Thoughts on Pauline Hanson

22/8/2017

Vol 12, Issue 5

QODRATULLAH SULTANI

Well, where shall I start? So much happening in Australia and the world right now that I actually find solace in law cases and funny old judgments when the world gets tough.

I have to say it is tough times. It is tough growing up a minority, especially a Muslim in a Western country. The state of world affairs is not looking good. Just when we thought that things were getting better for our generation, it is becoming worse; we are seeing more hate, more wars and more famine.

Last week, the leader of the One Nation party, Pauline Hanson, thought she was kick-starting a great debate about banning the Burqa. She did. I personally was shocked as a Muslim. She was making fun of Muslims and that behavior only encourages hate in this country. Isn’t the Muslim community already dealing with so much? Why can’t she say ‘ban the Burqa’ and argue with substantial reasons in parliament rather than showcasing a garment? Why do we have to mock other people’s culture or religion? Cory Bernardi explicitly stated that he believes ‘our culture is superior to others’ in an interview with Andrew Bolt, another fellow who never finished his Arts degree and a denier of the stolen generation. This is bogus!

I certainly am not in favor of women wearing the Burqa. But when they want to, who are we to stop them? Are we all not free to wear as much or as little as we want. But I guess the argument is elsewhere. It is typical bogan logic to see our country as a land of the British Empire and read our history as something of a superior nature than all the histories of the world. This is Cultural Supremacism. That is you do what we order you to do. I don’t think the taste of beer compared to the taste of Indian curry can be described as superior or inferior. The burqa, hijab or any other dress is more cultural than religious. Any human, male or female, would cover themselves in sandstorms such as those typical in Middle Eastern countries. You might have seen Arab men covering their head as well. Islam is a religion not a culture, although some may view it otherwise. Pakistanis are more culturally close to India than Arab countries. Indonesia and Malaysia are more culturally close to other Asian countries than to Arab countries.

We have to accept that there are other cultures and religions. That respect should be for all human beings not just those with whom we have more things in common. The leaked telephone call between the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and President Trump is another sickening event that shows the lack of respect for asylum seekers especially of Muslim background. My father came to this country by boat during the good old Howard era. I am sure you are aware of the 11 huge ships (full of minor offenders not refugees and asylum seekers) that came to this great country on January 26th 1788 which we proudly call Australia Day. The policies by the Turnbull government have definitely criminalized those seeking refuge from wars. Comments by the Immigration Minister regarding refugees definitely made me realize that I am viewed as an illegal in this country. It is absolutely shocking, the lies and dirty politics being played in this country, especially towards Muslims.

When Europe was in the dark ages stoning people to death, buying paradise keys from priests, or viewing divorce as adultery (still so in the Catholic Church); Muslims were setting the foundation stones of the sciences and translating Latin works into Arabic, which the Europeans took back after the crusades. This led to the enlightenment and separation of church and state. Those who are arguing that an enlightenment or reformation needs to happen in Islam fail to realize that Islam was a revolutionary idea for the Arabs and the world. Let’s not forget that the greatest massacres or clashes between religions happened during World War Two in Europe in a Christian majority Germany. The Jews are having a great time in their current homeland of Israel which was Palestinian land and Muslims are fine with co-existing.

The two things keeping Islam alive today are firstly its idea of Oneness of God (God is the Abrahamic God; some english translations deliberately have it as Allah to signify it as an Arab God, it’s the oneness of Abrahamic God) and secondly the media’s favorite word Jihad as a way of keeping their land. BUT, the media never bother to tell you the full meaning of the term Jihad. It is an Islamic legal term which basically can be translated to ‘Struggle’. There are two forms of struggle quoted from the Prophet Mohammad, the lessor struggle and the greater struggle. The lessor struggle is defensive war. That is defending yourself in self-defence, so when America invades Iraq and stays there too long it is permitted under Islamic law to defend your lands. So that’s why you get the Taliban and Iraqi Insurgent groups. They are considered terrorist groups by us in the West, but they are viewed as local heroes protecting local communities from aggressors. Groups killing innocent people such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS and any other thugs and criminals are not performing defensive war Jihad because that is not acting in self-defense. Any aggressor is not a Muslim under Islamic Law. The greater Jihad which the media won’t tell you, is maintaining peace and being spiritual, which most Muslims practice.

