Islam Is Incompatible With Diversity

Before the rise of Islam, the Middle East had a wide range of religions and cultures. So much so that it is difficult to imagine the world today without the ideas and beliefs that emerged from there. Today however the Middle East has one dominant religion and one nationality. While there may be numerous countries, they all compromise an Arab Muslim Empire that extends from North Africa to the Gulf. An Empire that with the exception of Israel and Iran consists of one race and one religion, with all others either exterminated or subjugated as second class citizens.

That Empire was built through the ideology of Islam, that provided a manifest destiny to the quarreling Arab tribes who had already begun to overrun the region. Islam began by giving Mohammed and his followers the right to loot and enslave anyone who did not obey them, and ended by turning his cult into a fanatical worldwide movement bent on doing what they had done tothe Middle East… to the entire world.
[ more ]

Right Side News

The views represented in articles republished on the this site reflect the views of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Protectionist Party


  1. I was so disgusted with the Tasmanian Labor Party's election campaign. Before any political advertising even started, Labor had flooded the media with a negative campaign against the Liberals and then when they thought the Greens might win a few extra seats they hit them with an equally negative campaign. This is just so wrong. If they can only win an election by putting down the other side while having such little policy substance then they don't deserve to govern. I really hope that the Liberals can have a respectful working relationship with the Greens for the benefit of Tasmania. It is evident that Tasmanians are sick and tired of Labor's spin and lets hope they can take that disgust to the federal election. Can't Labor just run a good, clean campaign without bullying the opponent or the smaller parties? I hear they handed out dodgy material in SA too, persuading Family First voters to give preferences to Labor. Is that legal?

  2. Macca, you may find that in the near future the Bureau of Statistics may very likely lift that figure to 100 in 10,000 is a terrorist risk or higher. Only time will tell. It is all such an unknown at this stage but it is likely that that figure could change dramatically overnight. How can you measure something which may just be laying dormant? How can the Bureau of Statistics know someone's thoughts? As we have seen of these crimes in the past, it has come from people who have had no indication of any aggression, sadism or criminal activity. We just can't know someone's mind so the risk must be removed because what amount of risk is a safe amount of risk when it comes to the safety of our nation and its people?

    • well said Seth, good point. The terrorists apply taqi'ya to fool us, pretending to be Religion of Peace. The facts tell different.

  3. Strangely I see a comparison with the Pit Bull debate. "Punish the deed, not the breed" .. Christianity has a hellish past full of murder and oppression. But look at it today. Modern Christians are far different from their historical counterparts. Maybe one day the Muslim extremists will stop, but that day is not here yet. We must punish their deeds and not ignore those who are trying to progressively change the religion. Until such a change happens we cannot allow their further advancement through the world.

    Should immigrant Amazonian head hunter tribes be allowed to kill people in Australia because it is their religion? Of course this would be an extreme example, it does illustrate the fact that there are distinct differences between cultures. We must preserve our own ideas of what is right and what is wrong in our country just as they are allowed to do in theirs.

  4. By the way the Bureau of Statistics says that of 10000 refugees that arrive in Australia 1 is a terrorist or suspected terrorist or a person who may POSSIBLY be a terrorist – or who may be completely innocent, so no there isn't a army of terrorists invading!

  5. Australian Islamist Monitor

    Islam Under Scrutiny

  6. This is to Nicholas Folkes –
    "Muslims are tribal people and most of their violence is sectarian" Look see. You are revealing your true racist paranoia. You are contending that all Muslims follow a nomadic lifestyle, thats obviously not true if they live in Australia. And as far as sectarianism goes well let me just summarize by saying that Irish and English forces are still killing each other over which religion is right and who deserves the land of northern island!!
    " I suggest you buy a few history books and stop living in denial because your position is to portray Islam as the victim." thats because it is. You juts dont want to see it that way because then you would experience guilt and a sense of duty to help them out, but no you cant do any of that, because then your party would have to accept the right to religious freedom and liberty which it wont!

    "What about the Muslims exploiting welfare in Western nations?" Yeh right mate. Did you know that the most welfare is used by Australians, I mean 6th generation Australians etc who live in white suburbs!

