Al-Hilali seeks to solidify his "moderate" credentials and he also calls for a ban on Muslim hate speech and literature. From The Australian, with thanks to W.R.
THE country's highest-profile Islamic leader has called for the deportation of clerics who preach violence, as part of a push to rid Australia of the "disease" of fundamentalism.Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali compared the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in Australia to AIDS, and said he and other moderate clerics across the country must take firm steps to win the hearts and minds of impressionable young Muslims.
"They are a disease like AIDS and you can't cure them with Panadol," Sheik Hilali said of radical clerics.
In some of the strongest public comments yet by a senior Islamic figure in Australia, Sheik Hilali also told The Australian the sale of Islamic literature preaching hatred or violence should be banned. But the call was flatly rejected yesterday by Australia's most senior fundamentalist Islamic cleric, Sheik Mohammed Omran...
"A small number of Muslims do have a disease of the mind," Sheik Hilali told The Australian at his office attached to Sydney's largest mosque, in the southwestern suburb of Lakemba.
"The ASIO, the other authorities and the journalists know who they are. They don't pray here (at Lakemba Mosque), they don't respect us, they have in the past called us disbelievers."...
"It's like they are remote-controlled. They could be steered down the wrong direction," he said, stressing that the numbers of such Muslims in Australia was small. He said he sometimes went to the homes of young Muslims developing fundamentalist ideals, to try to turn them around. Their thinking had created tension and conflict with their families...
"They (fundamentalist clerics) try to motivate them with aggressive speak rather than teach them about their religion. And boys love conflict."
Sheik Hilali said Muslim community groups should work together to develop strategies to educate and inform young people about their religion.
His call for extreme books to be banned was welcomed yesterday by the Muslim community umbrella body, provided that it extended to all hate literature and not just Islamic texts.
This seems to be welcome news, but we have had our hopes dashed before in our search for the true "moderate" Muslim leader. The Mufti has in the past praised suicide bombers in Israel, said that Australian hostage in Iraq Douglas Wood, was in "honest hands," said that an attack in Australia would be "reckless," called Australia "Muslim land" and called Sept. 11, "God's work" As always we will continue to monitor developments and keep you informed.
We have seen this sort of thing in the past, so to be apprehensive about it would be smart. Say one thing and do another.
But I will always accept a person turning over a new leaf..it would be ideal....we shall see...
Please do not forget mohammed's treaty of Huddabyia. Or Arafat's condemnations of terror.
The only good Moslem is a bad moslem
Agree. You cannot be inconsistent in anything, preacherman, to earn respect. Therefore, you have zero respect.
Out he goes, then. Too late for this kind of transparent thing (see the article above, last paragraph, and click on every link).
Australia’s highest-profile Islamic leader, Sheik Hilali states:
…he sometimes went to the homes of young Muslims developing fundamentalist ideals, to try to turn them around.
Fundamentalist ideals? Does that mean ideals fostered by a literal belief in every Qur’anic chapter and verse?
What is Sheik Hilali's definition of fundamentalist ideals?
And how would Sheik Omran, Australia's most senior fundamentalist Islamic cleric, define such ideals?
And, of course, how do Trudy Harris, Cameron Stewart, and Patrick Walters (The Australian’s reporters) define it?
Off to the side of the story, a side bar begs, “Are you an informed Australian?”
Let’s send an email or three, and find out if these three reporters are?
Los Angeles bureau:
Robert Lusetich
lusetichch@msn.com
Australian bureau:
feedback@theaustralian.com.au
Yeah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before from this hypocrite - says one thing in English and another in Arabic.
But, a step in the right direction - The Australian govt. is having a security review to examine whether overseas born supporters of terrorism and hate groups should be expelled from Australia - even if they have citizenship. The govt. currently has the power to expel terrorists if they are here on visas.
I think the stripping of citizenship will eventually be the choice of all western countries. Maybe people pressure will finally force weak governments to act on the home-born terrorist threat too - or will they wait til Muslims are hanging from lamp posts if there is another atatck. Maybe not in the UK, but theres a definite chance it would happen in the US or Australia.
Call me cynical but this all seems like a desperate, rehearsed PR campaign. To "solidify their moderate credentials", as Mr. Spencer puts it. They're nervous. They say one thing, yet time and time again, their own brethren prove their words wrong. And the excuses are getting old and boring. We don't like being treated like mugs. And I think they sense that.
