Muslims tell Howard: Stop Inciting Hatred (1 Viewer)

[zahid]

Muslims rallying in Sydney say the Federal Government's proposed anti-terrorism laws would be a major infringement of their rights.

Hundreds of members of the Muslim community met at Punchbowl, in Sydney's south-west, to demonstrate their concerns that the Federal Government's actions were inciting hatred towards their culture.

Federation of Australian Muslim Students and Youth (FAMSY) National president Chaaban Omran said the Prime Minister, John Howard, had failed his community by not doing enough to stop anti-Muslim discourse.

Mr Omran said the recent London bombings, calls by politicians to ban Muslim headdress in public schools and the media's negative portrayal of the religion were feeding a growing prejudice.

But he described Canberra's proposed new anti-terror laws as be the largest infringement on the rights of Muslim Australians.

Earlier this month, Mr Howard flagged a new package of security measures, including tighter checks on citizenship applicants, jail terms for inciting violence and police powers to detain suspects without charge for up to a fortnight.

"Instead of coming out with practical steps to address terrorism, these laws will just work to create more intolerance towards Muslims," Mr Omran told AAP.

"As Australians, we just want to be treated like everyone else, we don't wish to have all these laws set out that will lead to us becoming targets."

Mr Omran also called on all Australians to make the distinction between terrorist activities and Islam.

"There is nowhere in the religion of Islam that condones the killings of innocent civilians or non-combatants," he said.

"That needs to be accepted and made clear by the [Howard] Government and it must request that the media promote that, rather than just saying every single terrorist is a Muslim and therefore the religion itself causes terrorism.

"A simple comment like that from the Government would help promote tolerance."

But Mr Omran said today's gathering was also about sending a wider message to all Australians.

"We all moved out to this country because we thought we would be able to carry out our traditions and our cultures, as well as making a good contribution to Australia's society.

"Now we're starting to find this is no longer the case and that is a tragic thing in a country that purports to value diversity," he said.

http://smh.com.au/news/national/mus...inciting-hatred/2005/09/25/1127586737342.html

MR. Omran makes a valid point I say.

 

[sly fly]

In a sense, yes, he does make a valid point. I don't agree with some of his comments though. eg: "A simple comment like that from the Government would help promote tolerance."

The issue of Muslims in Australia isn't going to be resolved by ''a simple comment'' (not that he is necessarily suggesting it will be). Since 9/11, in particular,Muslim's constantly get negative media coverage, misconceptions about the religion, random politicians coming up with random things etc etc etc. A simple comment won't really do much in promoting tolerance..........ofcourse, it would be symbolic but it wouldn't actually change anything in practical terms. I think in some aspects, the Howard summit was a good start.

 

[Generator]

Open to diversity (in theory), yes, but not tolerant of the intolerant, zahid. Western notions of liberty and tolerance only go so far (and rightly so).

It would be great if people of the Islamic faith dropped the 'there is no such thing as a moderate or a fundamentalist' and just accepted the fact that those of a more extreme bent aren't exactly helping the cause of the moderate majority. It would also be great that if some accepted the fact that you cannot divorce the faith as it is written from the faith as it is practiced - Islam may well be a religion of peace, but as with all others, that counts for little if its warriors are baying for the blood of the infidels (NTB made a similar point a few days ago, I believe, but I'm not sure as to how it was taken).

p.s. The laws infringe upon the civil liberties of the entire population, zahid. If this person wants to promote a more positive discourse, then perhaps he should practice what he preaches and not consider himself and those he represents to be apart from the population - a more constructive statement would have made note of the fact that the laws are restrictive for all and then carried on to state that Islamic Austrlians are likely to suffer a backlash.

 

[frog12986]

His use of language of 'innocent civillians' and 'non-combatants' is quite deceiving..he fails to address the killings of what are commonly referred to as 'infidels'..