    "Also read the Koran, the ultimate deathcult manual (wot?!). Only a fool after reading would conclude muslims to be sane".
    Ok how about the Bible – in the chapter where it says kill all homosexuals (do you like that? coz its part of the bible!!!) it also says "20 And they shall say unto the elders of the city, This our son is rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of this city shall stone him with stones, that he die". Forget about the Quran, how about the Bible if we lived by that half the country would have been stoned to death for being drunk at one point in their lives!!!!! Also Exodus 21 verse 7 says its Ok to sell your daughter into slavery (yay human rights!!). Exodus 35 verse 2 – anyone who is working on the Sabbath must be killed (hooray freedom of choice!!!). And how about this one Corinthians 11:14 – it says having long hair should invoke shame from society!!!(sorry Jesus!!) and then verse 19 to 25, continuing on says that a man should not go near a women who is having her period!!!(You cant smell superstition!?!!)
    "you can find heaps more excuses to kill and punish people for no reason if you keep going, hell they only did for 2000 years (that's right they are still doing it in the form of your party!!)

  7. Ex Digger says

    The Twin Towers destruction, The Bali Bombing, the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, the blowing up of the London Underground, Mass killings in Pakistan, Car Bombs in Afghanistan , and the murder of more innocent people all over the world and all in the name of ISLAM !

    Already a thousand "Illegal immigrants" reach our shores this year and no doubt, there will be quite a few radical Muslims amongst them……..these events are all recent and not getting better, surely the "mush brains" "turn the other cheek", "bleeding heart brigade" can see that this radical religion that also treats women as 3rd rate human beings, should never be allowed to gain a stranglehold in our great country????

  8. The Rule of Fear: – Muslim gangs imposing sharia law in British prisons

  9. albert hall says


    Chlopiec ukradl w Iranie chleb….

    No religion can ever justify such hideous crimes

    Pass it on ……let the world know what's happening in the name of Islam…

    Pass this to all, for public awareness.
    It must be sent WORLD WIDE!
    Even if this message is sent to you more than once, just keep on passing it on!

  10. Macca, a truly “liberal” society cannot be “equal” but it can be “fair”.

  11. Actually William you are completely wrong. That may have been what Menzies "said" his party was for but it hasnt been liberal at all. Under a socialist society the goal is for greater liberal equality. Thus only economic freedom is controlled. Please dont take example from Stalin and Mao to describe Socialism because they werent nor were their countries. Dont talk about these people as socialist because that shows a deep ignorant undrstanding of the world and socialist philosophy. Liberality has been distorted under the Raegan era with the emergence of the "New Right" which sought to give no moral liberty only economic liberty to the most powerful – more of a Malthusian aspect of life. Liberty is freedom, but liberty, from its inception during the enlightenment has always sought to create equality of opportunity and choice, in terms of money and morality, so long one's actions allow others to do the same.

    • Macca, I don't believe in the concept of "equality", I believe in the concept of "Fairness". "Fairness" is for "all" to benefit from. Why should one be "equal" if he or she has no will to contribute? Socialism forces "equality" through the "unfairness" of taking from the achievers and producers and spreading it out for all to benefit from. Sure, if one is handicapped, injured or ill, taxpayers have an obligation to help out their fellow man but to give to individuals who have no intention of contributing degrades the work ethic of a nation. The term you use "liberal equality" does not make sense. If "liberal" means free, how can "equality" fall into that when "equality" must be forced through redistribution from the elite. A society cannot naturally be "equal". It must be forced by a regime.

      • Ahjees you didnt get it. By equality I mean equality of opportunity. This can and must be strived for in a liberal society. Equality in terms also of moral decision making with one's self.
        Also you seem to have no idea about socialist philosophy. Socialism does not dictate that there will be equality rather equality of work value and labour value – so people's work is valued better, and things such as rent and chance are rejected. In communism people will be different economically but it is believed this will be decided upon greater representation of work and people's actual labour. Just read something and you'll see ; ).