Hardline nationalists making fun of religious minorities only create more hatred and fast track radicalisation. If the goal is to improve women’s rights then there are far more important issues facing the nation than the few hundreds who choose to wear or may be forced to wear the Burqa. Issues like domestic violence, sexual assault of mostly female students at universities and elsewhere, and the general culture of how women are viewed in popular media (whether it's Fifty Shades of Gray or the Adult Industry). The fact that hookup culture is emerging as young as those in Years 7 and 8 of school is as much worrying as teen brides and child marriages (marriages between children) in poorer countries. And the surprising fact that most women voted for Donald Trump even after his abusive and sexist comments towards women when they had a choice of voting for a female president.

Qodratullah Sultani is a second-year JD student

More articles like this:

Dear White People of MLS

The rest of this issue:

Probably soon to be deleted

21/8/2017 10:57:10 pm

Muslims are always the victims aren't they. While the rest of us have to worry about being mowed down by a truck as we go about our daily business, Muslims have to deal with the horror of people saying mean things about them and ther religion. Apparently this is enough to provoke otherwise moderate peaceful Muslims into becoming enraged psychotic murderers, even though those non muslims who suffer infinitely worse at the hands of Islamic terrorism have not yet taken mass violent action against Muslims in the west.

If Pauline Hanson dressing in a burqa on the senate floor is the worst you have to worry about, you have it infinitely better than those of us who have to worry about being killed for simply existing and not following your irrational beliefs about magical sky fairies.

Your religion is not immune to criticism, even harsh criticism. Your culture and lifestyle is not immune to criticism any more than 'Western' culture is immune from the constant barrage of criticism against it from leftists, feminists and various other entho-centric identitarianists. I say this 'as an atheist' with little tolerence for baseless superstitions. All Muslims are just going to have to cop criticism of their beliefs and lifestlyes with the same good grace as the rest of us, and none of them are justified in or entitled to resort to any sort of violence in response. Those that do deserve nothing less than to be brutalised by the full force of the law.

Timothy Sarder

22/8/2017 10:23:38 am

I'm the Managing Editor of De Minimis. We do have a Comment Policy, which you can click on the menu bar at the left on this page. We don't think your comment violated the policy. Our decision to leave up a comment does not mean we think it has value.

All of us have have views that shift over time as we grow. If you're a student of this law school, you're probably a smart person who has the capacity for self-reflection. Because of this, it's altogether possible that you will one day realise the depth of vile intolerance you displayed at this point in your life. You've posted this, probably on a whim, as a faceless commenter without the confidence to put your own name to your beliefs. But it will remain, indefinitely, and I urge you to look back upon this from time to time and think; "What kind of person would write this?"

Several of my close family members are Muslim. They have experienced and been on the receiving end of vilification that you are unable to understand. One of them is a child - a primary schooler - who has nonetheless been on the receiving end of abuse because of his religion. As much as those criticising Islam like to highlight "you can't be racist against a religion" much of the harassment they face is racially tinged and the hate they receive is an abhorrent mix of racial/religious discrimination that blurs into one at a certain point. Your fears of terrorism might be real. The headlines of violence are saddening, shocking and affect all of us. But that fear - that we could be the victims of such a violent event - statistically, for the vast, vast majority of us, are merely hypothetical. The racist and religious abuse Muslims, including members of my own family, experience is real. You express concern for "who plays the victim" but our emotions, and our responses to hate, are legitimate no matter what background we come from. The most important choice we face is whether or not to spread it.

Your words remain as permanent as we can make them, and I hope they rot away at you. Perhaps one day you will choose another path.