Practical steps to address terrorism?..How about sanctioning every single proponent of extremist Islam or publicly condoning themselves and their actions..no leaders of the Islamic community have 'specifically 'condemned any individuals who are preaching or inciting hatred towards the west and the 'infidels' that occupy these countries..

People have the ability to make their own assessments and judgements on these issues, and no amount of academic gobbledygook will prove otherwise..
"We all moved out to this country because we thought we would be able to carry out our traditions and our cultures"..that quote in itself is adequate in substantiating why many 'Australians' are intolerant towards these people. When our values, 'our' morals and 'our' way of life is subordinated by those who migrate to 'our' country it immediately creates resentment and other forms of negativity towards these communities..

Mr Howard has not incited hatred, nor have any of his words or actions... extremists, their actions and rhetoric have created the issues that exist. If anything, he has made concerted efforts to isolate extremists as an external faction to the Islamic religion, and reduced the ties between 'true' proponents of Islam and these so called extremists...then again everything that goes wrong in this world appears to be Howards fault in one way or another..

 

[Sweets]

I have always proposed that John Howard should love Muslims. I mean they fit perfectly into his attempts to return Australia to the 1950s. Belief in good old fashion values, getting married early, low divorce rates, traditional gender roles, and most of all they contribute greatly to the population growth

Thus, John Howard + Muslims = great allies

 

[sly fly]

It would also be great that if some accepted the fact that you cannot divorce the faith as it is written from the faith as it is practiced - Islam may well be a religion of peace, but as with all others, that counts for little if its warriors are baying for the blood of the infidels (NTB made a similar point a few days ago, I believe, but I'm not sure as to how it was taken).

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. So then we should develop our ideas about Christianity from the likes of Hitler.........

Noone should judge a religion based on it's followers (or those who claim to be it's followers). Judge it by it's teachings.

p.s. The laws infringe upon the civil liberties of the entire population, zahid. If this person wants to promote a more positive discourse, then perhaps he should practice what he preaches and not consider himself and those he represents to be apart from the population - a more constructive statement would have made note of the fact that the laws are restrictive for all and then carried on to state that Islamic Austrlians are likely to suffer a backlash.

Yes they do infringe the rights of the whole population. However, they're obviously targeted at Muslims, and I think that's the point he was trying to make. Of all the media releases I've read about ASIO and it's dealings with the 'population', every single person has been a Muslim.

 

[erawamai]

Open to diversity (in theory), yes, but not tolerant of the intolerant, zahid. Western notions of liberty and tolerance only go so far (and rightly so).

It kind of sounds like the Dutch nationalist party politician who argues that Islam in itself is incompatible with modern notions of liberal democracy. Certainly if the Muslim community is not tolerant of mainstream society there is little chance of mainstream society accepting Muslim people.

While assimilationist policies have long been rubbished the reality is that for any ethnic group to be able to subsist and be accepted to mainstream Australian culture they must give a little first. Past ethnic groups that have come to Australia have aimed to integrate into mainstream culture. It would be arguable that this may be more difficult for the Australian muslim community. In particular when the more extreme muslims preaching a doctrine of segragation gets the most news coverage.

As aforementioned Australian society is pretty tolerant of the tolerant but not very tolerant of the intolerant.

 

[sly fly]

Frog129 - There is nothing ambiguous about the terms innocent civilians and non-combatants. Whether a person be an 'infidel' or a Muslim, or a Christian or whatever......that has no bearing on whether or not they are classified as a civilian or non-combatant.

Btw, I don't know where u ppl get this whole 'Muslims preach the killing of 'infidels' thing'. Most of my friends are non-muslims and nowhere in Islam does it condone intolerance towards non-muslims, let alone killing them.........quite the opposite actually.

 

[Generator]

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. So then we should develop our ideas about Christianity from the likes of Hitler.........

Noone should judge a religion based on it's followers (or those who claim to be it's followers). Judge it by it's teachings.

Ah, I didn't say that one should base their judgement on the way in which a religion is practiced alone, but rather that you cannot divorce the nature of the teachings from the way in which they are practiced. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous and reeks of naivety and apologetic notions.