  12. There is a lot of ignorance being vomited out here.
    For starters The Muslim Empire of Mohammad was far more progressive, intellectual and wealthy than Europe of the same time, developed upon trade and only under his predecessors was violent enforcement of religion used (which became similar to the Catholic counterparts of the west who regularly killed people for "heresy"). These two spheres of the west did not change much in terms of wealth and power until America was colonized by the European powers of the West. This provided extreme wealth of the European powers and gave them a clear advantage in waging wars and investing in technology – from there the rest is history.
    It may surprise many of you to know that the Turks, the Muslim Turks, were the first to make rifles and use gunpowder in that way (also to invent the telescope and chemistry, along with mathematics at that time). The extremities of today have arisen from the intolerance and neglect of western countries in correcting the oppressive imperialist actions of previous Empires, namely the British and American Empires, although the latter still exists however in a more cultural and economical sense. Extremists have emerged because of the immorality accompanied by rampant poverty due to the exploitation of these empires.
    Israel is a good example of this history. Israel was set up as a nation for Jewish Israelis yet incorporated a population that was half Arab, which started the war that continues today. Thank America for the extremely violent and relentlessly destructive forces now present in the region, not Islam, because the UN has been unable to define proper borders due to the USA protecting its own interests in the area, where Israel is a good base of defense and guard for their own use.
    Islam is very compatible, just as much as Catholicism in terms of liberal government, there just exists a growing xenophobia around immigrants and this religion that cuts them off from embracing this liberal freedom.

  13. Crimson, just to add, some think that term "Liberal" is to be interpreted as "anything goes" when this was contrary to Menzies' vision. Menzies' intention was for it to be interpreted as "Freedom", "Liberty", synonymous with his vision.

  14. Crimson, where do you get your information from man. The term "Liber" in Liberal is from the Latin word meaning "Free". The meaning which Sir Robert Menzies attached to the name was "Liberty". "Personal Liberty", "Social Liberty", "Economic Liberty" and "International Liberty" was at the forefront of Menzies' mind. Now a socialist or communist government is incapable of these values because they cannot co-exist with "Liberty". "Liberty" is a stranger to these regimes and controls.

    • William, i did remark that Liberalism was the ideal of the Classical Romans and Greeks. However, it was not until Napoleonic Era did Liberty spread once-more through Europe and to the new world of the US of A. Liberalism today is as it was in Classical Rome and it is the exact same ideology which lead to the downfall of Classical Rome.

      Liberalism destroys social cohesion and identity.



      • Crimson, if the term "Liber" in "Liberal" is Latin for "Free" then how can "Freedom" destroy social cohesion and identity.

  15. Graeme, most western religions are moving with the times even though they still have some of their old ways, very few teach the act of killing non believers, again, very few teach hatred, again very few teach not to make friends of Christians and Jews. Yes, Christianity did shed blood, they did have armies, but again we are living in the 21st century, but we still believe "thou shalt not kill" Islam rewards muslims if they "slay non believers"

    • Grahame(6thgenoz) says

      Yes loin, we are living in the 21st century, so why do we bother with religion at all is my point, it's baseless, intangible and infactual. It destroys life, damages life and is the number one killer of people throughout it's history of being, so why not lose this obsession of making it to heaven or hell and change our way mentally and physically. Just because you do something for a couple of thousand years does not mean it's the right thing, especially when there is no proof or fact to the matter.

      P.S. I do not believe, i am agnostic (seeing is believing).

  16. All religion is not able to diversify to these times because it is an old theory and practice according to thousands of years ago which makes it impractible today. Science has proven and given more factual evidence than any religion has, so therefore it should be an obsolete practice. Why anyone would even entertain the ideal, christian or muslim, is beyond comprehension and weak minded. How about we concentrate on those things which are relevant to todays existance ie: Trust, Honesty, Respect, Integrity, Compassion and Honour.

  17. Liberalism was not the result of the “Enlightenment”, it was in-fact the principle ideology of the Classical Roman an Greek Era. Liberalism as we know it today only exist thanks to the French and Americans who followed them. Had nothing to do with “Anti-Church” thinking, it had everything to do with “anti-unfair government” thinking.

    Islam no compatible with diversity? Care to venture a guess as to how many different sects of Islam there are? Or how many different ethnicities are adherents to the faith?



    • Rome and Greece were ruins by the time Liberalism came to dominate the Western World, and I'm sure in ancient times 'liberal' values only applied to the upper class.

      Modern liberalism and democracy developed concurrently with the Enlightenment (I did not say one caused the other) and applies to all people, not just the aristocrats. These developments in turn helped modernise the Church.

      The point was that only the West (and therefore its religion, Christianity) was affected by these developments, the Asian and Islamic civilisations were not.

      Therefore, one should be suspicious of non-Western people claiming to embrace 'diversity' on the basis on our liberal/democratic traditions, traditions that don't exist in their history, only in ours.

      Asian traditions are based not on the free will of the individual (something that also exists in Christianity, not just secular humanism), but almost its opposite: family obligations and unchallengable natural/supernatural forces (the Tao, karma).

