The New Republic

"Sell" him Australia, use the money to pay insurgents to kill him, then renege on the sale.

- rishy

January 13, 2007 at 7:13pm

Send a female representative in a short skirt to offer him a paid one-way business-class flight for him and his family to any Islamic country he likes. And then sit back and crack a tube of Fosters!

- ironyroad

January 13, 2007 at 7:28pm

Maybe it's just a typo, but since when did John Howard, the Thatcherite leader of the "Liberal" party, become an honorary "Labor Prime Minister"?

- jmriemer

January 13, 2007 at 7:54pm

Andy McCarthy writes the following at the Corner: "Returning Hicks to Australia could mean the authorities there will ultimately prosecute him for any conduct that has violated Australian law.

- thomsondavid

January 13, 2007 at 8:03pm

We were talking about Islamic attitudes in Australia, so the relevance would be . . . ?

- ironyroad

January 13, 2007 at 8:15pm

Yes, Howard is no Laborite. He did though attract lots of Labor voters to his side just as Reagan attracted Democrats when he ran in the early 80's. Howards has also been tough on Islamicists going back to the East Timor crises. He has also been tough on Islamicists in Australia, so I expect that his quote was meant to calm tensions rather than to make light of the provocation. "Australia 'a convict nation of liars'" By Paul Carter "Mr Howard laughed off the spiritual leader's convict comments. "I think it will bring a wry smile to the face of Australians who don't actually feel the least bit offended that many of our ancestors came here as convicts,'' Mr Howard said. "It's almost a badge of honour for many Australians.'' But while the convict jibes might be forgiven by some, as they are when levelled by English cricket fans, the sheik's comments are expected to cause outrage in some quarters - especially the claim that white Australians "are the biggest liars''. "

- jacksondyer

January 13, 2007 at 8:22pm

I am more interested in the Mulsim community attempt to both defend the Sheik who pretended that the whole controversy was just a "white" conspiracy against Muslims. http://www.news.com.au /story/0,23599,21043838-2,00 .html# "The mufti told Egytpian television that outrage over his controversial meat sermon was "a calculated conspiracy'', that started with him, "in order to bring the Islamic community to its knees''. He also said "Australian law guarantees freedoms up to a crazy level'', when reportedly referring to anti-Muslim courts and the harsh sentencing of a Muslim gang rapist in Sydney. Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad today criticised and defended his close friend, saying some of his comments were "ill-advised''. "I believe his intention was to indicate that we choose to be in Australia because we love Australia, because his Egyptian interviewers were asking him why he stays and puts up with the controversy here,'' Mr Trad said. "He was defending Australia, but saying sometimes democracy fails, and the reaction to his comments put a lie to the democratic principle of free speech. "But I, as a Muslim Australian, do feel the need to apologise for anyone who is offended by these comments.'' Mr Trad also questioned the accuracy of the translation, saying the mufti's opponents were waiting with malicious intent to misrepresent his comments. "It's evident by the controversy that has erupted again that there are people out there watching every comment he makes,'' Mr Trad said." This has become a typical reaction by Muslim groups. First they express surprise that anything they said might be offensive then they blame the "translation" and finally they accuse the "non Muslims of going after them." The problem is larger than just this one Sheik and I doubt that meaningful dialogue can take place between these diverse communities until the Muslims realize that their point of view about relgion, god, life, sex, morality, democracy, is just one point of view among many and if they don't like it or won't to live according to Koranic law there dozens of countries in the world where they can do so. If they insist on treating the rest of the non Muslim world as Dar al-Harb or the House of War then that's what they will get there, War! The only historical situation comparable to what the Islamicists Muslims are trying to do, except of course, for their original conquests in the 8th to 111the centuries, is the attempt by Slave States in the South to expend slavery into more and more territories. In the US fought a civil war to stop the spread of slavery and I believe that something similar will at some point happen now.

- jacksondyer

January 13, 2007 at 8:35pm

Why to even bring up statement by a primitive, uneducated medieval cretin. I am sure that Australians will know how to deal with this creature.