Yes they do infringe the rights of the whole population. However, they're obviously targeted at Muslims, and I think that's the point he was trying to make. Of all the media releases I've read about ASIO and it's dealings with the 'population', every single person has been a Muslim.

Obviously? No, they aren't targeted at Muslims, they are targeted against those who may 'threaten' Australia's security. I for one do not agree with the way in which the government is addressing this particular issue (independent political and judicial oversight concerns, mainly) and that of terrorism in general, but it's hardly its fault if those who are deemed to be 'threats' to Australia happen to be both anti-Australian and Islamic at the same time.

 

[frog12986]

Frog129 - There is nothing ambiguous about the terms innocent civilians and non-combatants. Whether a person be an 'infidel' or a Muslim, or a Christian or whatever......that has no bearing on whether or not they are classified as a civilian or non-combatant.

Btw, I don't know where u ppl get this whole 'Muslims preach the killing of 'infidels' thing'. Most of my friends are non-muslims and nowhere in Islam does it condone intolerance towards non-muslims, let alone killing them.........quite the opposite actually.

And I have friends who are converts from Islam to christianity..

Their 'interpretation' of the religion has been synonomous with that of the extremists...at the end of the day that is the point it comes down to; Interpretation..

If a religion lends itself to these forms of hatred and action, then there is fundamental weakness at the core of its belief system ..of course no one interpretation will ever be exactly the same, however there will be a recurrence of the same themes, beliefs etc..

A perfect example is that of the young Sheik who attempted to justify the criminal acts performed upon 'scantily dressed' females. Whilst this may have been his own 'extreme' interpretation, these attitudes and ideas are recurrent within the religion and emerge differently depending upon the individuals proponent. One cannot deny that these conceptions of female subordination and inferiority are rife within the basic tenets of the religion..no proof you may say..Saudia Arabia is all the substantial proof one needs..

Anyway, we digress..back to the topic..

 

[sly fly]

Well I would suggest otherwise - ofcourse you can divorce the teachings from those who 'practice' them. If you think that's naive then that's your opinion but I think it's illogical to judge a religion based on the way in which it's teachings are practiced when such practice clearly contradicts it's teachings (together with it's actual teachings).

Yes, but those who are deemed terrorists are always Muslims, not necessarily because they are terrorists but just the fact that they're Muslim and happen to practice their religion makes them susceptible. I mean, how many cases have u heard of such powers being abused by ASIO against Muslims only later to find out that ASIO was wrong or they made a 'mistake' or whatever.

Racial profiling is the real subplot of these legislations and even many non-muslims have acknowledged that. To suggest otherwise would be naive.

 

[sly fly]

Frog - like I said before, there's nothing ambiguous about those terms. Islam clearly distinguishes those that are civilians and those that are not.......anyone who supports the killing of innocent 'infidels' as a result of their interpretation aren't in any way interpreting Islam, they're simply acting on their own personal agenda's. This is a fact....Islamic scholars of high authority have repeatedly condemned such acts and made it clear that they're in the wrong.

 

[sly fly]

That sheikh was an idiot - everyone knows that. Like I was saying to generator, don't judge a religion based on the actions of a few (or like he says, together with the teachings).

No, there is no female subordination in Islam whatsoever.....and if you believe there is then u are majorly misunderstanding Islam as many in the West do.......and if u take Saudi Arabia as an example of an Islamic state, then you're obviously uneducated about Islam. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from Islam.

 

[Generator]

Well I would suggest otherwise - ofcourse you can divorce the teachings from those who 'practice' them. If you think that's naive then that's your opinion but I think it's illogical to judge a religion based on the way in which it's teachings are practiced when such practice clearly contradicts it's teachings (together with it's actual teachings).

Suit yourself.

