It is a strange quirk of the human condition that we almost universally romanticise the past.

T H White captured the sentiment in his lovely book The Once and Future King. The myth of King Arthur and Camelot reflect our desire to reclaim an idealised past. As in many such myths (including the Christian one) we are encouraged to believe that the wise, benevolent king will come again to rule us.  So many belief systems have a tradition of a “golden age” that its proponents yearn to return.

We look back on our own childhoods (of course there are some exceptions) with fond nostalgia. Our recollections are less than objective. We selectively remember the best and expunge the worst. (Notwithstanding that a minority exaggerate the worst and expunge the best!) There is no difficulty with all of this usually. Our well-being is enhanced by indulging in the selective memories and nostalgia we choose to derive from our past.

At a collective level however, this quirk poses some difficulties. I believe this is a factor in the collision between Islam and the West in modern times.

The golden age of Islam occurred around 750AD. At this period the Muslims had successfully conquered the Middle East, North Africa and a large part of Spain. However it was not just the territory that they controlled but the relative sophistication of the Islamic society that set it apart. Islam had preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans that had been lost to the Europeans in the Dark Ages. It had fostered scholarship and trade. Under its protective umbrella science and mathematics prospered and were revered.

Some Muslims have a dream of jame towhidi, the society of believers. This is a dream of recreating things as they had been in the earliest days of Islam, when the Prophet ruled, and the spiritual and the secular were one, and everything that was done by the as yet small community could be said to be serving the faith.

Islam is now the fastest growing religion. Islam predominates in such Middle Eastern countries as Iran, Iraq and Pakistan and Egypt. But most of the world’s Islamic population live in Asia. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country. Countries dominated by Muslim populations include Turkey, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. There are also rapidly growing Muslim minorities in many European communities which are eroding traditional European values and traditions

But a quick perusal of the heartland of Islam reveals Muslims now tend to occupy underdeveloped countries with low standards of living in sharp contrast with their glorious early history. This seems to have fostered a climate of resentment against those who are materially better off. As a result a movement has been created that agitates for a return to the past in the mistaken belief that this will somehow change things for the better. This movement is generally known as “Islamism”.

I read a story recently of a young man who fought for Iran in the war with Iraq (1980-1988). When speaking of the Islamists he fought alongside he said:

“They are people who think they have lost something. They think the rich people have stolen it from them. So they can be aggressive.”

Whilst Islamism means somewhat different things to different people, it refers most widely to an ideology that is aggressively Anti-Western and promotes mediaeval Islamic practices. This movement has spawned such fundamentalist militant groups as the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and of course al-Qaeda. Its most recent offshoot is the Islamic State which challenged Syria and Iraq.

Islam is a religion based on what was purportedly revealed to Muhammad and later recorded in the Quran and the Hadith. Islamism, on the other hand is a political movement aimed at creating an Islamic state or even (as we have seen) a transnational Caliphate.

However, whilst Islamists believe they are returning their beliefs to norms established in their golden age, some scholars of religion maintain that their beliefs come from more recent sources. Stephen Prothero, chair of the department of religion at Boston University, points out that Islamic fundamentalism is actually a modern invention, (as in fact is also Christian fundamentalism), deeply influenced by the Western ideologies it seeks to oppose.

Prothero writes:

The greatest intellectual influence on [Islamism] is likely the Egyptian theologian Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) who urged his followers to fight a holy war against secularism, democracy and the West. Islamism’s heroes are so-called martyrs, who, in violation of a clear Quranic prescription against suicide, blow themselves up for, among other things, promise of instant transport to Paradise. The villains are Israel and the “Great Satan”, the United States, but Islamists also denounce as evildoers (and apostates) fellow Muslims who interpret Islam in a more mainstream manner.

The joys of being subject to Islamism are evidenced by reports from Mosul in Iraq when it was over-run by forces of the Islamic State. Newspaper reports indicate that Christians in the city faced “death by the sword” if they did not convert to Islam or pay jizya, a special tax levied on non-Muslims. There were reports in the press that the Islamist militants that had over-run the town had decreed that all females between the ages of 11 and 46 must be subject to genital mutilation.

In its main stronghold in Syria, the city of Raqqa, the Islamic State is reported as having crucified Christians for disobeying orders, of cutting off the hands of accused thieves in public and killing all those who are considered more serious offenders.

In such communities Sharia prevails. As a consequence women are suppressed, not having the same rights as men under the law, forbidden education, not allowed out of their abodes unless accompanied by a family member and compelled to wear traditional clothing that virtually covers their entire bodies.

In the West we are inclined to be tolerant of people with different religious views. And it is entirely appropriate that we should allow Muslims the freedom to worship Allah in their traditional way. But it seems to me that we should be very circumspect in allowing Islamists, who seek to compel others to believe in Islam and enshrine in law their mediaeval beliefs, to do as they will. In doing so, we threaten democracy and the benefits of modern Western societies.