The London bombings were bad enough, but on top of that we've had the hate literature in the Muslim bookshops exposed. This destroys their argument about Islam being about peace and getting along. There comes a point in your life where words cease to suffice and you just have to go by the evidence, which is mounting all the time.
It'd be nice to think there are Muslims out there who don't wish us harm, but it's difficult to believe that given what we've experienced in the past 4 years, and especially in light of Islam's bloody history over the past 1400 years. I can only view these 'make nicey-nicey' words as part of the whole War Is Deceit strategy. Loll us into being forgiving and trusting, while doing their darndest behind the scenes to subvert our world.
Feralee is correct: it's a PR campaign, unless al-Hilali's recently been hit in the head so hard that he now thinks Australia is NOT muslim land. Once an imam or anyone else invokes that particular form of NaziThink, it's over for them as a civilized being.
Imam Geoff
Diana, this security review they're doing: I hope it is completed in time to prevent the visit of some London cleric by the name of Abdur Raheem Green next month. He's due to arrive in Sydney on a lecture tour and he's known as hardline, with a particular bone to pick with Christianity. He's a convert from Catholicism, which I would think makes him a nutcase. (Not from being a Catholic before, but being a convert.) Read a bio of him online, and he has two wives. One's a common-law, so he gets around Britain's laws this way. (Yes, Muslims just love to integrate, don't they?)
Anyway, there are some noises from the Muslim community about his visit - some saying he shouldn't be welcome. Except, I wonder if this is all show, part of the whole PR campaign.
Hilalis record as a hate-preacher speaks for itself.
He is one of them and his attempt at damage control will only fool those who want to be fooled.
He, along with many others of this blood-cult should have never been allowed to remain in the country, let alone given citizenship.
Islam and terror is one murderous ideology and if you read the Koran you know that you can't seperate one from the other.
feralee wrote...Anyway, there are some noises from the Muslim community about his visit - some saying he shouldn't be welcome. Except, I wonder if this is all show, part of the whole PR campaign. ...
And all that taqiyya we have been fed for so long has led to your final statement. The taqiyyamasters, their spin is becoming unspun. The faster the better.
He(Hilali) should be on 'Ripleys,Believe it or not?'.
Just typical muslim PR with the PC media going along with it.
When will reporters actually learn about islam?
After what the 'shake' said about the rape victims he can go to HELL!!!!!!!!!
Lets not forget we(victims and familys) still have to go through more court cases from the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The only time I will feel safe is when these no hopers are all gone.
" a small number of muslims have a disease of the mind..."
yeah, so?
as i remember, there were less than half a dozen on each of the planes that murdered the WTC
Sheep. All of you are sheep. The poster prints his/her views and you all regurgitate in the thread, often with the same mantras and grunts you always say. Coming up with solutions is too difficult for you, so its simply the good 'ol lynch-mob mentality.
I've read countless threads of whining from you all about "Where are the clerics to denounce terrorism, waaa!" Now here you have it, in high profile, strong terms, and you still manage to take issue in your drum beating, tired sort of way:
1. thomas h. "The only good Moslem is a bad moslem" THANKS FOR SHARING THIS BIGOTED GENIOUS THOMAS.
2. Pocadon regurgitated: "We have seen this sort of thing in the past.." DIDN'T WE JUST READ THIS ABOVE? ANYTHING OF YOUR OWN TO ADD? HOW ABOUT MORE LIGHT, LESS HEAT FROM YA?
3. Reset philosophized: "You cannot be inconsistent in anything, preacherman, to earn respect. Therefore, you have zero respect." HOW ABOUT SOME BETTER GRAMMAR, THEN YOU'LL GET MY RESPECT. THIS SENTENCE BARELY MAKES SENSE LET ALONE A POINT...
4. DianaC said decisively: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before from this hypocrite - says one thing in English and another in Arabic...But, a step in the right direction" SO ITS SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER, EH? I THINK YOUR STATMENT DOES THE SAME THING. YOU DENOUNCE AND DISMISS ONLY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ITS A STEP OIN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
5. Terminator: "He, along with many others of this blood-cult should have never been allowed to remain in the country, let alone given citizenship." WE KNOW, HERR TERMINATOR - WE SHOULD JUST ALLOW YOU TO KICK OUT THE RIFF-RAFF. IT WOULD BE LIKE ALLOWING QUASI-MOTO TO BE THE DOORMAN AT A CHIC NIHGTCLUB.