Vile Intolerator

22/8/2017 12:17:11 pm

The article repeatedly makes excuses for the radicalisation of Muslims as a response to things like Pauline Hanson's burqa stunt. You yourself, the Managing Editor of De Minimus make the extraordinary comment that "our emotions, and our responses to hate, are legitimate no matter what background we come from." This is absolutely extraordinary craven apoligism on behalf of psychotic murderers.

What makes cirticism or mockery of a person's religion or culture a justification for turning to violence in response to it? When Pauline Hanson mocks Islam on the floor of the senate, why is this in any way a justification for Muslims becoming radicalised and turning to violence? Why are Islam and various Islamic cultures somehow above being subject to the same harsh scrutiny which every other facet of our society and culture are subject to? Would a Christian be justified in becoming 'radicalised' whenever Richard Dawkins makes a speech? Are white men justified in becoming radicalised and turning to violence in response to the constant drip of articles in The Guardian spewing bile against them?

The answer to all the above is in the negative. The 'don't be mean to us or we might kill you' argument is utterly unconvincing. This narrative deserves nothing but the utmost ridicule and those that continue to adhere to it or go so far as to practice it need nothing less to be pitilessly crushed. As I already said, this argument is already exposed for being as fradulent and pathetic as it is when you consider that there has not been a single mass casualty terrorist attack against Muslims in the West in response to terror attacks by Muslims against non Muslims. If that is not enough to trigger radicalisation, Pauline Hanson's stupid stunt certainly couldn't be enough.

You highlight the hostility and discrimination to members of your own family. To take a leaf from the intersectionality playbook, while it is absolutely unacceptable attack and abuse someone because of their race, this is not the same thing to attacking their religion, beliefs or culture. They are all seperable. When your relatives are vilified, the vilification they face on racial grounds is intolerable, but any attacks on their religion, beliefs or cultural habits are something they, and everyone else, must simply cop, because nobody's ideas are above scrutiny or even ridicule. While I don't condone bullying, the idea that religious belief is off limits from open disaproval is one that takes us back to the dark ages.

This is also an article that uses weasel words to justify the actions of the terrorist organisation of the Taliban and various Iraqi insurgent organizations, 'local heroes protecting local communities from aggressors'. I see the managing editor of De Minimus did not see the need to write a disclaimer about that particular line. Its also very comforting to know that all these self declared Jihadist attacks by Muslims against non Muslims in the west is not actually real Jihad, as though that should make the victims feel any better as they are being crushed under the wheels of a semi-trailer. It might also come as extraordinarily and unexpectedly good news to many that Jews and Muslims are apparently happily coexisting in Palestine, something that is directly contrary to every news report out of that region for the past 60 years.

22/8/2017 01:30:26 pm

I have no desire to continue this discussion further as I would just be restating my earlier comment. I only respond to clarify that when I said " our emotions, and our responses to hate, are legitimate no matter what background we come from" I was not condoning violence. I think my intent was clear, but nonetheless, if you found that it was vague or poorly worded, I did not mean that violence responses are acceptable. I mean that emotional reactions to hatred (whether racial/religious groups are upset over persecution; whether all of us regardless of background fear terrorist attacks) aren't necessarily within our control. What is within our control is what action we take, and whether we choose to spread hatred.

Clearly that is the path you've chosen, but whoever you are, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it might not always be this way. Breathe.

Cute rant

22/8/2017 08:58:22 pm

You do realise that it is Muslims who are targeted by terrorism more than any other group?

You realise ISIS is literally killing Muslims in the Middle East?

You realise that Muslims have died in terrorist attacks in London and France?

Muslim communities also face the threat of terrorism, but they have the added bullshit of being ostracised from the communities they live in

Name

23/8/2017 10:49:50 am

Exactly right Cute Rant. Muslims died in terrorist attacks plus they live with ongoing prejudice.

23/8/2017 10:47:06 am

Excuse me. Are muslims not people, who may also think twice when crossing the road?

You fear getting hit by a truck but imo it's not muslims I fear, it's mentally ill people triggered by injustices they perceive are done to them. Does anyone call Dimitrious a terrorist? No? Oh okay, greek white alco drug addicts are exempt - okay society thanks for the clarification.