Until relatively recent times the prime struggle for Islam was with Christianity. The relationship between Islam and Christianity has had a variable history. The struggle to dominate Jerusalem, for example, occupied the ambitions of both religions with terrible consequences. The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in in 637. The Christians took it back in 1099. But they were forced to relinquish it again to the Muslims under the legendary Muslim hero, Saladin, who again prevailed in1187.

There have been times and places when and where both religions have coexisted amicably. But in the last hundred years or so, Islam as represented by Islamism, has become very intolerant of competing faiths. Christians are no longer the only enemy of Islamism. The movement seeks to quash any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. that doesn’t centre on Allah and his supposed prophet, Muhammad. Indeed the growing conflict emanating from Islamism seems to have been greatly exacerbated by the desire of Islamists not only to convert others to Islam but to also, as we saw above, have the state enforce extreme and fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.

An exception is Indonesia. As one of the founders of the Islamic movement in Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid, explained:

We realised how detrimental the direct link had proved between Islam and politics – as in Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia – because people everywhere then saw Islam as a religion using violence, which in our thoughts is not so. In our thoughts Islam is a moral force which works through ethics and morality.

People should practice Islam out of conscience, not out of fear. [Islamists] create a fear among non-Muslims to show their identity. This is the first step to tyranny.

As a result, even though Indonesia’s population comprises more Muslims than any other country in the world, pluralism is tolerated there to a degree not evidenced in many other Muslim countries.

The dilemma posed by Islam was nicely described by Nobel Prize winning author, V.S.Naipaul.

The cruelty of Islamic Fundamentalism is that it allows only to one people – the Arabs, the original people of the Prophet – a past, and sacred places, pilgrimages and earth reverences. These sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places of all the converted peoples. Converted peoples have to strip themselves of their past; of converted peoples nothing is required but the purest faith (if such a thing can be arrived at). Islam implies total submission. It is the most uncompromising kind of imperialism.

It is important in a modern democracy that people be allowed to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. If Wahid’s philosophy prevailed Muslims would be welcome to take their place alongside other religious believers. The tenets of Islamism, however, will not allow such freedom. It is fitting that we should allow Islam to be worshipped in our society but when embellished as Islamism and it adopts the uncompromising kind of imperialism that Naipaul describes, it should be resisted at all costs.

The radical Islamists, as we saw above, have dangerous ideas that must be challenged if we are to preserve any semblance of our traditional way of life we must stand up and decry such ideas. Unfortunately, in Australia, if we dare to contest these dangerous ideas we are liable to be labelled Islamophobic!

The current Albanese government has been quick to call out Islamophobia even when it isn’t manifested in any substantial way. On the other hand they have been reluctant to decry anti-Semitism even when it has become widespread since the 7 October 2023 atrocity carried out against Israel by Hamas.

There are two other factors to consider when we strive to understand Islamism and its deleterious impact on the West.

Firstly we need to understand that whilst Islamism resents the West and seeks to undermine it, Islam itself is rent by a dreadful schism.

Because of the complex and checquered history of Islam there has evolved many different schools (indeed just like Christianity). However the main division in Islam is that between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims. This division arose over who had the right to assume leadership over Muslims after the death of Muhammad. Because Muhammad had made it clear that he was the last of all the prophets (a good way to ensure your fame in perpetuity!) the new leader could not have that status but was instead nominated as the Caliph. There are various interpretations of what the term “Caliph” means but it is generally accepted that, in general terms, the Caliph is Allah’s worldly representative.

The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a Caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives Followers of Shia Islam however, believe a Caliph should be an Imam chosen from direct descendants of Muhammad.

This schism which developed in the decades following the death of Muhammad is in many ways more dysfunctional than the antagonism between Islam and the West and has resulted in many more deaths and atrocities. In this respect, Muslims themselves have been the greatest victims of the dysfunction in their religious beliefs. It seems to me that whilst this prevails they have little chance of improving their collective lot.

The second obscene influence is the belief of the Islamists in martyrdom.

In previous essays I have titled the notions of martyrdom that underpin the motives of the jihadists as a dangerous idea. If one believes that sacrificing yourself in promoting the cause of Allah leads to automatic entry to paradise then many will be tempted to commit horrific acts without concern for their own physical welfare. Such people are fearless believing that there is little use in pursuing well-being in their current existence but relying on their perverted ideas about faith to be rewarded in the afterlife.

As a result they present a significant challenge to the majority of people who believe there is merit in trying to live out their lives minimising their pain and suffering and maximising their opportunities for material progress and general well-being. But the so-called martyrs are prepared to assault, defile and slay other humans because of their inherent belief that to die in the cause of Islam brings an immediate passport to paradise!