- rmakover

January 13, 2007 at 8:49pm

Of course he's a cretin, a delusional, malignant psychopath. Like most mullahs. The problem is, there are thousands like him around the world, and the bigger problem is that their audiences take them seriously. To say we should ignore him because he's ridiculous reminds me of how the Weimar Germans responded to about a band of loonies in silly costumes, raving about Jews and Bolsheviks. We have history to warn us; are we going to continue to claim that it doesn't apply to us, so we can continue to excuse our inertia?

This asshole, times a few thousand, in turn preaching to millions of credulous, bungled, botched and bloodyminded believers, and Howard's advice to pay them no mind becomes effete and dangerous.

- jm_rice

January 14, 2007 at 1:14am

I guess I'm with Howard, "effete and dangerous" or not. One of the prices of free speech is that people say stupid things (not that we would ever have noticed this on the Spine). The antidote, in a free society, is....more speech. What are the alternatives--censorship? a good ass-kicking? deportation? Hell, it's even possible to have compassion for people who think sharia is the way to go in sunbathing Australia. Anyone for burka beach volleyball?

- JackR

January 14, 2007 at 7:54am

"Why to even bring up statement by a primitive, uneducated medieval cretin. I am sure that Australians will know how to deal with this creature." It would be foolish to ignore this "primitive, uneducated medieval cretin." We may laugh at him---but a huge number of Muslims apparently worship the ground he walks on. People also laughed at Adolph Hitler. I personally feel fairly confident that the Australians will effectively deal with this problem. John Howard has earned our respect. Still, Americans must be willing to go it alone if this ever becomes necessary.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 9:16am

Please guys, stop with the Hitler metaphors. This is just one uneducated bum in some mosque in Australia. The faithful that congregate in this "house of worship" are not worthy of our concern. We can talk to them all we want but their ears are closed. Moderate Muslims exist only on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times. Giving this guy publicity increases his influence with his "flock" and comparing him to the Feuhrer of the German Reich is counterproductive.

- rmakover

January 14, 2007 at 9:53am

In this particular instance, what would "go it alone" mean? Have American planes firebomb his mosque? Launch invasion troops into Australia to take out this guy? I know you feel very strongly about the need for the US to be ready to act in any case, but this is kind of a dumb one to bring up.

- prometheusnox

January 14, 2007 at 10:06am

It involves GHB, Viagra and two very blonde hookers and a video camera. I will leave the rest to your imagination.

- brian@xao.com

January 14, 2007 at 10:56am

"Please guys, stop with the Hitler metaphors. This is just one uneducated bum in some mosque in Australia." I couldn't disagree more. We've got to over "the first person who refers to Hitler loses the argument" nonsense. In this particular case, it is very appropriate to compare this jerk to the Nazi fuhrer. Far too many people underestimate the ability of some ideological nut cases to sway the passions of the masses. "In this particular instance, what would "go it alone" mean? Have American planes firebomb his mosque? Launch invasion troops into Australia to take out this guy?" What in heaven's name are you talking about? Nothing I said remotely suggests that we should invade Australia to deal with this crazed cleric. My only point is that ultimately we may have to go it alone. Americans should hope for the cooperation with our allies. However, we should never take it for granted.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 11:04am

I know, I know, engaging thomsondavid here is akin to trying to discuss the finer points of free speech with the the Aussi Mufti, still. I am not sure what in the name of all that is sacred the rantings of a lunatic mullah in Australia has to go with taking for granted the cooperation of "our allies." In fact, Mr. Howard supported W to the hilt and has been, along with Blair, the only democratic leader who has not said a single negative word about US adventurism, unilateralism, imperalism, whatever, abroad. This same Howard, Liberal (that is, conservative) Prime Minister of Australia, who has never had a nice word for Muslim extremism, has said, "move on, this one's a nutcase". And TD suggests that the US go it alone. Not sure where, or to do what, but that the US should go it alone. That is, a propos of nothing whatever to do with the US, the US should ignore its safest and closest ally. The mind boggles. Turning to the silly Mufti - I guess on this one I would have to go with JS Mill: context is all. Speaking to Al-Shargh al-awsat, the silly man makes an even sillier point about Australia and rattles the sword, much in the same way that so many other Muftis and Imams have done. This is not a Hitler-cum-lately; it is not even a David Duke Wannabe, or a Bin Laden junkie. He is a bull travelling with his own china shop; let him ramble and rumble. Now, if he proposes to do more - if he actually goes to a beer-hall in search of a putsch or holds torch-lit rallies, well, then you can let loose the bikini-clad women to pummel him to the ground. But until then - I would not even bother to refute the idiocies he spouts. "Go it alone" ... this one still makes my mind reel.