      • Shock, Classical Greece and Rome were the birthplaces for what we know as Liberalism today, the very philosophy revolved around the Roman notion of Citizen and the freedom of that Citizen.

        It was that very individualistic liberalism that was practiced by Classical Rome and Greece that lead to thier ruin, like every other Liberalistic Civilisation prior and since.

        That said, the Classical Romans and Greeks were a touch more liberal than we Westerners are today, thanks largely to those responsible for spreading the Modern Liberalism being rather Religious such as the pioneering Americans.



  18. Let's not forget Christianity did pretty much the same things to the infidels, oops I mean "pagans" of many lands. But that was centuries ago, and Christianity has outgrown its adolescent brat phase, thanks no doubt to the Enlightenment and the spread of democracy and liberalism (in the original meaning of that word).
    These are European cultural developments and did not affect the Muslims, nor for that matter, East Asia (where we currently get more than half our immigrants from).
    We know Muslims don't get liberal democracy, but nobody questions whether Asians get it either, perhaps because their more pacifist religions make it seem like they're more 'liberal'.
    But democracy and liberalism are based on the concept that the individual has inherent rights, and most Asian cultures are not very individualist, putting the interests of family above the individual.
    Asians are pacifist collectivists, but not liberal democratic individualists. Don't be fooled by the fluffy clouds and peach tree paintings.

  19. This is a bit ridiculous. How about we look at how oppressive and destructive the Catholic Church was when it was in power and how we only got democracy and liberal freedom through anti-Church thought. This same process has taken longer to emerge in the middle east although it is beginning now (Iran) due to the West's exploitation and control of the region both economically and politically for 200 years.

    • Nicholas Folkes says

      Hey Macca, don't forget it was the Europeans who liberated the Arabs from the Ottoman yoke. The pagan Arabs owe the West big time and also don't forget it was the Americans and Brit who discovered oil in the middle east. The arabs didn't have a clue that oil lay under their dunes.

      Islam is the reason for the mess in the middle east not liberal thought. There is no liberalism in the middle east just extremism. The muslims can't keep passing the buck esp. after 1,400 years.

      • Ottoman Yoke haha. Yeh well today we've been rid of the British yoke but not the American one. and it seems the Americans are braking eggs all over the world in this regard! Islam isnt the reason for the mess in the mid east its the west's exploitation that has done it.

        • Nicholas Folkes says

          Macca, do you know a bit of Ottoman history? It seems you don't!

          The Ottomans were ruling Asia Minor and the middle east even before America was settled by Europeans. The British were late comers in the middle east.

          Islam has been around for 1,400 years and been fighting everyone since. Muslims are tribal people and most of their violence is sectarian. I suggest you buy a few history books and stop living in denial because your position is to portray Islam as the victim. I smell PC.

          What about the muslims exploiting welfare in Western nations?

          Also read the Koran, the ultimate deathcult manual. Only a fool after reading would conclude muslims to be sane.

    • why would I care about "Catholic Church was…bla…bla…bla". We deal with the situation here which is definite "is". Someone makes a very well orchestrated effort to islamise Australia. Sorry, for being "whatever fobic" – I simply do not want that to happen. Knowing history is a good thing, but common sense should apply in regards to relevance of making any historical analogies. Back to catholic church – I would fight them too if they were to attempt implementation of their practices from medieval times (e.g. inquisition). Satisfied?

  20. The Islamic fundamentalist cult is no longer confined to the Middle East, it has spread throughout Europe and very healthy in the USA. The only democratic obstacle is Israel and the only means of defense for western democracy is with Israel. Israel slowed the Iranian neuclear program by bombing their installations 10 years ago but that only slowed Iran down who have now pick up ground. Does Israel have to do it again and be condemned by the UN or will the UN take this on?

    Rachel Emmes

    • localyokel says

      Islam did rule the world in history and slowly but surely is heading that way once again. Its ironic their strongest supporters are the once Buddhist nations of Indonesia and Malaysia that were invaded by Islam and yet continue to embrace its policies.

      • Nicholas Folkes says

        "islam did rule the world in history"……actually islam didn't rule the known world. Islam under the Ottoman Empire ruled parts of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and also parts of the Balkans but not the world. Islam didn't bring peace, hope or security but war, enslavement and intolerance.

Leave a Reply to Brian Cancel reply