The increasing threat from Islam

The anti-Islamic presentations by leading Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, during his visit to Australia have produced dismissive reactions from many quarters. But these are instinctive reactions that indicate a failure to properly examine the analysis presented by Wilders (and others). By comparison, the Muslim organisers of a "Peace Conference and Exhibition" at Melbourne Showgrounds appear to have been allowed to import 15 international speakers who include extremist Muslims who have made outrageous statements.

The organisers also claim that Prime Minister Gillard will attend the conference.

The key issue raised by Wilders is that "rather than a religion, Islam is a totalitarian political ideology which aims to impose its legal system on the whole society ... to impose Islamic Sharia law on all ... (and) is totalitarian because it is not voluntary. It orders that people who leave Islam must be killed...lays obligations on non-members".

In support Wilders quotes Australian theologian Mark Durie: "Islam classically demands a political realization, and specifically one in which Islam rules over all other religions, ideologies and competing political visions. Islam is not unique in having a political vision or speaking to politics, but it is unique in demanding that it alone must rule the political sphere."

An important feature of the Wilders visit is the charter presented by his colleague Solomon, who is a convert from Islam to Christianity. This charter lists principal Western values and "invites" believers in Islam to sign it.

It immediately becomes clear that to do this would conflict with the Qu'ran and could not be signed by Muslims. For example, "we commit to upholding the value of freedom and in particular freedom of belief and expression ... that religion is a private and personal matter and a personal choice".

Another important development is the emergence of the Q Society, which sponsored and arranged the visit. This does not come across as an aggressive body but seeks to educate people about Islam, its government funded promotion and what it describes as "creeping Sharia compliance". The Society is secular and has no party-political affiliations. Formed by individuals who can be described as ordinary Australians, this Society has brought into the public arena an issue that has not hitherto been seriously addressed at such a level. Importantly the Quadrant magazine has been the principal source of published critical analyses of Islam in the media.

I have now been assessing Islamic views and actions for several years and support the analysis by Wilders, Durie and the Q Society. Based also on analyses of ASIO reports, my conclusion is that Australia faces continuing conflict with domestic extremist Islamic groups that take or threaten to take violent actions against non-Muslims and have no compunction in killing fellow Muslims if they stand in the way of such actions.

Last September David Irvine, ASIO's Director-General of Security told the Security in Government Conference 2012 that "it is ASIO's assessment that Australia remains a target for a range of individuals and groups who would promote their belief systems and seek to destroy our democratic way of life - not by some imagined, slow-time conspiracy or slow-burning action, but in a violent and irreversible instant. So violent Islamic extremism remains a focus for ASIO. The threat posed by this form of extremism is ongoing, pervasive and persistent".

The Director-General did not raise the question of what the government might do in response - other than through ASIO and other similar agencies. In short, while Australians are spending considerable sums on detecting and trying to prevent terrorist acts, that appears to be as far as the government will go.

It is surprising that such assessments were given such little public attention at the time and in the context of Wilders' visit. No mention has been made of the 25 or so convictions of extremist Muslims who have attempted violent action in Australia but were caught before harm was done.

Unlike the USA, the UK and Spain we have yet to experience any losses of lives. But any reading of ASIO publications would indicate that this fortunate experience is unlikely to be sustained. Indeed, based on a reading of a judge's summing up in one case, it seems likely that at least some of those imprisoned will continue their activities when their sentences finish.

Of course, Australia is already involved in military action overseas against Islamic terrorist groups. Along with some other western countries, we are using both military and police forces overseas to assist countries combat domestic action by such groups.

In short, we are in reality already opposing Islam as an all-encompassing system which rejects Western values and to which all who accept Islam or live in countries under Islamic regimes have to conform. But because there is widespread acceptance of the freedom of religion concept, our opposition occurs without actually pointing the finger at Islam itself. Instead, the action we take is described as helping the stability of other countries or some such language. As such, we and other western countries are disguising the fact that we face what constitutes an even greater threat to western civilisation than World War 11.

This is not to suggest that there is an imminent serious threat from domestic or external Islamic groups or countries. The extent and timing of any aggressive action against or within one or more western countries is unpredictable and but it cannot be ruled out that an extremist Islamic group will access and use nuclear weaponry. We already know that the most extreme Islamic country, Iran, is seeking to so arm itself and is financing action by terrorist groups operating in western countries and/or prepared to act against them.

In my view the extent of future threats will also depend on the extent to which western countries make it clear that Islam is an unacceptable philosophy and that only western values, particularly the dominant position of the state, are acceptable. Exactly how this might be done would require a separate detailed analysis and discussion but something along the lines of the charter brought by Wilders provides an example. In two articles of mine published in Quadrant, as well as public speeches, I have written briefly on this aspect (see my web at www.ipe.net.au ) as has my colleague John Stone.

It is argued that Australian is a multi-cultural society that allows different cultures to exist and to be pursued. This is said to be of benefit to the community. It is also commonly said that freedom of religion should exist ie there should be no discrimination against a religion.

However, Australia supports western values and some cultures and religions are not necessarily consistent with these. This is clearly the case with Islam which puts religion before the country or, as one imam has put it, "a Muslim has no nationality except his beliefs". Some Muslim groups are in fact already banned where they overtly pursue terrorist activity. Why should we limit the banning? Given that the stated objectives in the Qu'ran include violence against other religions and individuals, a case can be made for banning the practice of Islam in Australia.