- icarusr

January 14, 2007 at 12:52pm

"...the only democratic leader who has not said a single negative word about US adventurism, unilateralism, imperalism, whatever, abroad." What are you talking about? How do you justify this slander?

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 1:05pm

Calm down? Dismiss the Hitler analogy? That's precisely the effete attitude I'm talking about. Ignore it, and it'll go away. Yeah, right. Like they told John O'Neill.

The Hitler analogy has already been validated. In case you were in a coma at the time, Osama bin Laden was commonly known before 9/11. In fact, I remember reading an article about him, in the 90s, in Time, as being this rich nut case who banked Islamist causes but who was otherwise harmless. It was then attitude of you calm-down characters that led to 9/11.

Actually, I don't think Howard is as obtuse as this. While he's saying, "Ignore this idiot," in public, I'm sure he's detailed domestic intelligence to monitor his every move. Australia remembers Bali like we remember 9/11.

- jm_rice

January 14, 2007 at 1:36pm

Right now, everyone should crack a tube of Fosters and chill! This is getting out of hand. To the best of my knowledge, Hitler was the leader of a political movement that plugged into the crucial populist and radical tendencies of his country and exploited a lost war in which millions died, an historic upheaval in the political order, a massive inflation and later a depression, and the inherited resentment of a whole culture to take power and then install a one-party state with a nihilistic program of racial cleansing and total war. The analogy is not appropriate to one Islamic cleric frothing at the mouth about girls in bikinis in a non-Islamic nation that likes beer and surfing. He can't even do a "beer-hall putsch" because his lot don't drink, for pete's sake!

- ironyroad

January 14, 2007 at 2:19pm

"The analogy is not appropriate to one Islamic cleric frothing at the mouth about girls in bikinis in a non-Islamic nation that likes beer and surfing. He can't even do a "beer-hall putsch" because his lot don't drink, for pete's sake!" Hitler was also not a world leader early in his career. Muslim fanatics don't need to drink beer. They get high on the nihilst interpretation of the Koran.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 2:49pm

Irony: I should have thought you of all people would have got the "beer-hall" irony ;-) ... Of course, thomsondavid's respone to you is a masterpiece of logic. Hitler was not a world leader early in his career; neither is this Mufti - ergo, it is not only permissible but apt to analogise the one to the other. I am waiting for evidence of massive defeat in a pointless war, sky-high inflation, crumbling political structure, an imposed treaty, etc. etc. for Australia that our good Mufti can exploit as he launches his brownshirts to take over Darwin and Perth. Hitler analogies of this sort do not help in isolating and addressing the problem of idiot Muftis and their radical followers. What they do, is inflate the language and thereby demean and belittle the tragedy of pre-War fascism, the Second World War and the Shoah. To compare a stupid interview in an Arab-language newspaper to the "Nuernberg rallies cannot be done, to paraphrase Churchill, without at least some risk of terminological inexactitude.

- icarusr

January 14, 2007 at 3:02pm

I thought I did get it -- that was why I used it (but maybe we're thinking two different ironies . . . ?)