I work somewhere where muslim men regularly deliver cola and soft drink. I can only imagine how shit they feel getting behind the wheel and having to be on edge about driving, having to prove that they are not terrorists due to prejudices such as yours.

How sickening, that you bring in trucks to this discussion. In Nice many muslim people died from the truck attack. Anyone can suffer.

Muslim privilege

23/8/2017 12:21:39 pm

Muslims are absolutely not the targets of terrorist attacks in the west, or other non western, non Islamic nations. Where they have been killed it has been inadvertent. There have been numerous times where terrorists have deliberately allowed Muslims to go free during a terrorist rampage, while westerners have been deliberately hunted down.

Muslims in the West certainly have to worry about the danger now present to all in crowded public places, but they don't have to worry that there is a sizeable fifth column segment of the population continually making active efforts to kill them for simply existing, and the reason they are not te targets of those efforts is because they share the faith of the perpetrators, and are given a pass by them.

Are you kidding me

24/8/2017 08:40:44 am

'Muslim Priviledge' - your name says everything about you. You single handedly ignore and dismiss Muslim lives that have been lost to domestic terrorism.

The truck didn't waver away from Muslim people. It didn't matter to the guy in Nice who he was killing.

Your comment makes my blood boil. May you never be involved in such hate yourself.

Qodratullah Sultani

22/8/2017 01:03:50 pm

Well, if you have read it more closely i stated that the killing of innocent people is not and will never be justified as has many Muslim academics and religious figures tirelessly said after every attack on innocent lives whether in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. More than 95% of these deaths are Muslims.

Have you not noticed the word 'terrorist' is only being used for those of Muslim faith. So if a bogan convert who has a muslim name commits a crime, let's say drifting in a car and goes and hits pedestrians. It would be classified a terror act. But if they are from a different background, it would be called 'dangerous driving'. This is exactly the case with that Melbourne incident.

I tried to explain a word in its full interpretation.
How is it not defensive war if locals protect their land against foreign occupation?

The Middle East will not give in to foreign occupation no matter how backward they are viewed. They see it as their land and see the right to use their land no matter who invades them.

With Israel, no matter how peaceful and boastful they may seem. Palestinians will fight with stones and whatever they may get their hands on if Israel continue to take their lands. Isn't this justified as a way for defending their land. Isn't this the right to property under international law. It's a basic human right.

Long memory

22/8/2017 04:06:32 pm

Terrorism is clearly a word reserved for politically motivated violence. That's why we call Anders Breivik a terrorist, Dylan Roof a terrorist, why the Irish Republican Army was a terrorist group, why Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist, and so on, despite all not being Muslims. The reason why you today hear it applied almost exclusively to Muslims is because terrorism in the West is currently almost exclusively committed by Muslims.

The Middle East is also already under foreign occupation, namely by Islam and Arabs.

Oh I'm sorry, were you under the impression that Islam and Arabs were indigenous to the Middle East? Outside of Arabia, the spread of Islam and the Arabisation of practically everything from Casablanca to Baghdad is a direct result of conquest and colonisation comparable to European conquest of the Americas or Australia. Where other places have at least maintained their cultural identity, such as Iran, Islam was still imposed by the sword. Other 'non arab' Islamic countries are frequently the result of colonisation by some other group; practically the entire nation of Turkey exists on lands stolen from Armenians and Greeks

The indigenous inhabitants of most of these lands, who formerly practiced Christianity under the Roman Empire, have been slowly driven to the margins and are now facing extermination from groups such as ISIS, who you st least admit are thugs. The point is that there is arguably no 'defensive war' in Islam, these are just the continuing aggressive actions of a colonial conqueror.

And if you are going to talk about defensive wars, you're going to have to acknowledge that Jews were in Israel at least 600 years before Muslims ever were. So who is defending their land and rights to property and who is the foreign conqueror? Is there an international statute of limitations on this sort of thing? If not, why does the colonial west constantly face questions about its legitimacy to even exists, but practically every Islamic nation gets a free pass?