"Sheep. All of you are sheep." etc., etc.
And the King whines about adhominem attacks.
What's the matter, King? Did you forget to take your meds this morning?
Waterlilly: "And the King whines about adhominem attacks."
King: So disappointing you are...
I just thought I would point out the unbridled bigotry, hypocricy and repetitive, solutionless babble you all try to pawn off as "knowledge."
"A fool tests the water with both feet."
Keep testing the water with both of 'dem feet, fools!
King-Schwantz:
Only bullets can penetrate a coffee-filter! Go to Iraq, you'll find sombody to put you out of your misery!
Terminator (Quasi-Moto) - "Go to Iraq, you'll find sombody to put you out of your misery!"
King: Here's a challenge to you. I will be absolutely delighted to bury the hatchet and really engage with you on a deep discussion about the current state of affairs with Islamic-Western relations. No ad hominem, no barking, just a civil exchange of ideas from each side of the issue. I think that's what we ought to be doing here, anyhow.
Can you accept this olive branch? Let' see....
Sheep? It's amazing that muslims such as KT, and unfortunately some leftists I know, can't get it past their heads that people read this kind of thing, sit back and evaluate it, and make up their own minds. Amazingly, it seems to be completely beyond their (admittedly limited; fair's fair, after all) comprehension that other people could actually AGREE with the conclusion of the moderator or the posters without having an a priori bias. Thus, all such agreement, to KT's shortish intellect, is mere rudderless acceptance.
Talk about childish.
Essentially, KT doesn't like the views presented, since they're too hard on his religion. Very well. But they are clear solutions, and just ones. (Again, see above.) So he whines and seethes a bit, and comes up with red herring attacks.
Frankly speaking, what in hell could even KT have to complain about regarding the thread? What is his alternative hypothesis? That imams who preach hate, such as Wahhabis and numerous Sunnis and others, should NOT be deported? I imagine that would help islam, to his mind, but how would it help society? Does he have any solutions to present? Well, no. None that I've ever seen, anyway. Basically he uses pure trollism, since the logic thing isn't working out too well for him.
I might add that his grammical ability is appallingly bad.
"You cannot be inconsistent in anything, preacherman, to earn respect. Therefore, you have zero respect." HOW ABOUT SOME BETTER GRAMMAR, THEN YOU'LL GET MY RESPECT. THIS SENTENCE BARELY MAKES SENSE LET ALONE A POINT..."
Err, no, little fella. It's actually a fine sentence. BTW, you forgot a comma there amidst all the text-yelling. Sad. Do you have any degrees? I have four. Thanks. Also, it's "Quasimoto", not "Quasi-moto", as if the fictional character were some kind of half-assed automobile.
Anyway, have fun at your nightclub job.
Imam Geoff
Drink the Whisky of Life
"Imam:" "...unfortunately some leftists I know, can't get it past their heads that people read this kind of thing, sit back and evaluate it, and make up their own minds."
King: Could have fooled us! Looks like the standard sheep-like regurgitation to me. Moreover, when opposition is presented, you resort to the usual ad hominem soliloquy (as you have here and so, so many times previous) that usually concludes that the person whom disagrees with you is a Muslim. That, my friend, is the epitome of dense.
You wish to be taken seriously, yet, call yourself "Imam" in jest. You utterly fail at being a productive, dispassionate debater and therefore, are nothing more than a play toy for us "liberals" to bat around and expose for what you are.
"Imam": What is his alternative hypothesis?
King: I've posted it many times, in many forms and have waited for serious debate about my views. I have gotten some. Not from you, thankfully. You were too busy coming up with ways to "insult" me to even open the door for possible dialogue.
Again, utter failure on your part. I smell ya!
"Anyway, have fun at your nightclub job."
King: Yes, I am sure Quasi-Moto will let you right on in since you are of his ilk! What an ass.....
King Schwantz:
King: "Here's a challenge to you. I will be absolutely delighted to bury the hatchet and really engage with you on a deep discussion about the current state of affairs with Islamic-Western relations"...