- ironyroad

January 14, 2007 at 3:15pm

Actually, the vile, deceased fascist dictator's first name was "Adolf," not "Adolph" Hitler. Second, Osama bin Laden was praised as a mujahedeen leader by none other than the likes of conservative hero Ronald Reagan, during the Afghan-Russian War. So yes, he was a known entity before the "90s," especially by high-level, right-wing anti-communists. And his family has had a long association with the Bush family racket. But then Saddam also was aided and abetted by Reagan and Bush I, because of his opposition to Iran. Where was the outcry on the right when he gassed Iranian citizens? One of the most perverse ironies of the current Iraq debacle is that the right, who so champions this war, seems to have forgotten that Iran was always more dangerous, and it has only been empowered by the installation of a Shiite quasi-democracy headquartered in Baghdad. Whatever Mahmoud Ahminejad's fate, the clerocracy in Tehran-Qum (etc.) still holds the cards and the power, and their Islamicist friends in Iraq are increasingly gaining control. No one really wants to talk about this, but really, is the US fighting to empower the likes of Sadr or Hakim, or even Sistani? All three are pretty far from any sort of moderate secularism as far as I can tell. Third, unless this cleric is openly violating Australia's laws, I'd assume Australia's free speech principles apply. In the US, we allow our nutty clerics like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who make outrageous and potentially internationally explosive statements such as calling for the assassination of foreign leaders, to act unimpeded, and together they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of followers. I and others may strongly disagree with the repellent, ignorant comments of this cleric, but if Australia's free speech principles are akin to the US's, then he has the right to make these comments. Should he urge any of his followers to violent jihad, should he call for domestic or foreign assassinations, should he engage in any of the things we see occurring by some members of the US extreme right wing (which launched the second largest mass-killing on American soil after bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Al Qaeda), then he should be prosecuted under all applicable laws and locked away for as long as Australia's statutes deem possible. Additionally, when did "Muslim" equate with "race"? There are "White" or "European" Muslims, including some in Australia I would imagine, so this cleric's and respondents comments opposing and naturalizing a distinction between religious affiliation and racial heritage or affiliation is problematic. The cleric's comments on immigration and national affiliation are incoherent, and betray an anti-liberal ideology that is at odds with the very political liberalism that afforded him the right to immigrate. Australia's racially and ethnically restrictive laws, or should I say racist laws, could easily have kept him out had they not been changed. It is because of a liberal movement in that society's politics and public sphere that the immigration laws were opened up, and that non-Whites, whatever their affiliation, were able to move that country and expound however they see and saw fit. Finally, this one cleric is, as others have noted, one of only quite a few across the globe who are making such statements. Where isn't there more inquiry into the funding sources of this strain of Islam? Hint: it isn't and wasn't coming from Saddam, who had his own little totalitarian playground to rule over. Perhaps someone at the highest levels of the US government will again make an effort to speak to some of our "friends" in the Middle East, and urge them to cut off funding for madrassas and other outreach programs for religious and political extremism. It's at least worth (another) try.

- jrk3150

January 14, 2007 at 3:51pm

"I am waiting for evidence of massive defeat in a pointless war, sky-high inflation, crumbling political structure, an imposed treaty, etc. etc. for Australia that our good Mufti can exploit as he launches his brownshirts to take over Darwin and Perth." We are not engaed in a conventional war against the Islamic nihilists. Our "good mufti" may not be able to foment a full fledged revolution. He can, though, encourage his followers to commit a number of devastating terrorist attacks. That alone should worry the Australians.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 4:19pm

"In the US, we allow our nutty clerics like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who make outrageous and potentially internationally explosive statements such as calling for the assassination of foreign leaders..." Neither Jerry Falwell not Pat Robertson have called for illegal acts of violence. I have seen the taped replay of Robertson's comment---and he merely, in passing, said that an assassination of an enemy leader would not be unwelcomed. He did not openly advocate for this to happen.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 4:36pm

It is very fair to say that Pat Robertson pushed the envelope. You can make up your own mind. Here is the link to his actual words: http://tinyurl.com/yxuhgk

