The Rise of Conservatism in Australia?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison calls out radical Islam
Prime Minister Scott Morrison calls out radical Islam

Prime Minister Scott Morrison: I have to call it out. The greatest threat to our way of life is radical, violent, extremist Islam. I'm the first to protect r...

Harris Sultan

“I’ve gotta address the real issue, I’ve gotta call it out. Radical, violent, extremist Islam that opposes our very way of life. I am the first to protect the religious freedom in this country but it also means I must be the first to call out the religious extremism.” Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia after the Melbourne terrorist attack.

Finally, an elite Australian politician has spoken the words we have been dying to hear but I am not happy. Not because what Scott Morrison, Australia’s Prime minister said was wrong but because it is coming from a conservative and not from a liberal (Labour Party in Australia is liberal and the liberal party is conservative).

Just like it had been happening in America with the rise of Trump and other nationalist parties in Europe, this was bound to happen here in Australia as well. I am not comparing Scott Morison with any of the right-wing ideologues but since he is a conservative, I am worried more hardcore right-wingers will take his message seriously and will gain more popularity.

Both the mainstream Australian political parties, the Labour Party (left of the centre) and the Liberals (right of the centre) are mainly centrist parties, socially at least. However, this is not to say they are not influenced by far left (Greens) in the case of the labour and other conservative parties in the case of the Liberal Party. Despite being a classical liberal and a labour party supporter, I must say the Liberal party is doing a far better job than the Labour Party.

These words uttered by Scott Morrison should have been uttered by the Labour party but they are too busy with the political correctness. They are too afraid to speak the truth because it might hurt certain people. I think the leftists should not discriminate the vast majority of Muslims who might also actually be sick of these violent thugs who are Islamists and take Islam seriously. Most Muslims don’t take Islam seriously enough to manifest its true message in their day to day lives i.e. dream of imposing sharia in Australia. Therefore, let’s call it as it is, these attacks are inspired by the doctrine of Islam. Attack the doctrine of Islam, not the people.

Let’s debate about the problematic aspects of Islam so not only non-Muslims are educated about the true Islam but also the Muslims. So often, in my debates with liberal Muslims, I hear “but Islam is a religion of peace”. They have never heard of the verses that order the killings and amputations of the infidels or heard of the hadiths that instruct believing men to throw homosexuals off the rooftops or kill apostates. These good-hearted Muslims need to be educated about the problematic values of Islam.

Unless the Labour party and its affiliates start doing this, this narrative will be built up by the conservative parties and we all know what kind of behaviour and crowd it will attract. The anti-Muslim bigotry will rise, racism and xenophobia will flourish and before we know it, we will have our own Prime Minister Trump, or dare I say, worse than Trump!

Comments (2)
No. 1-2

Two extremes, yes. I am a right leaning centrist and I more or less agree with how you have analyzed today's political spectrum. Since you are claiming to be a Messiah like figure to right these extremes of radical Islamists on one hand and anti-Muslim bigotry on the other, I can give you my support and wish you the very best in this matter. But alas, there have always been people claiming to be political Messiahs trying to fix the system but what happens? They make mistakes or get corrupted or take on a somewhat different stance after being in their position for a while.

You are sounding like a Ben Shapiro who harbors similar views like ours with respect to politics and has interests to take up America's top job post 2024. I would support him if he were the presidential candidate but would he maintain consistency after getting the position? This is the same question I have to ask you. Humans are weak and not infallible. There is strong evidence in history over millennia that indicates rulers were slipping up after getting power irrespective of their original intentions. The same is the case even today.

Now, one could argue democracy can fix this since power is not kept indefinitely nor passed down by inheritance like some monarchy or caliphate. But remember, ideologies last longer even after the people who invented or innovated them are gone. These ideologies continue to shape people's views and therefore, even the leanings of any democratic system by extension. So democracy has its flaws. But I suppose for we, as imperfect beings, that's the best we can come up with (So far).

Also, I am going through your videos on youtube (both urdu/hindi and english channels)..and I have to confess that you do sound like a religious bigot (an anti-theist, not an atheist). What you say there and what you say in your channels (especially the Urdu/Hindi one) clearly tells me that you are an idealogue of militant atheism despite how you are trying to portray yourself as a classical liberal standing for secular values. I do see some truth in you claiming to be a classical liberal to some degree. But when it comes to your views on religion, no I see the bigot at work in your videos. Classic Liberals are people like Dave Rubin, Dr Jordan Peterson, Dr Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan etc who do not preach bigotry towards someone who believes in any god.

So that brings me to this question. What makes you say that after you have made it to the top you are going to propagate a different kind of authoritarianism (i.e. militant atheism)and anti-religion bigotry preached by your gods? (eg: Dawkins, Hitchens, the naturalist and materialist camps of the scientific community) (Some food for thought).

