Australian Muslim Leaders Speak Up

Waddling Like a Duck

Newspaper columnist, Andrew Bolt calls our attention to a recent proclamation by Australia's "leading Muslims".  They were objecting to the current policy settings of Australia towards Israel, Hamas, and Australian citizens who have gone to the Middle East to participate in the Islamic jihad.

The signatories include "moderate Muslims" as well as more radical types.  "Moderates" are represented by

academics, the Australian Muslim Women’s Association, the Canberra Islamic Centre and numerous university Islamic societies.

Ok, then.  But here comes one of the more revealing protestations:

We also reject government attempts to divide the Muslim community into ‘radicals’ and ‘moderates’

So, the Australian Muslim community is actually one homogeneity.  It does not consist of "radicals" and "moderates"--by its own testimony.  What are we to make of this?
  Bolt's response is:

This is disastrous. The West has indeed tried to make just that diplomatic distinction to allow us to fight the extremists without alienating “moderate Muslims”.  Now 80 Muslim representatives tell us they reject that division. Touch a radical and we attack all Muslims.

Our response is to point out the other horn of the dilemma implied in the statement.  The necessary implication from the testimony of Australian Muslims own leadership is, touch any supposed moderate Muslim and you finger an actual radical.

The effete liberal anti-hate speech brigade by now will be looking just-ever-so-slightly foolish.  Their distinction between true Muslims (that is, ostensible lovers of the Religion of Peace) and Islamist extremists just went down the tubes--at the insistence of Islamic leaders in Australia.  They are all the same, apparently. 

"No, no, no!" say the effete liberals.  These moderate Islamic folk have been driven to stand with the extremists as a result of all the hate speech they have endured in recent years.  To which we reply, if it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . it's a duck.  The burden of proof to the contrary is on the "duck".