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 4:45pm

Ireland too has got Islam problems: "Dublin imam takes on the fanatics A Muslim cleric is taking a stand against those who preach Islamic extremism in Ireland and think that the cult of the suicide bomber is noble" http://observer.guardian.co.uk /print/0,,329685302- 119093,00.html Henry McDonald Sunday January 14, 2007 Observer "Beneath a basketball net in a freezing sports hall, a Muslim cleric is waging war on Islamic extremism. Imam Shaheed Satardien is taking a stand against those Muslims in Ireland whom he claims are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber. At Friday prayers in the sports hall in north-west Dublin, the South African-born former anti-apartheid activist warns his multinational congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills. Cast out by the majority Islamic community in Dublin for his outspokenness, the 50-year-old preacher says he has received death threats. 'I am standing firm in my beliefs,' Satardien says. 'The truth is more important than being popular or living a quiet life. Extremism has infected Islam in Ireland. It's time to get back to the spiritual aspect of my religion and stop it being used as a political weapon.' The imam from Cape Town fled his native country following death threats, he says, from Islamic extremists in South Africa. His younger brother, Ibrahim, was shot dead in 1998 following a row with Islamic radicals in the city. When Satardien was told he would be next, he travelled to Ireland, the birthplace of his maternal grandmother, and pleaded for asylum. 'I never, ever, expected that Muslims would come under the influence of extremists in Ireland when I arrived here with my family. So I was shocked to find support for Osama bin Laden, to discover the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and even al-Qaeda here in Dublin.' Satardien fell out with the main Dublin mosque at Clonskeagh, singling out the influence of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian born sheikh who has spoken openly in support of suicide bombers and issued fatwas on gays." Is the future of Ireland?

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 5:02pm

Yes, he has. But let's look at some others on the right. At Justice Sunday I (in 2005) and Justice Sunday II (2006), just to name two well-covered right-wing conferences, you had ministers (Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, etc.) and non-clerics (Phyllis Schlafly, Tom DeLay, etc.) either advancing or agreeing with rhetoric that advocated violent attacks against our federal judiciary and political progressives. (And Republican members of Congress also echoed such views.) One, I believe, actually approvingly quoted Joseph Stalin on his murderous system for dealing with political opponents. Some of the participants, who, I will note again, had the ear of powerful people in the administration and Congress (some like Frist or DeLay were Congressional leaders), were actively advocating theocratizing and Dominionist views, as against our longstanding secular political tradition and structure. Were these people on the fringes, I would say, big deal, but they have the ear not only of the White House, but also of Republican leaders in both houses of Congress. Ann Coulter, who now faces multiple felon charges for voting fraud, "joked" about the killing of a US Supreme Court Justice. Where was the outrage about their commentary? Did the mainstream media get as worked about these clearly dangerous statements as it does about "left" "bloggers" or the president's critics in the Democratic Party? Who is advocating the destruction of our longstanding cultural and social values? Some of these people are really as ideologically scary as this nutty critic; some do believe that women wearing whatever they want constitutes "exposed meat" and call for the submission of wives to their husbands; etc. Some do want a religious holy war, only not on behalf of Islam, but Christianity, no? The fact is, these extremely disturbing and provocative statements usually provoke little comment from the right or even supposed "moderates," and when they do receive criticism from the left or even just ethically and morally oriented people, the frequent defense is recourse to "free speech." Well, okay. I'll buy that. So in liberal democratic republics like the United States and Australia, it applies as much for Islamic fanatics like this cleric, as it does for fanatics like Rev. Pat Robertson, whether we disagree with one or both or neither. Doesn't it?

- jrk3150

January 14, 2007 at 5:32pm

A few typos from quick typing: paragraph 2: "some participants like Frist or DeLay" "multiple felony charges" "as this nutty cleric."

- jrk3150

January 14, 2007 at 5:35pm

Ha, ha,the guy sounds like he is ready for his pilgrimage to Mecca. Does he really believe that the Observer of all papers would print something about Jihadists if it weren't true?

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 5:45pm

Cleary less love and more truth, please.

