Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Archbishop of Allah

By Jonathan J. Ariel - posted Friday, 15 February 2008


Therefore, every time a Muslim did or said something that was out of kilter with European mores  Europe’s intelligentsia would try to “understand” Islamic radicalism by exaggerating the behaviour of Western leaders.

Euro-logic dictated that such behaviour was not a hallmark of incompatable religious values, but rather was an expression of a “different culture” whose differences must be accepted and understood in a multicultural society.

In June 2003, Norwegian historian Lin Silje Nilsen defended a proposal to establish a sharia court. She explained that minorities should have the right to “protect their culture and religious identity”. She advocated that what was important was “the desire for a dignified life for all and sensitivity to differences (between cultures).

Advertisement

Sadly, for her and for too many European leaders, it’s the remnants of Christian identity in Europe that desperately needs protection.

The decline of Christianity in Europe is demonstrated vividly by Walid al-Kubaisi. The Iraqi author in 1996 published My Faith, Your Myth where he recounts a meeting with a typical politically correct Euro-bureaucrat. The person concerned was the director of a Norwegian “international cultural centre”, a performing venue whose aim was to provide space for ethnic groups to host cultural activities.

Al-Kubaisi criticised this arrangement as fertilising a ghetto mentality and argued that immigrants must embrace the host culture (in this case, Norway) and not reject it in favour of their own imported ideas. He did not understand the logic of keeping immigrants at arm’s length from mainstream society by forcing them to keep their traditions to the exclusion of those of the host country.

The director of the centre stressed that it was not Norway’s government (nor for that matter the European Parliament’s) policy to teach immigrants Norwegian (or any European nation’s) culture, or to prise immigrants away from their long held traditions. “Foreigners” the director lectured, “have their own culture” and “Norwegians have theirs”. Al-Kubaisi left the meeting dispirited, understanding that it was Norway’s (and most of Europe’s) preference that immigrants remain separate and unequal. Forbidden from properly integrating into the society of their host country, and forever viewed as a romantic innocent ideal: unable to commit acts of violence or deeds of evil. And never ever, considered one of “us”.

Bleeding hearts, like misguided European bureaucrats, are not the only facilitators of Europe’s embrace of an intolerant religion. Academic warriors like  Tariq Ramadan, are seen by many as a bridge between Christians and Muslims in Europe. Ramadan  is also viewed as a potential architect of “Euro-Islam” that would involve compromises between Christians and Muslims in Europe in order for “harmony” to prevail.

Christianity he promises, will have to modify its values and its teachings so as to accommodate the Koran, given the swelling numbers of Europe’s Muslims and the sleep walking to extinction practiced by organised Christianity on that continent. Move over Jesus Christ and hello Prophet Mohammed.

Advertisement

Tariq Ramadan’s alleged “moderate” views were tested in 2003 by then French Interior Minister and now President, Mr Nicholas Sarkozy, who asked Ramadam to direct Muslim women to remove their veils and to declare his opposition to the stoning of adulteresses. Ramadam refused the first request and rather than oppose stoning, he suggested a “time out”. This is the same Tariq Ramadan, whose links to terror groups have seen him barred from entering France and the United States, yet he managed to be appointed by former British PM Tony Blair to a government panel to combat, of all things, Muslim violence. Go figure.

Ramadan wrote that European Muslims “are bound by the law in their country of residency to the degree that they are not thus compelled to act against their Muslim conscience”. The question that was not asked of him was: to what extent does their “Muslim conscience” compel them to violate European laws?

Now back to the Archbishop.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

51 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management. He can be contacted at jonathan@chinamail.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan J. Ariel

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan J. Ariel
Article Tools
Comment 51 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy