Is the Austrian policy on Islam right or just right-wing?

There is concern that radicalisation of Muslims is going on in mosques.

A battle is going on between moderates and radicals.

This is what Thomas Sutrina put up on one of my posts:

‘I am going to let a Muslim national leader tell you the facts:  2015 New Year’s day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse.

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” he asked. “Impossible.”

Speaking to an audience of religious scholars celebrating the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, he called on the religious establishment to lead the fight for moderation in the Muslim world. “You imams (prayer leaders) are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.” …

It is good to hear moderate Muslim leaders talking like this. We need more of it. Moderate Muslims should unite and reject radical teachings. They should all speak up.

In Austria the new Right-wing government is taking extreme action. They are expelling 40 Imams and shutting down 7 mosques. They claim these are funded from outside and used to broadcast radical views.

I am suspicious of right-wing motives but I largely agree. I do not believe that we should allow radical doctrines that are at odds with our values to be taught. I think radical doctrines that promote hate or division should be illegal and Imams who spread it should be deported and the mosques shut down (the same goes for Madrassas). I would prefer that the moderates do their own policing and I am still concerned that the Austrian action is in danger of being xenophobic or even racist. We’ll see how far it goes.

France, who have suffered a number of dreadful terrorist acts at the hand of radicalised fundamentalists, have already begun this process of expelling radicals and have shut down 20 mosques since December. Hopefully they will get the balance right.

Mosques should be places where people go to worship their god not somewhere that plots against its hosts. There is no place for politics in places of worship.

I think we should welcome Muslims who wish to integrate and accept our overriding values. The majority of Muslims are moderate and law-abiding. It is the minority who are spreading hate that need dealing with.

To start with we could put a stop to the ridiculous Tory policies that set up religious schools and support segregation of Muslim kids. We all need to learn to understand each other and get along together.

 

40 thoughts on “Is the Austrian policy on Islam right or just right-wing?

  1. I’d agree generally. The basic problem in Western countries is that anyone can open a mosque and there is little or no supervision by the State in contrast to Christian churches for example. If you go to a mosque in an Islamic State like Pakistan for example you will find that the Pakistani government is in overall control plus they don’t ask you for money in contrast to the mosques in the UK which are privately run as charities and are basically unanswerable to anyone. Btw the correct spelling of the Prophet’s name is Muhammad not Mohammed. Mohammed is the common first name but it is insulting to name someone with the Prophet’s exact name.

  2. One thing is for certain Opher, such action could simply not be classed as “racist”.
    How could you arrive at that expression in this context? This is plainly wrong to do so.
    Islam is not a race of people but a religious belief which maybe interpreted by any person from any race, creed, or culture.
    Why also would it be “xenophobic”? Didn’t you just describe the reasons for the clamp down, that there was evidence of expression of radical views. Why is that therefore, xenophobic?
    By your logic as expressed here, therefore, would you class the current prosecutions of Pakistani child rapists as “xenophobic”?
    You must be much more careful to use such expressions in a far more controlled and constrained manner. As this is one of the fall-down traits of these lefties who bandy around categorical expressionism like confetti. The words begin to lose the power of identity.

    Pakistan is an Islamic state. First and foremost is the word of Islam. You cannot compare that Islamic machine to anything of such nature in the UK. For very obvious reasons all mosques opening and/or running in UK (and any other non-Muslim state run country) are privately funded and completely without any state interference.
    It is only in very recent years due to the threats of radicalisation that infiltration has been conducted into some mosques to gather intelligence information. Prior to this, they were left to their own devices.
    I would say that these charities financial accounts are answerable to the Internal Revenue for examination purposes. In fact some creditable information has been gathered from such sources.

    Suffice to say that the moderate Muslims are not the problem, that stems from the 20% of radicals and leadership people. Islam is not a localised entity, but takes instruction of mandate from its controllers in Saudi Arabia. We can never have any control over that.

    1. Simple – I apply racism in a broader sense than you do. Hence I can apply it to a religion.
      As I said – I am not concerned as long as the actions are aimed purely at the radicalised fundamentalists. They deserve to be kicked out. That wouldn’t either be xenophobic or racist in my view. My worry is that behind this is a wider belief that is both racist and xenophobic and could be directed at a wider Muslim population.
      I would suggest that we have to look at where funding is coming from and why and start regulating and policing mosques much more thoroughly but this has to be done with the help of moderate Muslims. I think it is in their interests as well.