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 5:47pm

"either advancing or agreeing with rhetoric that advocated violent attacks against our federal judiciary and political progressives." Baloney. That is absolutely false. "Ann Coulter, who now faces multiple felon charges for voting fraud" When did this happen? I am utterly unaware of such charges. Also, a number of conservative thinkers have critized Pat Robertson's dumb statements. This is regularly done at the NR Corner. Morevoer, even if the worst is true about Robertson's wish for Hugo Chavez---it does not begin to compete with those vile calls for murder of innocent people by some Muslim clerics.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 6:11pm

mr cleary, begob you're speakin' the truth there boyo! And your post reminds me of an old joke from the Northern Ireland troubles, which I alter here in the spirit of this thread. A masked gunman ambushes a guy on a Belfast street at night. "Are ye a Catholic or a Protestant?" he says, pointing a revolver at the guy's head. "Er . . . I'm a Muslim," says the guy, trembling. The gunman is taken aback for a moment, then he asks the guy menacingly: "A Catholic Muslim or a Protestant Muslim?"

- ironyroad

January 14, 2007 at 7:51pm

Double, ha, ha, ha, you clearly don't know the Boston Irish if you think that, Cleary.

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 7:53pm

I heard that joke in a number of different versions where the stopped man was a Jew, an atheist,... In another version of the joke the gunman answers the man, "a Jew, he, well I am the luckiest Muslim in Dublin!"

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 7:56pm

Ann Coulter is being investigated for "voter fraud." She may have mistakenly voted in the wrong district. However, this is a very difficult charge to prove in a court of law. In this particular situation---ignorance of the law is a justified defense. Honest mistakes are overlooked. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coulter was unambiguously aware that she was violating the law. Ann Coulter and I disagree about Joe McCarthy. She believes that he was pure as the driven snow. I consider McCarthy to be a liar and a very flawed individual who was tacking a legitimate problem. There were indeed Communists in our government! That is beyong debate. McCarthy did more good than harm---but he still did hurt a number of innocent people.

- thomsondavid

January 14, 2007 at 8:30pm

That's true, jd, but I think the joke only works if it's Belfast or Derry, not Dublin. Dublin's not in Northern Ireland.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2007 at 9:10pm

OK, but it was your joke; you brought it up.

- jacksondyer

January 14, 2007 at 9:45pm

Whatever. I was just saying . . . oh, never mind.

- ironyroad

January 15, 2007 at 12:47am

Test

- ThorsProvoni

January 15, 2007 at 5:41am

Is this man not an utter nutcase, a dangerous nutcase. After all, he is the leader of a quarter of a million Muslims in Australia. How did the Labor prime minister, John Howard, react? "He played down the seriousness of recent statements made by the clergymen, describing it as a mere joke." That's perfectly clear although it comes from the garbled translation. Will some of you out there concoct of a negotiating plan for dealing with this man?

- ThorsProvoni

January 15, 2007 at 5:52am

I go away for a couple of hours and we move from the Aussie Mufti to Northern Irish Dubliners and Anne Coulter. Irony: Way back when, we were, I guess talking about the same thing, only approached it from different angles. And - I'm easily confused. Jackson and Thomson: I know about the Logical Fallacy of Authority, but then, pace the Bentsen/Quayle debate, there is much to recommend it. I've lived under a theocratic regime; I've seen classmates transformed from normal Westernised teens to suicidal mine-walkers; I've had cousins and friends go to the gallows or stand before the firing squad for opposing Islamic radicalism. I supported Bush in Afghanistan and, foolishly, in Iraq, precisely because of my personal fear of Islamist and Muslim terrorists. Finally, I have read (and been instructed in) enough of the Qur'an and the Hadith to know that all the "Islam is a religion of peace" pieties mouthed by Bush and Blair and King Fahd are just that: pieties. Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity was a religion of tolerance under Torquemada: that is, it all depends on the interpretation, the moment, the leaders and so on ... All this to say that at least in respect of this poor writer, the assessment of the threat posed by the ramblings of an imam or mufti, in Australia or Ireland or Liechtenstein for that matter, is done with full knowledge of the dangers posed by Islamist radicals. Full - and clear-eyed. We do ourselves no good by getting unduly exercised about every idiotic expression of hatred by every two-bit Mufti or Imam; we do our own history a grave disservice by making unetanble analogies that distract, rather than clarify, the threats we are facing. Let us go back to the silly Mufti: he is claiming that Muslims have more claim to Australia than the Anglosaxons? What does he wish to accomplish? And what is he actually accomplishing? He is enraging the Anglos; forcing the Anglos and the Asians into a coalition against the Muslims; he is splitting Aussie Muslims into pro-Aussie and pro-radical factions ... in short, he is hardly a leading figure to inspire confidence in his followers and fear in his opponents. I'm more inclined, in respect of this particular idiot, to take the word of the conservative Prime Minister of Austrlia, and the (non-ironic,I hope) advice of Ironyroad to open a Fosters and chill. Keep the venom, the outrage, the passion, the anger and ammunition for a real threat.