King:
You wouldn't know what a 'deep or serious debate' is even if it came around to bite you in the ass.
You have never once posted anything worth reading! All you ever do is deflect, obfuscate, accuse Christianity of being "worse than Islam" - and you keep insisting that Islam and terror are not the same thing: "Strike terror in the heart of the infidels" says the Koran, and a proper Muhammedan screws on his coffee-filter and follows the calls of his Imam or mufti, who remains in the mosque and engages in kitman and taqiyya in order to appease the stupid infidels, who are like sheep?
Why don't you follow the "Allahu akbars" instead of trying to find converts on this most unlikely site?
Being the fair person that I am, I thought I would bring over my overall position and solutions, here, for your reading convenience.
King's Position:
1. I recognize that Islam is suffering from a high profile, militant, radical, and dangerous component.
2. I recognize that Islam, itself, is not to blame and that millions upon millions of people practice the religion peacefully. I reject broad sweeping language that groups all Muslims into one, "evil" catagory.
3. I recognize that there are many reasons that feed the swamp that is radicalism. Religion of any sort is usually included in such a schematic and history has shown that other religions (such as Christianity) have fallen victime to the same radical ideology.
4. Solutions to solve what I see as the issues are, simply, draining the swamp. This can and must be done from the top down, by putting appropriate pressure on leadership. Corruption has been rampant in many Islamic nations, due, in part, to the West's political propping of tyrants simply for cooperation in oil flow. Clean, effective leadership and moves towards functional democracies is the key to clamping down on radicalism. Military invasions are a complete failure, as Iraq has shown us. Bush and Blair fucked this one up and simply allowed the swamp to swell. These changes must proceed slowly and carefully, taking Arab cultural values into consideration.
5. Western folks, like us, can help by abandoning the reverse hate language and see that Muslims are a global population, like it or not, and assist those who wish to moderate their religion do so.
That's it in a nutshell. I am sure it all looks familiar as I have been saying this for months. I am happy to discuss why I feel the way I feel and have addressed those of you who have taken the time to address me.
Terminator: "Why don't you follow the "Allahu akbars" instead of trying to find converts on this most unlikely site?"
KIng: That's exactly what I thought would happen, glad you played into my hand like the disgusting little bigot that you are. Olive branch swatted away by the radical knuckle dragger. Now go play with your GI Joe dolls.
I just don't understand why you bother KT.
You keep telling us how smart you are but when it boils down to it you worship a peodophile,rapist,murderer.....etc
We don't and never will listen to your tripe.
By the way two more of your brothers were found guilty of raping young girls today(six girls all under eighteen).
So don't talk to me about descrimination, bigotry and hate,clean your own backyard first.
If I'm a bigot so be it,I proudly despise muslims and I'm spreading the word.
The only reason you can't cop us is because we don't believe a word you say.
The book shops found selling hate?
Still don't see any tolerance from muslims and I never will.
Maybe you should go to the courts and actually listen to what your cult do to thier victims for a change.
Islam is a cancer on humanity and the sooner its removed the better.
D.T.: "I just don't understand why you bother KT."
King: It's in my nature to confront a wrong when I see it. I am also aware of history and have seen what broad spectrum painting has done to religions. Instead, I suggest that we single out the real enemies (radical criminals) and help those millions of moderates live in their religion peacefully.
D.T.: "You keep telling us how smart you are"
King: Really? I do not recall ever saying these words. Perhaps this is something you are just conjuring up, or perhaps you are just feeling inferior?
D.T.: "but when it boils down to it you worship a peodophile,rapist,murderer.....etc"
King: I am not a Muslim. 105th time I've said that, 105th time I've proven just how dense you and the others are. Sigh, my hat is filled with feathers...
D.T.: "We don't and never will listen to your tripe."
King: Chellenge: Read my "tripe" above and kindly tell me what you take issue with. I just might engage in a banter as to why I feel the way I do.
D.T.: "If I'm a bigot so be it,I proudly despise muslims and I'm spreading the word."
King: You're a huge bigot. If you're happy with it, great! Be the best bigot you can be and see how far it gets you in life.
D.T.: "The only reason you can't cop us is because we don't believe a word you say."
King: Couldn't care less what you believe or not. Being that this is a free world and your moronic views are posted for all to see, I also feel that I can tell you what I think of you. You are welcome to agree, disagree, or erroneously think I am a Muslim when you run out of things to say. To those that really matter, your words speak for themselves. This being said, I've never, ever, read one thing even resembling a solution from you.