      1. Sisi got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood because they had created a social environment in which extremists considered they had a free hand to compel with impunity citizens to behave in a specific way. For example women were viciously attacked in public for not covering up.
        Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
        ________________________________
        From: Opher’s World
        Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:55:43 +0000
        To:
        ReplyTo: Opher’s World
        Subject: [New comment] Is the Austrian policy on Islam right or just right-wing?

        Opher commented: “Simple – I apply racism in a broader sense than you do. Hence I can apply it to a religion. As I said – I am not concerned as long as the actions are aimed purely at the radicalised fundamentalists. They deserve to be kicked out. That wouldn’t either be “

    2. That’s true Roger but attacks on adherents to Islam are often based on racist grounds.
      Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
      ________________________________
      From: Opher’s World
      Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:48:09 +0000
      To:
      ReplyTo: Opher’s World
      Subject: [New comment] Is the Austrian policy on Islam right or just right-wing?

      Roger Newcombe commented: “One thing is for certain Opher, such action could simply not be classed as “racist”. How could you arrive at that expression in this context? This is plainly wrong to do so. Islam is not a race of people but a religious belief which maybe interpreted by”

      1. Yes Bernard, I do understand that. But I think it is high time that we should promote correction of this misuse of the term. Or are we also going to give our language away, too?

    3. Well Opher, I can only suggest that you reign that misuse in. You need to find another word because short of accusing you of ignorance of the English language, I can’t think of anything other than to do so.
      You have access to a dictionary. Please use it and stop bastardising our language.

      1. Well language evolves and unless there is another word that adequately defines that type of hate then I’m happy with widening its scope. What word would you suggest to replace racism when applied to Islam?

      2. Opher, Racism is about Race. Islam is about Religion. Never the twain shall meet.
        What part of that can’t you understand.

      3. I understand that very well. But the hatred aimed at a stereotyped group is exactly the same and, as Bede said, it is aimed at particular groups with a racial element. I see no real distinction. I asked you for a suitable term and you haven’t come up with one. Racism has all the connotations that I perceive as being necessary. Until a better word comes along I’m happy to describe it as racism.

      4. That doesn’t make you correct. Just because you happen to misuse a term does not in any way make it correct to do so. That simply only goes towards highlighting your lack of language skill and obtuse deficit of vocabulary.
        Neither is Bede correct, but he simply expressed a given situation. That does not mean that he himself actually expresses such a term in the exact same manner.
        To use a word or term and to explain a word or term are two entirely different forms of expression. I don’t think that you have fully grasped the differences.

        Opher, there is no substitute term for Race per se. Only sub-genres such as creed, and generalist terms such as breed, folk, people and tribe, none of which are applicable in this context.
        Had you actually studied Latin at school we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
        Malapropos is your weakness.

        RACE: n.
        1. each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
        2. a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
        3. the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
        4. a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
        5. a group of persons, animals, or plants connected by common descent.
        6. any great division of living creatures (the feathered race; the four-footed race).
        7. descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
        8. a class of persons etc. with some common feature (the race of poets).

        What you need to find Opher, is a suitable expressive term that encompasses empathy towards a religious connotation. Then you could by means of malleability find the exact specific that would serve you best.
        Benediximus.

      5. Well at least, despite your extensive knowledge of Latin, you admit there is no word for describing the hate and superiority directed at Islam.
        You once again accuse me of being a liar! I note it. It’s a sign of uncouth rudeness.
        I will, in the face of a lack of alternative, continue to use racism as a term to describe the actions and intentions of a group of ignorant people. The function of language is to communicate. Language is fluid both in definition and use. Racism amply communicates the hatred and attitude of smug superiority aimed at Muslims. I really do not care if Muslims are a race or not. As long as people understand the connotations it performs its task as a term. You are being incredibly pedantic again. Language is not fixed in concrete. Get used to it.

      6. Eh, one tiny detail here, Opher. By the time Muhammad supposedly wrote his prophesies, the language of Latin was pretty much on the way out and under the tutelage of only the Vatican and for religious teaching purposes. Sadly, any further evolution and additions to the language were stunted and hence, why there is no such anti-Islamic term available within the language of Latin.

        I didn’t call you a liar! I stated that I detect that you did not in fact study Latin. The fact that you make claim to the contrary is not my business. I can determine by the virtues of your argument and the manner in which you engage. Any scholar would have immediately agreed with me. But because you are acting on a wing and a prayer and can not supply a smithereen of language genesis appropriate to the discussion, speaks of an end game as far as I am concerned.