- icarusr

January 15, 2007 at 6:21am

He's baaaaaaaack!

- jm_rice

January 15, 2007 at 7:22am

"We do ourselves no good by getting unduly exercised about every idiotic expression of hatred by every two-bit Mufti or Imam; we do our own history a grave disservice by making unetanble analogies that distract, rather than clarify, the threats we are facing." It isn't just one or two crazy Imams, icarus. They express an ideological point of view held by millions as well as by a number of governments such as Iran and Saudi Arabia's clerical elite. if you did actually face threats from Islamicists then you wouldn't take such rantings lightly. Would pay attention to them and denounce them. Your attitude show me that you are just grandstanding.

- jacksondyer

January 15, 2007 at 9:58am

Baloney. That is absolutely false. Here are some of your right-wing advocates, including Mr. Edwin Vieira at Justice Sunday--now are you going to claim, in the face of the facts, that my statements are "absolutely false"? Do you agree with these people? Or why are you covering for them?: Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President: "There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench." LA Times, April 22, 2005 Tom DeLay:

- jrk3150

January 15, 2007 at 1:04pm

The only ones who can really put this man in his proper place are his fellow muslims, especially women muslims. Ideally, an entertainer with a wide following in the msulim world and a wicked sense of humor.

- teplukhin

January 15, 2007 at 1:25pm

Amen.

- icarusr

January 15, 2007 at 1:42pm

Not a muslim Margaret Cho type, mind you, but a mainstream, "good muslim woman" chanteuse or actress who's too popular and wealthy to take any BS from idiot men.

- teplukhin

January 15, 2007 at 2:08pm

Get this -- I post an Islamized version of the "Jew in N. Ireland" joke for cleary and everyone; jacksondyer comes back at me with an archaeological piece on the original Jewish joke but misplaces it in Dublin. I gently point out the inappropriateness of the setting to jd, and he responds with a weirdly illogical accusatory dig that it was my joke in the first place (which I don't deny, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs in Galway?). Finally, icarusr returns to deliver a magisterial judgment on the ominous thematic slippage toward Ireland (oh, and Ann Coulter). Help! And the Australian Imam thinks he has problems!

- ironyroad

January 15, 2007 at 2:20pm

If this imam in Australia only were 'a nut case' whose offensive speech had no real effect, we would be correct in smiling and dismissing him. Unfortunately, this fellow, who does have high status amongst Australian Muslims, and other imams, who may be less well-known, have encouraged conditions which are dangerous to non-Muslim Australians. When the second Intifada began, Jewish children in Bondi Junction (a suburb of Sydney an hour away from heavily Muslims suburbs) were chased down streets by Muslim youth who threatened them with violence; a local rabbi's succah (a banquet 'hut' used during a Jewish festival) was firebombed--luckily, no one was injured. For years, heavily Muslim Sydney suburbs, e.g., Bankstown and Lakemba, have been largely 'off-limits' for non-Muslims after dark, for fear of harassment and bodily assault. Just recently, a Sydney Yeshiva student was assaulted, almost fatally, while out at night. The common Australian attitude of being largely immune from the political problems of the outside world has led to a belated awakening to a problem they have unwittingly imported: the influx of thousands of immigrants who do not subscribe to the freedom-loving, laid-back Aussie lifestyle. Many of these people, with their fellow Islamic fundamentalists worldwide, wish to destroy this freedom, by any means--and in this regard, violent means are not precluded by the Koran.