Why we find it so difficult to come to terms with the militant Islamists is because their values are so different from our own. It is enlightening to consider the words of the fundamentalist British Imam, Anjem Choudary as quoted by the Canadian journalist Duncan Pike in an article about free speech.

Choudary has called the September 11 (2001) hijackers “ the magnificent martyrs”  and stated that non-Muslims cannot, by definition, be considered innocent: ‘When we say ‘innocent people’, we mean Muslims—as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.’ As for permissible tactics when confronting such ‘criminals,’ Choudary is unequivocal: ‘Terrorizing the enemy is, in fact, part of Islam’, he told Russia Today. ‘This is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.’

So for these medieval extremist troglodytes, if you don’t submit to Allah you neither have any rights as a human being nor should you be so presumptuous as to expect any!

Yet on the other hand if you submit to Allah and are thereby compelled to obey Sharia Law you also suffer the loss of significant freedoms. Women and homosexuals are particularly disadvantaged.

Well what conclusions can I draw from all of this?

Islamic militancy is doomed to failure. If its proponents are going to spend another 1500 years arguing about who should be the rightful successor to Muhammad the world will continue to pass them by. If they believe that their indignant accusations of oppression and belittlement by the West are going to help the cause of Muslims, then they are very misguided. If they continue to devote their energies and resources to righting what they believe are historic wrongs then they are unlikely to improve the lot of Muslims in traditional communities.

The effects of the attacks by these ignorant fundamentalists have hurt us all. Our basic freedoms have been compromised as we struggle to deal with such aberrant ideas. But the real victims of this assault on our liberties have been the Muslims, themselves. Many of them are sentenced to live in deprivation, fear and injustice as a result of these fundamentalist beliefs.

And now, eventually, Australia has been forced to confront these irrational ideas.

We have in recent decades had to endure a number of attacks on our democratic society propagated by radical Islamism. Most recently, since the October 2023 incursion when Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, in which 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 815 civilians, were killed, and 251 taken hostage, Australian Jews have been under attack by Islamist extremists.

Finally, last week, the Australian government, informed by our security agencies, has conceded that some of these attacks have been orchestrated by the Iranian government. Consequently they have expelled the Iranian ambassador.

Yet only a week or two ago the Australian government announced that they were about to recognise a Palestinian State. Enigmatically they pronounced that they would only do so on the assumption that Hamas would play no part in such a state. This is mindboggling. The only way Hamas will ever be eliminated from Palestine is by the efforts of Israel. There is no other plan to eliminate Hamas.  Yet the government has been critical of Israel’s effort to remove Hamas, continually pleading for Israel to back off!

As we have seen, radical Islam is a pervasive, insidious threat to the West. Iran, which is a fundamentalist, theocratic, Islamist state, poses not only an ongoing threat to Israel but to the West in general.

Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong have largely counselled appeasement with these antidemocratic forces. There has been evidence for a number of years of Iran’s attempts to attack Jews in Australia and undermine our ambition to pursue a peaceful multiculturalism that is inclusive of our Jewish population. But radical Islam is intolerant of all other belief systems and particularly Judaism. Whilst Jews have lived comfortably and accommodatingly within our multi-cultural society, radical Islamists can’t abide people who don’t believe in a fundamentalist concept of Allah.

On the other hand there are many moderate Muslims who have integrated well into Australia and make a positive contribution to our society. Unfortunately many of the so-called refugees from the Islamic trouble spots around the world are not of this ilk.

The British journalist and author, Douglas Murray, wrote a famous book in 2017 which he titled The Strange Death of Europe. He argued convincingly that Muslim immigration into Europe was changing European culture for the worse. Perversely, European tolerance was allowing a Muslim minority to increasingly pervert European culture and values. There are signs that Australia is now falling into the same trap.

Now to date, Australia has been a successful migrant country. That is largely because most of those migrants adopted our Australian way of life, integrated into our society and often positively supplemented it. Islamic extremist don’t accept our Australian way of life and want to supplant it with medieval belief systems and religious division and hatred that runs counter to our traditional tolerance.

The Albanese government, for parochial political reasons, is encouraging immigrants with these fundamentalist religious views. There can be no doubt that this is threatening the fabric of Australian society.

As I write there are reports that the government is is preparing to repatriate some of the so-called “Isis Brides”. These are young women, who of their own volition went to Syria and other places to cohabit with ISIS fighters ostensibly to produce the next generation of Islamism fanatics to fight against Western values and advance the cause of the international Caliphate. How is it possible that we should welcome such perverted individuals back into the country that they deliberately spurned to promote the cause of radical Islam?

The good Dr Phil taught me that there were no bad people, only people with bad ideas! Belief in fundamentalist Islam is indeed a bad idea and we need to be exceedingly vigilant to ensure those with such perverted ideas have minimal effect on our society.