        It’s exactly this type of uncouth and semi-educated people with wanton disregard for substance and established protocol who are responsible by design for the slump in the standards applied to our wonderful language. Those readers with an education upon reading your text could only regard you with some degree of pity. It’s people with this sort of careless attitude that bring the worst of habits into our spoken vocabulary, with the misuses of terms such as “obviously” as frequently used as a sentence opener, and multiple injections of “like” sprinkled in between every second word. It’s absolutely appalling. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
        You’d be better served to say sweet f.a.

        You are actually nothing more than a blethering skite. You cannot compare apples and oranges in the manner that you want to. It doesn’t work. The language is not that fluid and definition and use are very clearly defined. As they were by the fucking Oxford Dictionary extract as seen above. Only somebody half-witted without any guidance could arrive at the conclusions as described by yourself. Good grief, a seventy year old man with all the cockiness of some petulant fifteen year old brat, who won’t take a telling. How embarrassing for you. I even feel embarrassed for you.

        The term “Racism” bloody well does not amply communicate the hatred and attitude of smug superiority aimed at Muslims.
        The nearest term that you could properly use would be “anti-Islam” or “anti-Islamists”, because I realise you lefties can’t live without an “ist” word, regardless of how misused and out of context it maybe.

        I believe they do night classes for English language studies. I suggest that you take a night off from the poetry and run along there while the goings still good. It’ll do you wonders.

      7. Feeble Anrew – absolutely feeble – and you’ve done it again! Your arrogance shines out of your arse. How do you pretend to know enough about me to say that I did not do Latin at school? What a pompous prick.
        I did my Latin and failed as I told you. Not that it’s the slightest concern of yours. You just like swaggering around and being a prat. Language genesis. Now you’re an expert on etymology.
        It is pointless talking with someone who is so deliberately provocative, rude and arrogant. It shows a failing in your character I’m afraid.

      8. Opher, if you actually read anything and could remember for more than thirty seconds, you were asked a simple question – what was the literary content of your school’s Latin curriculum? I asked you that straight up. No sneakiness, no back entry, just a straight upfront question. And you know what I got from you there, Opher?
        Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. So what else was I supposed to determine from that?
        That you did or you did not study Latin at school. Surely, even after all these years you could have come up with just a smidgen of information. Just one name of just one Latin writer. But no Opher. You offered nothing and expected me to believe that in fact, despite all the lack of anything that would back your story up, that you had in fact studied Latin at school. But we both know the truth, don’t we Opher? So why play this immature charade?

        Put it this way Opher. I will know a great deal more about the etymology of the English language and the genesis roots of our vocabulary than you ever did or ever will, simply because of the deficits appertaining to your own education. This is neither your fault nor mine, but simply a hard fact of life. I am not being arrogant about this.
        But in the due course of attempts to fully explain to you why you may not use the term “Racist” when used as a collective term towards those persons opposed to Islam or people who practice the worship of Islam, namely Muslims, it was yourself who in fact engaged in a severe form of expression of provocativeness, rudeness and arrogance by exclaiming that you may use any word you so chose in any manner you so chose. Well that’s bullshit and I told you it was. But you being the perpetual spoiled brat wants to whine himself into a corner until he gets his own way.
        Well, put it this way matey, I couldn’t give a flying fuck how semi-educated you look when using the wrong words in the wrong context. It’s your look out and your call. All that remains is for me to mock, scoff, snigger and laugh. Delete as appropriate.

      9. Well Andrew – as if I have to justify myself to you. What are you some arrogant shit after causing trouble?
        We studied Pliny as our main text. Mr Tatloe, my teacher, usually did Caesar but had done it so often he was bored with it. Pliny was tedious for fourteen year olds and I certainly lost interest. The only bit I can remember is some sailor spewing seawater.
        Now, as I am sick of your rudeness I will refrain from answering any of your posts if they contain further slights and unpleasant stupidity.

      10. Opher, Hello! This is the Real Andrew speaking, not the fake one that you’ve started to accuse the Roger guy as being. Poor Roger having to take that shite from you.
        But hey, didn’t he do well!
        From what I’ve just read – as pointed out to me by one of my little elves that give me feedback from various places – he’s whacked your arse into touch well and truly and right out the ball park. Well done that man. Roger In, Opher Out! Excuse me, I really shouldn’t laugh at my own jokes, but why break a bad habit for the sake of political correctness? Not my style, really, what!