Yes, but those who are deemed terrorists are always Muslims, not necessarily because they are terrorists but just the fact that they're Muslim and happen to practice their religion makes them susceptible. I mean, how many cases have u heard of such powers being abused by ASIO against Muslims only later to find out that ASIO was wrong or they made a 'mistake' or whatever.

Racial profiling is the real subplot of these legislations and even many non-muslims have acknowledged that. To suggest otherwise would be naive.

The problem here is that you are unable to differentiate. It isn't the fact that some practice Islam that means that they are a deemed to be a threat, rather it's the manner of their words and actions as an individual, one in this instance who interpretes Islam in a particular way, that leads to an ASIO visit. It isn't the Islamic connection, rather it's the highly questionable anti-western/Australian sentiment and its physical expression.

I consider myself to be socially liberal, yet there are times when I must draw the line. Yes, profiling occurs, nobody will deny that and I do consider it to be at times unjust, but to suggest that the real subplot is one of racial profiling of a particular group isn't constructive in any sense of the word. The real subplot is one of ensuring that the country remains secure, and in that it's essentially a given that some who seek to attack and replace the very framework of secularism, tolerance and diversity upon which our society operates, inciting violence in the process, will be targeted. I for one don't see what's wrong with that, because as I said earlier, we aren't here to be tolerant of the excessively intolerant.

Edit: I should just say that I'm not a fan of the way in which our rights are being curtailed without any respectable attempt at ensuring that they will not be abused. A 10 or os year sunset clause counts for nothing if there's no effective yet independent oversight of the way in which the laws are being practiced in the field. Legislative concerns aside, it would also be great if we could possibly be given an indication as to the actual level of threat, because I for one would like to know whether I am correct in thinking that the threat is real yet 'negligible' at the same time. In fact, more than anything else, I think that merely taking the time to describe the situation rather than resort to expressive rhetoric and generalisations would help in this particular instance. I am sure that most would prefer to know what is below the house rather than live in a state of uncertainty - "What is under my house? Is it a mouse? Is it a rat? Is it nothing more than a mangey old cat?"

 

[frog12986]

What would you classify Saudi Arabia as then..? Or maybe we could use the "Islamic Republic of Iran" as an example...

From the Quran and I quote:

"And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, "

If that is not insinuating an element of control over the female, then I'm obviously not interpreting the phrase in the way that it 'should be'. Or rather am I acting upon my own personal agenda and leanings..

 

[Sepulchres]

However, they're the Moneyed Islam that seek to engender a controlled Economy through the guise of Religion...

By the way, How batshit would the world get if Mecca was blown up by Fundamentalist Christians...

Or dare say I, Israelis?

</Enter world war III>

 

[Calculon]

Muslims don't have enough power to take on the western powers in conventional warfare, not unless secular China decided to take their cause up.

 

[SashatheMan]

What would you classify Saudi Arabia as then..? Or maybe we could use the "Islamic Republic of Iran" as an example...

From the Quran and I quote:

"And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, "

If that is not insinuating an element of control over the female, then I'm obviously not interpreting the phrase in the way that it 'should be'. Or rather am I acting upon my own personal agenda and leanings..

that shut sly fly up for awhile. let him find a quote to defend.
ide have to say check-mate

 

[muhammad 1]

From the Quran and I quote:

"And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, "

Can I have a reference for that verse please?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I would suggest otherwise - ofcourse you can divorce the teachings from those who 'practice' them. If you think that's naive then that's your opinion but I think it's illogical to judge a religion based on the way in which it's teachings are practiced when such practice clearly contradicts it's teachings (together with it's actual teachings).

Well who's to say that you're right in its actual 'teachings' ? I also believe hitler did partially use an interpretation of christianity, and if a huge segment of christians today were performing acts of killing jews then I would make a link between Christianity and the killing of jews.

I think the problem here occurs because the religious texts have no objective meaning (at least none that any of us can say), therefore what the religious text means can only be enlivened through the people who read it.

I believe Howard has said many times that this isn't about 'certain religious groups' ?