Concerned Christian

22/8/2017 11:10:06 pm

You must have forgotten that European Parliament Report from 2015-2016 that cited Christians as the most persecuted religious group in the world.

Don't worry - here are some links:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2016-0502+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/572800/EPRS_BRI%282015%29572800_EN.pdf

Yaz

22/8/2017 04:05:41 pm

"The fact that hookup culture is emerging as young as those in Years 7 and 8 of school is as much worrying as teen brides and child marriages "

To equate teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity with forced marriage is backward and absurd. I find it concerning that there are people at MLS who holds such views.

Book rec

22/8/2017 04:44:38 pm

Maybe but I strongly recommend this read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Chauvinist_Pigs

Shocked

22/8/2017 05:25:46 pm

^^ thank you - the issue of chil; marriages in developing countries - and even in our own society as some cases have recently come to light is so significant and concerning given the coercive and oppressive elements it entails.
Whilst the sexualisation of youth in the west is an issue, consensual sexual activity between teens whilst not everyone's "cup of tea" and having the potential to spiral into sexual exploitation (young girls particularly feeling pressured) - this is a whole other issue than that of child marriage!
I hope the author can educate themselves on this distinction.

Nodding in agreement

22/8/2017 08:52:12 pm

Yes, I was really taken aback by that point too! I'm trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt - maybe they are using the phrase 'hookup culture' when they actually mean rape culture?

But as I understand it, hookup culture does just refer to a culture in which casual sex is seen as acceptable. In which case, it is really hurtful to suggest that consensual sex between teenagers of the same age is in any way comparable to forced marriage.

qodratullah sultani

24/8/2017 11:40:07 pm

I said worrying. I didn't say shocking or the worst thing that can happen. The logic behind the argument was that teens or those under 18 do not have a complete understanding of the word consent. They may be easily persuaded thru peer pressure. Those in child marriages also consent after their parents convince them that they have reached a marriagable age. I condemn both cultures for those who are below the legal age of 18.

Scott Draper

22/8/2017 09:37:43 pm

This article is comprised of so many examples of history-glossing, Islamic romanticisation, logical fallacies, absurd comparisons and basic conceptual misunderstandings that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Firstly, as much as I despise Pauline Hanson, your particular criticisms of her are baseless. What she did in Parliament was not wrong because it "offended the sensibilities of religious people" (as if that should ever be a valid concern), nor because it implied "cultural superiority". It was wrong because she gave a absurdly hyper-inflated sense of the danger of Islamism in Australia, which is instead a significant problem in the ME and Europe.

Yes, some cultures are better than others. This isn't a disagreement, YOU agree with this. It is uncontroversial that a democratic society protecting the rule of law is superior to one with a military dictatorship. It is obvious that a society with freedom of speech is better than one which stones others for (relevantly) blasphemy. Cultural practices, unlike people, can be good and bad. We can criticise them. You are, in this article, literally suggesting that some component of Western culture (or at least Australian) is a problem which can be improved upon. You clearly have no problem recognising the ways in which cultures can be better or worse. Likely, your concern is more about "cultural supremacy" on the basis of race, ethnicity or nationality. I agree that these aren't justifiable, but at least admit that is what we are talking about. Stop conflating issues.

The comparison of a burqa to other religious garments as being like "beer to a curry" is ludicrous to almost an offensive extent. Food and drink compared to devices designed to oppress and suppress millions (not "some hundreds") of women and children around the world, arising from a doctrine of modesty to prevent women from being sexually objectified by men, is ridiculous for what should be obvious reasons.

Accepting the existence of other religions is not the same as tolerating them. People deserve respect, ideas do not. As said above, Islam should be subject to scrutiny just as Christianity, Judaism, nationalism, capitalism and racism are. These are all ideas; they don't get protection merely because you have decided to merge them with your identity.