        Anyway, I just thought I’d drop in on you Opher and see that it’s still very much the status quo, with you on the back-hoof of defense fending off more intelligent people than your good old self. Hey ho, why change a horse in the middle of a good gallop, eh?

        Seems I’m really not needed as Roger’s doing a bloody good job, isn’t he?
        You must actually be quite pleased to have someone of his caliber around, even if he does smash your dizzy old decrepit ideas into the rubbish collection.
        I see your still banging on about Muslims and Islam. Jings, what more do you need to know? Is that you going about just selecting all the nice and acceptable ones that suit your delicate self. Good for you. Woe betide anything that could cause harm or friction. That just wouldn’t do would it?

        Oh, yes, and Tommy Robinson, too. Of all people in Opher’s World, Tommy Robinson. Dare I even ask your opinion of him or was it about that legal injustice issue, the one that’s upset what looks like half of the thinking world. Top stuff anyway. Seems Roger knows what he’s talking about there too. But that’s just my immediate opinion, so don’t take it personal.

        I nearly forgot Opher. That wee issue you’ve been harbouring for years now, Latin!
        Now Opher, let’s be crystal clear on this, we both know because you told me so some time ago, that you did not in fact do any Latin at school at all. So why the big story to the new guy Roger, all of a sudden. What’s that about. That you covering for perceived inadequacies of some undisclosed nature? Whatever, he’s going to know. Truth is, he clocked you red handed on that, didn’t he.

        That’s all I’ve time for tonight, something else going at 12:30.
        Bye.

      11. OK Opher, I don’t think you received Pliny the Elder at school as that was no way to be introduced to and learn Latin. You did not receive a Naturalis Historia, an encyclopedia of 37 books organised into 10 volumes on natural history as an introduction to learning Latin. What good would that be as it was not a teaching book.
        You as a former teacher should fully understand that and it was most foolish of you to try and pretend to me otherwise.

        The Latin text that you did in fact study, as per every school in the land was not Pliny.
        Had you studied Latin at school, you would have begun with Ecce Romani, which teaches verb structure, Amo, Amas, Amat Amamus, Amatis, Amant, etc., sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary This would have been simply impossible with Pliny the Elder.
        After two years of that you would have moved onto Ovid and only Ovid. You would have read Ovid’s Metamorphoses back to front translated into English and back again translated into Latin. You would have been sick to death of Icarus and Daedalus and cheered every time Icarus fell into the sea and drowned.
        Let that be the end of this nonsense.

      12. I’d see the doctor Andrew. Both schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur can be treated. I’m not sure about the personality faults though.

  3. Opher, wrong guy.
    What is unbelievable and arrogant and stupid is your claim to have been introduced to learning Latin verb structure via an compendium of Nature Encyclopedias.
    You wouldn’t have had a chance in hell of learning anything.
    The more one thinks about that the funnier it gets. LOL.

  4. Opher, Oh dear, here we go round again.
    You didn’t do Latin. We discussed this some time ago. So why the about turn and the ill-conceived and very poorly researched story?
    Picture this, school boy, never even seen a word of Latin, gets some compendium of nature encyclopedia put in front of him and he’s expected to learn verb structure from it! Good god man, what the fuck were you on when you concocted this bullshit story?

    Quite what schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur have anything to do with correcting you on your bullshit story is anyone’s guess.

  5. Andrew – don’t lie. I did my Latin thanks. I didn’t pass it but I did it.
    If I want to know anything more about my life I’ll contact you. You seem to be the expert.

    1. Opher, OK then, let’s just change that word “lie” to “making up stories” or “gross exaggeration”.
      Expert no. But I do know what tools were employed in order to introduce one and teach the language of Latin. It was universal throughout every grammar and/or academy school in the land.
      I went to three secondary schools, one a fee-paying in Scotland for years 1 & 2.
      Although I missed 6 months with being in Brazil with my dad and had to get cramming tutors in upon return. One very horrible summer holiday ruined.
      A county grammar school in Hampshire for year 3 and an academy in Yorkshire for year 4 (O-level). All the same course and all the same teaching books.

      Anything else you need to know while I’m here?

