ISIS, because we take ideas like international law, human rights and peace seriously. You don’t. So once you play the game that you get to commit atrocities as long as you can argue that it’s for the greater good, well, time to start flying that Dayesh flag.

      They want to conquer the world?! My God, man, you mean like when Bush told the world that he would invade anyone at any time for any pretext?! Spoiler alert: the US already conquered the world, and my military has murdered millions to keep that power. See, once again, your problem isn’t that you are too harsh on supremacist forces: it’s that you’re too soft on them when they’re white.

  2. Did you actually look at the page? The man you are trying to portray as “extraordinarily callous, cruel and cold- hearted disregard for disbeliever life” shows nothing but tolerance and humour for someone who has nothing but rude comments to make about his religion.

    Furthermore, Ali Kadri was right – the man charged with murder was found by Queensland police to have no ties to terrorist organisations.

Leave a Reply