It's like you gave up on defending the insane idea that "Islam does not reform", so you decided to thrown in some misdirections about WW1/2 and Israel. I can't argue against points if you don't make any connecting ones.

The comments about the Golden Age of Islam are telling. You have easily recognised how the stoning, burning of witches, Inquisitions, and corruption of Christianity are not negated by the genius breakthroughs of Christian scientists (e.g. Newton), but seem to imply that we should forget the violence of numerous Islamic Caliphates and their military expansions because of some Islamic scientists.

I'm not even going to go into the apologism for the Taliban you just displayed; I think most people will already see the problems.

I think it bears repeating, but the line:
"the fact that hookup culture is emerging as young as those in Years 7 and 8 of school is as much worrying as teen brides and child marriages"
has to be one of the most repugnant comparisons in this article, for reasons already stated above.

There are certainly problems with the ways which individuals and the Government treat Muslims and Muslim communities in Australia, and in other Western countries. We should strongly seek to improve this.

But it is difficult to focus on the issue of how we treat minorities within the tangle of distractions, false comparisons and historical lies of which this article is comprised. Perhaps one of the most inflammatory implications is that violent reactions are to any extent justified by "offensive" words and conduct by the likes of Pauline Hanson. It would be outrageous of me (or Pauline) to demand that you do not criticise nationalism because it would "encourage more violence". Absolutely unacceptable, and we should not tolerate the notion.

23/8/2017 09:22:25 am

Thank you Scott. You voiced all of my own grievances perfectly.

25/8/2017 12:05:36 am

Well No, rule of law is not the same as pop culture. How obedient a country's citizen is to traffic lights doesn't mean they are superior in race.

Scrutinising religion in a respectful and logical way is fine. But not in a demeaning way. We don't need politicians to act things out. People can understand statements.

With the hookup culture. You are taking it out of context. See my above comment.

If you are saying that certain ways of doing things is superior to another way. Then that is your opinion. From that logic you might also connect the pattern of west or Europeans having a superior culture to the East and other countries. And if you think in colour then you might come to a conclusion to a particular colour being superior to another. This is known as recognising basic similar patterns.

We rob the world and start wars to maintain our superior culture. We kill innocent people and children and explain it as killing terrorists and a threat to our future. The world has become a backyard for this superior culture of yours.

Not Scott Draper

25/8/2017 12:56:26 am

You've already demonstrated that you yourself think some form of culture is superior to others, by describing 'hookup culture' among year 7 and 8's as a problem and something that is undesirable. If you didn't think this particular cultural practice is inferior, you wouldn't consider it a 'problem'.

So get off your cultural relatively high horse, you are just as guilty of thinking your own cultural practices and beliefs are superior as those you accuse here.

But I am within my rights to think the way I do some things is better than the way you do some things, and you are within your rights to think the way you do some things is better than the way I do some things. We should be able to openly say so, and while it might be nice for it to be done 'respectfully' nothing demands that it be so. I don't have to respect your practices and you don't have to respect mine, and none of our beliefs, cultural or religious, are off limits. The obvious caveat is that the arena for this 'competition' is dialogue, and nowhere else.

Speechless

22/8/2017 11:26:25 pm

If I have seen cherry-picking of facts and statistics this is it - I can't imagine how this would be critiqued by a tutor if submitted as an assignment...

Fact is acts of violence that meet the definition of terrorism are been carried out by those who purport to represent and be adherents of Islam, are occurring at a rate higher than any other religion.

And please the Jews (and Christians and Druzim) are not having such a great time in Israel - everyone spends their day looking over their shoulder frightened of being stabbed, non-Jewish police officers are murdered for doing their jobs, and a family can no longer sit down to a Friday night Shabbat without the fear of being slaughtered. Whilst the issue in Israel and the Palestinian Territories are far more complex than can be discussed here, your article has on the whole simplified the most complex issues and twisted them to suit your means.

Edward Cranswick

23/8/2017 09:38:55 am

Well it depends on which beer it is, I guess.