      1. Yes Andrew – when you were doing yours a decade later than me or more things might well have changed.
        We did our stuff on a blackboard with chalk. We didn’t have any textbooks. We wrote endlessly in exercise books. In 1964 -6 Latin was pretty boring. He wrote on the board and we copied it down and learnt it. We regurgitated it next lesson. It was tedious. The book we worked on was a translation of Pliny which was also tedious.
        My school was poor. My education was poor and my teachers were crap. Despite the fact that I was really motivated to do Latin because of my Biology I achieved a grade 8.
        Now I don’t care if you believe me or not. I just know that you have a bloody cheek calling people a liar when you haven’t a clue. It’s just more of your rudeness.
        It was largely because of the atrocious education I was subjected to that I went into teaching. I knew I could do it better and I was right.

      2. Opher, verb structure is the key to understanding any language. That’s the first thing ever taught with languages, whether in children’s school or adult further education classes.
        It’s highly doubtful that Pliny the elder would be your source of introduction to Latin for the simply reason he was regarded as having included outlandish “facts” within the 20,000 or so contained within his compendium collected from over 100 authors of astrology, medicine, geography, zoology and botany, as he did not always fact-check his material and a lot of which may be seen as humorous today.
        He was “big” in the Middle Ages, but somewhat of a forgotten man come the 20th century.
        For instance, Pliny recommended, that in order to counteract a scorpion sting, one should burn the scorpion and drink its ashes with wine.
        Many of Pliny’s entries began with “Some people say…”, hinting to the reader that some of his information was based on conjecture.
        Much of Pliny’s work would be viewed as superstitious by modern readers.

      3. You plonker. I never suggested that we studied grammar with Pliny. We went through all our grammar on the blackboard – pay attention. Pliny was our set book for the exam. What are you prattling on about?
        What are you trying to prove with your pathetic silliness? If you don’t believe me so fucking what? A puerile game.
        Puerile – Latin derivation – boy or child! Very appropriate.

      4. Opher, don’t double back on me now.
        Read your posts and you will see what you said.
        You hadn’t even thought about Verb Structure until I told you about that.
        I can read you like a book and another has already pulled you up for lying.
        You couldn’t even tell me whether it was Pliny the Elder or his nephew Pliny the Younger.
        And you expect me to buy into a single word you make claims to?

        Which book? He had 37 books compiled into 10 volumes. The table of contents needed more than 70 pages!
        In Pliny’s 37 volumes of Natural History, Volume 1 mostly summarized the remaining 36 books. Volume 2 covered cosmology and astronomy. Volumes 3 through 6 described geography. Volumes 7 through 11 covered zoology — everything from people to fish to bugs — relying strongly on the teachings of Aristotle. Volumes 12 through 19 covered botany, including much of the work of Theophrastus. Volumes 20 through 32 were devoted to drugs and medicine. Volumes 33 through 37 covered rocks, metals, and precious stones.
        Very heavy duty stuff and way above the needs of children’s introduction to Latin.
        This is the sort of thing studies by university students at Harvard etc.

        Incidentally, Pliny the Elder was killed during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. It’s uncertain if it he suffocated from volcanic gases or had a heart attack as he had taken a boat into the danger zone earlier then subsequently fell ill with very laboured breathing.
        The lava did not kill him!

        Well done Opher, you learned to work an internet dictionary?

  6. I do believe there are way more moderates out there than extremists in any religion. The trouble is, the folks who take “love your neighbor” seriously don’t go around tooting their own horns so you don’t hear about them.

      1. So how do we remove them from the spotlight which is want they want, to be front and center in the news. Lord knows stories about good people and things don’t sell newspapers or grab our attention on the internet. Or would that just inflame the situation? Sort of like happens on your blog when people decide to be asses.

      2. I don’t know Cheryl. It seems the more extreme always create the stories people want to hear. At my school we promoted tolerance, respect, empathy and responsibility. It took a while to settle in but it worked and created a very pleasant, friendly environment. I think that is what needs to happen globally. All the violence, aggression and unpleasantness is processed though restorative practice. It works.
        So there is no easy answer but there is a way forward.

      3. But we don’t want a way forward. We want an answer RIGHT NOW and the powers that be will accept nothing less it seems. So let’s not consider ANYTHING! Blah…

  7. Their answer is to blow up, kill, ostracise, ban and build walls. Then, when that only serves to exacerbate the situation they call for more wars, more bombs, better missiles, more hatred, bigger walls………. Then when that doesn’t work………………….

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.