D.T.: "Islam is a cancer on humanity and the sooner its removed the better."
Oh, here's your "solution." Let's fire up the ovens, D.T. wants to remove the cancer of society! King reminds of history's quotes about the wholesale destruction of a religion. You sound exactly like these repugnant, puke spewing bigots of the past. Refusing to see this and evolve makes you a worthless smudge. It is my utmost pleasure to point this out to you and watch you squeak out your pitiful posts! "You are a muslim, waaaaa!"
"Germans must fight Jews, that organized body of world criminals against whom Christ, the greatest anti-Semite of all time, had fought.
-Julius Streicher (Hitler's Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich's Most Notorious Henchmen," Berkley Books, 1990)"
"If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way-- the extermination of that people whose father is the devil...
-Julius Streicher paraphrasing John 8:44 as his justification for extermination (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol. 12)"
"A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically-- it is a fact.
-Joseph Goebbels, in his attempt to win the eternal gratitude of Hitler, (Hitler's Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich's Most Notorious Henchmen," Berkley Books, 1990)"
Aaah, King Tollerschwantz reading Goebbles and Streicher! Who guessed it! Still lying about not being Muzzie?
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/id304.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/BKisan50721.htm
http://www.putrid.com/taliban.htm
Looks like this is the kind of terror we saw today in London:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/vwpolo.asp
King, I posted this for you a long time ago. Just to remind you:
Your hysterics give you away.
Your limited ability to debate issues give you away. Your kitman/taqiyya gives you away.
You make no point. You are calling me racist without knowing what race I am.
You are calling me religious bigot without knowing whether I am religious or an atheist.
You are repeating the same lines (and lies) too often not to be a Mohammedan.
You are calling me 'xenophobic' without knowing that my family and my business spans worldwide and includes many nationalities and different races.
Your history is too selective for you not to be a Mohammedan.
Make sure you use UHU to glue your coffee-filter to your head and be sure not to fart when you prey to Mekka!
King, you want a proposal?
How to deal with Islam? Read it and let's hear what you come up with!
Political Factions and A Modest Proposal for Dealing with Islam
Written by Robert Klein Engler
Terror Sanitized
After the terror attacks in London, a few television commentators said they would go after those in the media who want to sanitize terrorism. Such bravado may be admirable, but it is a bravado that does not recognize how terrorism has already been sanitized. The leaders of Western democracies have sanitized terrorism because they cannot publicly admit they are helpless to prevent more attacks.
Most analysts who study the so-called war on terror could have told you a year ago that there would be a terrorist attack targeting the London subway. Likewise, there are those who will tell you a dirty bomb may explode in an American city in the near future. It is not too hard to make these predictions because Western governments will not do what they must do to prevent these attacks from happening.
Just look how the media has urban terrorism down to a formula already. Al-Qaida plans an attack. The backpack bombs go off and people die. Then, government officials get on television and denounce the act, making sure to use words like "barbaric" and "uncivilized." The media shows photos of bloody faces and people hugging one another. The next day there are photos in the newspaper of women placing flowers where the bombs exploded. It's all so predictable. Until the big one comes down, the plan is to get us as used to low-grade, urban terrorism as we are to traffic accidents.
James Madison and the Mischief of Factions
The average American knows the so-called war on terror is not really a war on terror. He knows in his gut that what's happening is that we are fighting another war with Islam. That's what it is, no matter what the politicians say. This war against Islam is the flaring up again of a conflict that has been going on for 1,500 years.
The West against Islam is nothing new. What's new is that because of oil, the conflict has now expanded to the New World. There are no radical Muslims, nor Islamo-Fascists, there are just Muslims doing what they have always done--spreading Islam by force and terror. Compare the spread of Islam with that of Buddhism, and the truth of this history becomes obvious.
It is a fault of liberalism that it sees Islam as just one faction among many in Western societies. This view may have its source in a misreading of the Federalist Papers, in which James Madison and others argued for the adoption of a new constitution for the United States. In these papers Madison grappled with the problems of factions threatening a republican form of government. He concluded that a constitutional republic was the best way to guarantee freedom, control factions, and establish law and order.
