| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Down Under | ||
| Hardcore Muslim leaders in Oz named | ||
| 2007-07-03 | ||
A NUMBER of Australian Muslim clerics have been identified as key hardliners who are preaching fundamentalist messages.
They include Sheik Bilal Dannoun, Melbourne-based Mohammed Omran and Harun Mehicivic; Sydney's Abdul Salam Mohammed Zoud, Hatim Eissa, Khaled Eissa and Feiz Mohammed and Canberra's Mohammed Swaiti. Sheik Bilal yesterday said claims revealed in The Australian that the Wahabi clerics were potentially radicalising up to 3000 Sydney youths were "preposterous". He said while he was not a part of Sheik Omran and Sheik Zoud's fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah association, he rejected claims the pair were radical. "These are people who follow the Koran and Sunnah – they follow the teachings of Islam," Sheik Bilal told the newspaper. "And if following the teachings of Islam, following the way of the Prophet is called radical, then... call us radicals."
| ||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #14 Not an apologist for much of anything. Not interested in false exaggerations, tho. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-03 21:49 |
| #13 If it is, I'd sure like to have that ability, given some of my lamer posts.... fair is fair, though. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-07-03 21:35 |
| #12 Ouch, NL - perhaps a new leaf has been turned? I'm sure no editing after-the-fact will occur, right, Robin? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-07-03 21:29 |
| #11 You're still a Muslim apologist, aren't you Robin? Not surprising actually, it seemed to be your shtick before you tucked your tail and departed last year. Tell me, when are you going to start editing your posts after the fact? |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-07-03 17:16 |
| #10 |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-03 11:57 |
| #9 If moderation is really the way of islam, then why don't we see "moderate" muslims take their arguements for peace and tolerance to their more radical brothers? Some are beginning to do so. They tend to be discounted by non-Muslims who are quite certain they aren't a) really Muslim or b) saying what they really think or c) reflecting the private concerns and doubts of many who don't yet have the courage or the certainty to speak up. What you fail to address - and to be fair, it's hard to do so - is what shari'a means. To some it does indeed mean the Taliban way. To others, it means "my traditions and familiar way of life are under stress and I'd like to protect them". And to some it means disgust with the crass crudity that often passes for culture in the West. You may be right that ultimately the minority voices will fail. But you cannot KNOW that. Which gets us back to the risk analysis issues once again. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-03 11:55 |
| #8 wrong thread so solly...PIMF |
| Posted by: RD 2007-07-03 11:46 |
| #7 . FYI The elected government of Iraq has extended its invitation to all Coalition supporters to stay in Iraq. I have several friends in Iraq that are doing a great job persuading the paleo terrorists to change sides or die. So far in Iraq his unit has change quite a few retro Paleos way of thinking, And those paleo Terrorist who resisted my friends were persuaded in large numbers to die. Guess What FYI, relatively little force was used on Both Groups and yet they both fully cooperated. ;-) . |
| Posted by: RD 2007-07-03 11:45 |
| #6 Nilal definitely represents islamic (not just islamist) theology. I agree that islam is interwoven with tribal culture, specifically the barbaric Arabian culture. But it is the Indian subcontinent and South Asian cultures that have mellowed to a certain extent the local flavor of islam. But as literacy levels increase, muslims can read the source books for themselves and rediscover the original islam and it looks a lot like Wahabbism. That is the future, not the whiskey drinking 3 piece suit wearing Musharaffs. If moderation is really the way of islam, then why don't we see "moderate" muslims take their arguements for peace and tolerance to their more radical brothers? It's because that is not what the islam is about and moderate muslims shooting blanks lose every time in a theological battle with their more radical coreligionists. Polls in both the muslim majority and minority nations have consistently shown the majority of muslims want to be ruled by sharia, with all the negative consequences for the rest of us. 10-30% support jihad and terrorism against non-muslims. The theological foundation is there. The desire is there. The history of subversion and jiahad conquest is there. What has kept the jihad to a low level is the means were not there. But now that the civilized world is sending $500 billion/year to these barbarians and with easy travel to Dar al Harb, the means just got a lot more plentiful. So is 10% of muslims baying for blood a high enough threshold to advocate action. How about 30%, 60%? For comparision, in WW2, 10% of the American population was under arms. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-07-03 09:54 |
| #5 Why are they still guests of this country? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-07-03 09:20 |
| #4 Why take the chance when it's your life on the line? If I knew for certain my life were on the line, I wouldn't take the chance. But let's think through the possibilities. Possibility 1) Bilal represents the opinion of all or most Muslims on theological grounds. Possibility 2) Bilal represents a minority interpretation of Islam. Most Muslims would reject some or all of his interpretation. Possibility 3) Bilal represents a minority interpretation of Islam. Many Muslims either reject his interpretation or at least haven't embraced it. But they do consider Islam to be an important part of their heritage and culture and deeply resist having it be denigrated openly. Possibility 4) A lot of what passes for Islam in the minds not only of Bilal but of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia etc. is hopelessly bound together with old tribal customs and is subject to change if those customs die out. Question #1 is, for each of these (and perhaps other possible scenarios as well), what is the likelihood that it best describes the situation? The next question is: for each scenario above, what specific risks do we face if it is true? By risks I mean not only the risk of terror attack, but also economic, social and moral risks. How certain are we of that risk assessment? And the third question is: what could we realistically do about those risks, at what cost and with what likely side effects? |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-03 08:37 |
| #3 Why take the chance when it's your life on the line? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-07-03 08:10 |
| #2 Only if you take this guy's word for it. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-03 08:08 |
| #1 These are people who follow the Koran and Sunnah – they follow the teachings of Islam," Sheik Bilal told the newspaper. "And if following the teachings of Islam, following the way of the Prophet is called radical, then... call us radicals." To me that sums up/proves there is no difference between radicals and moderates!!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-07-03 07:26 |