- JBerkowicz

January 15, 2007 at 2:33pm

OK so miswrote "Dublin" instead of "Belfast." Sue me, roadster.

- jacksondyer

January 15, 2007 at 3:53pm

Well said, Berkowicz.

- jacksondyer

January 15, 2007 at 3:54pm

So the Aussies have a Muslim problem, eh? Too bad. Maybe they should start concentration camps in Cuba too.

- Icewiz

January 15, 2007 at 4:01pm

"Sue me, roadster." I'd do better than that, jd. I'd say, hey, come in, sit down, take the weight off your feet, and grab a Fosters!

- ironyroad

January 15, 2007 at 5:41pm

I knew I should have put a smiley after that first sentence. The Internet is evidently not a perfect medium of communication, when a simple crack ends up sounding like a magisterial judgement ... or perhaps you were being ironic about that? :-) It's late this side of the pond; good night to all, and keep the brew flowing.

- icarusr

January 15, 2007 at 5:52pm

"...and grab a Fosters!" Hey, can I get to chose my own beer?

- jacksondyer

January 15, 2007 at 5:53pm

If you compare Hitler to that sheik, not only do you sound like hysterical little girls, but you manage to trivialize what Hitler did. There's no thousand percent inflation in Austria? The majority of Australians are not buying what he says hook, line, and sinker.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 15, 2007 at 8:11pm

"... but a mainstream, "good muslim woman" chanteuse or actress who's too popular and wealthy to take any BS from idiot men." Already done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali (or http://tinyurl.com/y6sm8j). "Australia - Where It's Tomorrow Already"

- tomjr

January 15, 2007 at 9:40pm

She is an Alawite ya ruhi, and therefore an infidel, a heretic, and a sharmuta. A "good muslim woman"? Pleeeease, allow us to laugh!

- rmakover

January 16, 2007 at 8:15am

And a cokehead to boot. Keep looking.

- teplukhin

January 16, 2007 at 2:18pm

Actually it was her (legal) glass of champagne, not her (alleged) (illegal) snorting, that cost Iktimal the most cred in the Australian Muslim community. But either way she lost cred. Having said that, "at least" [sic] she's not a lesbian, so she's not as much a "Margaret Cho Muslim" as Irshad Manji, the usual front-runner for the role of doing a Beatrice on the mullahs and still getting listened to. As for her being Alawi, my impression of the current "Sunnis cheering for Hezbollah and Shi'ites for al-Qaeda" is that the sectarian barriers are not always salient when it's a matter of Muslim versus non-Muslim. When al-Hage was appointed to the Fed Gov's Muslim Advisory Committee, I didn't hear [m]any Aust Muslims (most of whom are moderates, like US Muslims) protest her sect, sex, or unveiled state at the time. Of course, her, ah, substance preferences were not public knowledge then either. My point remains: someone like her is equipped to refute people like Hilaly from within the Islamic tradition. Weeks ago I saw her on TV, in a studio audience of Muslim women, about 75% of them veiled. One of whom protested that Hilaly's "cat meat" comments had been "mistranslated" from Arabic. Iktimal snapped back "My Arabic's very good, thank you - I know exactly what he said." You go, gal.

- tomjr

January 16, 2007 at 4:10pm

I'll raise my glass to her.

- teplukhin

January 17, 2007 at 2:48am

It's the other way around.

- rmakover

January 17, 2007 at 7:44am

That was my point. Experts have claimed that, whatever the internal sectarian divisions between militant Sunnis and militant Shi'a, both sides are now more willing than ever to join together against the non-Muslim infidel. Having said that, the problem for Alawis (and for Ismailis, Ahmadis, Druze and Sufis) seems to be that even when Shi'a and Sunni fundamentalists agree to tolerate *each other*, they still regard the smaller sects as heretics (in Christian terms, much like - say - Fr RJ Neuhaus signing "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" but then writing "Is Mormonism Christian?" Except of course that RJN has no wepapons or bomb caches, even in Damon Linker's world...)

- tomjr

January 17, 2007 at 3:18pm