Some of the men who wrote the U. S. Constitution saw it as an experiment, an experiment in government that might not last 20 years. Fortunately, it has lasted over 200 years, but not without the bloodshed of civil war. For other statesmen at the Philadelphia convention, the advantage of a constitution was that it assured a republican form of government and controlled the mischief of factions.
In Federalist Paper #10, Madison discussed the problem of controlling factions in society. Madison's arguments are sound as far as they go. His examples, however, do not cover the case of Islam. Islam does not hold to the assumptions that Madison makes about secular government. Islam must be seen as a special kind of faction, one that cannot be controlled either by opinion or by representative government.
Madison and the framers of the U. S. Constitution assumed that the divine right of kings to govern was sublimated to the divine right of the people to govern themselves. No such assumption is made by Islam. Islam sees the source of political power in the Koran. For most Muslims, democracy as we know it is the same as idolatry. Democratic forms of government did not evolve in Islamic society and it will not naturally take place in societies that are fundamentally Islamic, no matter the degree of their economic development.
It is the theological ideas inherent in Islamic law that make Islam the greatest challenge that constitutional democracies face. As soon as these democracies grant Islam the status of a faction, Muslims begin to campaign for the overthrow of the very constitutional structures that make them a viable faction. If Islam were ever to gain majority power, then it would in turn overthrow the entire constitutional apparatus of secular democracies and replace constitutional law with Sharia, or Islamic law.
The conclusion to draw from this is that either Islam stops being Islam, or it be excluded as a faction from democratic republics. Jamie Galzov echoes this view when he writes in FrontPageMagazine.com, "...a reformed Islam is an oxymoron, because Islam cannot reform and still remain Islam." This oxymoron may be difficult for liberalism to understand, immersed as it is in the ideology of separation of church and state. There is no such thing, however, as separation of church and state in Islam. To have such a separation you need two things: a church and a state. Neither of these were components of Islam as it developed.
A Modest Proposal
In light of the mischief caused by an Islamic faction in Western democracies, let me make a modest proposal: instead of tolerating Islam, we should build a fence around it. This fence makes no judgment about the religion of Islam. Instead, it respects the uniqueness of Islam. A fence simply recognizes that two worldviews are incompatible. A fence around Islam is necessary because liberal governments cannot protect us from Islamic terrorist attacks.
As long as a liberal ideology of tolerance prevails in the West, Islamic terrorist will strike at will. It is a simple matter of Islam taking the liberal ideology of the West and turning this ideology against itself. It is the great irony of liberalism that by being tolerant it undermines its own existence. Liberalism now goes out of its way to encourage those who want to overthrow it. When confronted with an aggressive and intolerant force like Islam, tolerance ends with its own extinction.
A fence around Islam may include the removal of Muslims from Western societies, the outlawing of Islamic practices, cultural parity with Muslim states, new sources of oil, and the postponement of economic and technical development in the Muslim world until the military and cultural threat of Islam is diminished.
Deportation of Muslims from Western societies is not a picture the liberal press wants to see, but it may be necessary to do this. With their reluctance to assimilate, more so in Europe than in the United States, Muslim ghettos are breeding grounds for terrorists. Given the threat the practice of Islam poses to the West, it is not wrong to see it as a dangerous faction. Today, the Federal Republic of Germany sees nothing wrong with making the practice of Nazism illegal, so, someday the same may be the case for Islam in some Western societies.
Hand in hand with deportation of Muslims must go pressure by Western governments on Muslim countries for cultural parity. If Saudi Arabia does not allow the Bible into its territory, then the Koran must not be imported to the West. Likewise, if Islam is to modernize, then Mecca should be open to believers and nonbelievers alike, the same way the Vatican is open to all who visit.
New sources of oil must be obtained so that we can pull back from involvement in Muslim affairs. We must also develop alternative fuels. All of this may be more easily said than done. Nevertheless, it is foolishness when Americans subsidize al-Qaida every time they fill up the gas tank on their SUV. Finally, we must reexamine whether or not a technologically advanced Muslim society is in our best interest. Everyone may be better off if Muslim societies are allowed to remain at the level of 14th century development.
The proposal to build a fence around Islam sheds light on the war in Iraq, too. If a secular democracy is to rise there, then the influence of Islam must fall. Sadam Hussein tried to make Iraq into a secular state, albeit a totalitarian one. Ironically, his efforts at establishing secularism may be exactly what the United States needs to prevail in Iraq.