Wot

23/8/2017 10:53:04 am

Slavery and harsh punishments are not practices solely of the west they are practices that were and are still written and enforced in predominantly Islamic countries and are an integral part of Sharia Jurisprudence. Cultural relativism as this comment has stated is silly. To look at one culture as better than the other is not wrong, what is wrong is lumping cultural critique with despicable instances of racial intolerance. Terrorism has been (as stated above) attributed to people like Brevik, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh and now hopefully that piece of shit in Charleston.

You yourself disparage those you disagree with as bogans whereas many Australians have legitimate concerns about assimilation that are rooted in a desire all Australians feel like enfranchised members of the community. Australia like it or not is a land of inherited Anglo traditions and institutions that is simply an objective observation. Islam like many religions can be seen as prescribing both theological and cultural norms. Islam is described by many of its adherents as a complete and comprehensive way of life.

The dark ages are an often overstated period the cultural foundations were from Greece and Rome. The west still preserved these ideas and the Middle Ages were themselves a great period of development and learning. Islam Christianity judasim marxism capitalism racism sexism all deserve discussion and scrutiny.

Just stating islam doesnt need reform and restating some canards on ww1/2 and Israel does nothing to change that.

You yourself excusein cultural imperialism. Islam was spread through the Middle East and North Africa by the sword, through conquest and warfare. The Ottoman empire engaged in slavery the same as its western contemporaries and slavery is still practice in some Islamic countries (Mauritania only abolished slavery in 1981 with criminal sanctions introduced in 2007 https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/country/mauritania/). The militaristic past you attribute to Christianity was evident in the Caliphate's of the past and is still evident now in the rhetoric of fundamentalists. Moreover Arabisation is practiced, as Arabs are indigenous to the Arab peninsula, the Christian and traditional people of North Africa, Mesopotamia and the Levant such as the Assyrians, Yazidis, Copts, Phoenecians and Berbers have had their cultures largely obliterated by Arab occupation.

It is inexcusable and poor the way that many good muslims are treated. But plastering over the issues that exists does those good people a disservice. Islam has a problem with alienation, violence and terrorism, Agreed the nationalist rhetoric is terrible and only exacerbates these issues but recognising that there is a problem there should occur too. It isnt a zero sum game problems of misogyny (which as you have rightly indicated are a big problem) can be tackled along with the problem of violence and alienation in Islamic circles. Ideas should be discussed saying discussion should not occur because of the threat of violence and putting down people's democratic choice is very worrying.

25/8/2017 10:30:47 am

How about Malaysia and Indonesia. The Quran does not teach of conquering lands. Whether Muhammad taught that would be different. He was not a perfect man. There is no doubt some Muslim caliphs believed of expansion. Their statuses are mixed within Muslims. Forced conversion is not allowed in Islam. People converted eventually and of their own choice.

Meanwhile the motivation behind colonisation was to invade any land that is not Christian land. So Australia, the Americas and other lands were fought with the sword in one hand and the bible in the other. The expulsion of Muslim and Jews after the Reconquesta was that either you convert or die.

Anyways, may God save us from future happenings!

Taqiyya

25/8/2017 01:43:56 pm

What an absolutely hilarious display of hypocrisy, bias and historical amnesia/revisionism.

If you have read the Quran you will know that it absolutely does condone conquest, expansion, and the killing of unbelievers. Even if it didn't, that is what has been done by Muslims in the name of Islam anyway. I'm not going to cherry pick passages from the Quran because you already know that it's true.

It's hard to believe someone like this, who in this article and the responses has repeatedly failed to demonstrate coherent, rational, reasoned and consistent thought and argument, ever managed to make it into the JD. Truly an indictment of the admissions process.

25/8/2017 06:16:04 pm

Re Taqiyya: It is not true.

25/8/2017 06:13:52 pm

CORRECTION AND APOLOGIES: by child marriage I understood it as a child consenting in marrying another child. i.e marriage between children. Not forced marriage or the pedophilia stuff.

Comments are closed.

Thoughts on Pauline Hanson

Archives