Yet, without facing the real issue, which is a protracted struggle with Islam itself, even a limited military victory in Iraq means little in the long run. Like the battle of Leponto in 1571, the U. S. presence in Iraq has to be put into a 1,500 year perspective. If Miguel de Cervantes--who lost the use of his arm in that Leponto battle--were to return, then he would certainly offer us strategic advice. That advice may be not to abandon Iraq or Afghanistan, while at the same time building a fence around Islam.
Although no one wants to say it, there is a timetable for the withdrawal of U. S. and British troops from Iraq. The political deadline is the next U. S. presidential election. If the situation in Iraq is not better by then, the Republicans will probably lose that election. If there is an act of terrorism on the U. S. mainland greater than the events of 9/11 before that election, then there will be social upheaval in the United States involving more minorities than just the Muslims.
A fence around Islam makes the claim of Osama bin Laden that his fight is simply to remove Western troops from the holy land of Saudi Arabia irrelevant. No matter where American or British troops are stationed, it changes nothing in regard to the aggressive motives of Islam. Even if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, Islam would still be on the move against the West. The suicide bombers who recently attacked London were born in England, not in Saudi Arabia. They were raised on the milk of an aggressive Islam that no longer needs a nursery in Mecca.
Ways of Life
The genie of cultural conflict is out of the bottle and cannot easily be put back. In spite of this, secular politicians in the West influenced by a liberal ideology do not grasp the nature of the crisis brought on by a clash of civilizations. They simply want to bend Islam into their own liberal political ambitions. They claim that the suicide bombers have a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation'' of Islam, yet they know little of Islam's history, let alone the forces religions set lose in the world.
In an attempt to explain the cultural conflict between Islam and the West, we seize upon explanations that have little merit. Many of the Muslim immigrants to Britain are poor and live in poverty, but it is not poverty that motivates them to become suicide bombers. Instead, they are motivated by Islam, an Islam that has not changed or been highjacked by a few radicals. Hani Al-Siba'i, head of the Al-Maqreze Center for Historical Studies in London, expresses this cultural divide well. He says for Muslims, "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb (House of War) or not (The House of Islam)."
Some maintain that neither al-Qaida nor Islam is sufficiently organized to pose as great a threat as imagined here. They maintain that Islam lacks the central authority of a Pope or the organization of the Vatican. This argument is doubtful, because it takes an organization to carry out the recent bombings in London, but let's suppose it is true.
The lack of a definite structure could make Islam more of a threat to the West, rather than less. A dispersed Islam becomes an ideologically driven movement rather than an organizationally driven one. The metaphor for this type of movement is the Internet. When dispersed among a population, defense against such a mercuric faction becomes expensive and difficult. A simple solution is to remove the believers the way we would remove computers.
The U. S. generation that came of age marching on the Pentagon and protesting the war in Vietnam is now coming to the end of its political influence. Will its desire for tolerance and multiculturalism blind it to the threat of Islam looming on the horizon? Will this generation's last moment be one of moral clarity, or will it be a generation that retreats to its suburban retirement communities, our equivalent of the Roman's latifundia, and not demand the policies needed so that the next generation will have the blessings of liberty?
Ways of life are at stake. Can we afford to keep on doing what we are doing in regard to Islam? Will the cost of tolerance be 2 million Americans dead? Our soldiers should not go to fight in Iraq and then come home only to be forced to learn Spanish, or worse, be blown up by a terrorist bomber on a bus that travels the street where they live.
Under the U. S. Constitution, the oath our elected officials take is to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare. These elected officials should not worry more about Iraq or even Mexico than our own citizens. If our government does not want to build a fence around Islam now, then our citizens may have to do it later--perhaps after a dirty bomb brought up through Mexico explodes in Houston.
About the Writer: Robert Klein Engler is an adjunct professor at Roosevelt University in Chicago, and a versatile writer of op-ed articles, poetry, and philosophy. His recent book, "A Winter of Words," is available from amazon.com.
Turdinator chases his tail: "Aaah, King Tollerschwantz reading Goebbles and Streicher!"
King: More stupidity. I QUOTED them.
Turdinator: "Your history is too selective for you not to be a Mohammedan."
King: My history is quite balanced, and makes me an effective, dispassionate, independant thinker. The fact that you either do not understand history or like what happened does not change it.
Turdinator: "You are calling me racist without knowing what race I am. You are calling me religious bigot without knowing whether I am religious or an atheist."
King: Poor thing, you are really chasing that tail, now! You are a racist bigot, I don't care what religion or race you consider yourself. You could be a little purple man who worships rabbits for all I care. In cyberspace, your words are what count and your words are that of wholesale hate and ignorance. Arguing with me wil not change this little evil fact.
Turdinator: "You are calling me 'xenophobic' without knowing that my family and my business spans worldwide and includes many nationalities and different races."
King: You'e called for the deportation and refusal of entry of all people Muslim and or Arab. Sounds xenophobic to me. I do not care about your family or your piece of shit business, bigot.
Turdinator: "King, you want a proposal?
How to deal with Islam? Read it and let's hear what you come up with!"
King: How about you, yourself, type out a nice, concise essay about your feelings and your proposals as I have. You love to type things about coffee filters and farts and kicking 'em all out, but nothing really substantive to chew on and ruminate over. How typically trite of you to simply cut and paste someone else's work.
Afterall, you own a globally spanning business, so you must be able to formulate and deliver a simple opinion, right?
The King will await the Turdinator's ideas and keep another feather on stand-by...
King Schwantz, go to the mosque and get your instructions!
Don't call yourself a thinker, just use Uhu and make sure the coffee-filter doesn't hurt too bad...
Islam bills itself as the fastest growing religion in the world, and AIDS is the fastest growing disease. Both are deadly. Good comparrison I'd say.
"Turdinator chases his tail: "Aaah, King Tollerschwantz reading Goebbles and Streicher!"
King: More stupidity. I QUOTED them."
Aha, just as I suspected. King Tolerance doesn't read what he cuts & pastes.
Al-Hilali is the biggest liar and deceiver. He said that as an introduction for asking to get policing power for the Federation of the Islamic Councils and the states Islamic councils in Australia. They asking that to controle hate preachers, as they said. But they have got the power already to dismiss any preacher because the Federation of the Islamic Councils is controling all the mosques and islamic centers in Australia. If they get that power, they will distroy the country.
Al-Hilali said many times and recently in Egypt that Muslims are in Australi to capture it for Allah and his religion, Islam.
Australians, wake up. Otherwise, you will regret it when it will be too late.
Abbas
King Schwanz, after failing miserably in debate, explodes in typical Muzzie-fashion: "Racist, bigot, Islamophobe.."
King: I have given you something to debate: An essay written by professor Robert Klein Engler of Roosefeld university in Chicago.
I wasted enough time with you (and so have many others) but nothing seems to penetrate the coffee-filter, apart from Islamic propaganda!)
I don't need to reinvent the wheel: Just read (for once!) -and try to refute it- or just go ahead and take on Hugh Fitzgerald or Robert Spencer or Ali Sina! You know you haven't got a leg to stand on!
And to ask me to write about "my feelings"-what for? This is not about feelings: Its about preserving our culture and to deport the lot of you. We can do that better without "feelings..."
Turdinator: "King: I have given you something to debate: An essay written by professor Robert Klein Engler of Roosefeld university in Chicago."
King: I am debating (or trying to, at least) YOU, not some professor from Chicago. The challenge still sits, I guess. Formulate your own opinion. Thus far, farts and coffee filters with Metaxy cheering you on like a high school cheerleader. Hardly a debate but, I admit, fun for me nonetheless.
Turdinator: "And to ask me to write about "my feelings"-what for? This is not about feelings: Its about preserving our culture and to deport the lot of you. We can do that better without "feelings...""
King: Obviously you 'feel' a certain way about this issue otherwise you would not whaft your wiles in a public domain.
If its not about 'feelings' then why all the bombast and assenine behavior? I am free to speak my mind as are you. You've said some outlandish shit and I take issue with it, plain and simple.
Anyhow, you've been shown to be exactly what you are. A plagiarising sheep with no opinion of his own. A bandwagoner. A person afraid of his own shadow. A person who resorts to insult and bombast when presented with a strongly opposing point of view. A person who's moniker stinks of insecurity. A person who, frankly, is a dick.
Ta