Also on another note - you like to look good when you are up against people from the sub-continent who lack attributes like critical thinking and analyzing different things. You can look like a genius in front of fools like Zakir Naik, Engineer Mirza or intellectually dishonest people like Nadir Ahmed. And who are your audience? Former sub-continental Muslims who have not really studied other world views but stopped at the point when they thought Islam is not what they thought it was. And also Hindu nationalists with anti Abrahamic-religion sentiments because of the propaganda preached by right-wing Hindu extremist groups and the current government. So it does not make you any different from the Islamic apologists from the sub-continent who preach to a similar audience who like to hear what they like to hear without questioning the absurdity, authenticity or the fallacies in their preacher's claims (eg: The classic 2 + 2 = 4 argument).

That could be the same assumption you made when you debated Nowruz thinking that you would be able to ridicule him. Unfortunately that did not work out very well for you. He had a stronger foundation to argue theism as compared to you when it came to argue in favor of atheism. He had a solid foundation of philosophy and was able to construct sound philosophical arguments. Something you would not expect from some normal sub-continental religious apologist. Harris, you on the other hand were constructing strawman and quoting hear-say (sunnee-sunnaahi hooi baat - a term you like using a lot in your Urdu videos).

But to be fair and objective, you did get the better of Nowruz when it came to his views on Islam. However, even there you were not adequately prepared to quote the Hadith or Surahs in context and take him down. Never ever go in a debate assuming that your opponent is just a sub-continental idiot who conjures arguments on hear say.
Tip: You need to have the evidence to support your arguments right in front of you and also objections to the arguments of your opponents from scholarly sources. In an actual intellectual debate you have to be prepared like a lawyer. Nothing less.

Furthermore, you have no experience or are rather scared to take on genuinely intellectual religious apologists, particularly Christian apologists on these matters. Maybe because some of them are scientists and philosophers at the same time and they scare you.

eg: William Lane Craig who even scares your God Dawkins to death that he fears him in open debate. Dr Craig embarrassed Sam Harris in a debate when the topic was about the Source of Objective Morality. And what did Sam Harris do? Write up an explanation of why that happened just like you did about writing a blog about "Absolute Truths" after Nowruz embarrassed you because your foundations on atheism were not strong compared to his foundations on theism (Note - I have taken his views on Islam out of the equation here - he has a bias over there). Watch Dr Craig's debates with Christopher Hitchens and learn from both sides. There is another guy called John Lennox who has embarrassed Hitchens more often than not. These are long 2-3 hour just to synthesize what they say and analyze what they say can take at least a week or two (for me, for you it will take longer because I look through Science as I work in the sciences and engineering disciplines, you on the other hand are looking at Science and quoting hearsay without analyzing the arguments made in depth).

Have you heard of Peter Hitchens? The brother of Chris Hitchens who was a former atheist and then converted to Christianity? Or CS Lewis? Read up their works...even when CS Lewis was an atheist he was not convinced about Darwinian views of evolution and consciousness which have been as mainstream by the naturalist and materialist schools of the scientific community (not science by itself). Try taking on the guy who runs InspiringPhilosophy channel on youtube (Michael Jones) or Frank Turek (Cross examined) or Ravi Zacharias?. I like you to see how you fare when you debate with any of these guys or they might not even entertain you (CS Lewis is long dead by the way).

I suggest you start studying the other the other side of the arguments and clearly start comparing and contrasting it with the world view you have (without your naturalistic and anti-theist lens).

As a computer scientist myself, I can clearly see that you are looking at Science, not looking through it and also believing hearsay of the scientific community and blindly accepting it as truth since it conforms to your bias. I was disappointed when Nowruz put you in a position where you were forced to agree that you do not know, that you are still finding out about things related to consciousness and morality. Tsk..tsk. You were taking leaps of faith greater than a theistic person has to take. And then you labelled yourself as "atheist agnostic", a new term which atheists use to deny their leap of faith in something they believe is true but without having the evidence to justify that leap of faith. That makes you no better than someone who believes in God or some form of religion. Except the leap of faith you are making is even greater and based on more conjecture and suppositions as compared to that of a theist! You have lot to learn kid.


"the vast majority of Muslims who might also actually be sick of these violent thugs who are Islamists and take Islam seriously. "

'the vast majority of Nazis who might also actually be sick of these violent thugs who are Nazis and take Nazism seriously.'

Without the 'good' codex development floors there would be no systemic Muslim terror-genocide.

You and Waleed inform a continuance of Muslim terror by both excusing the good who create enable Muslim terror. You as an ex-Muslim defector understand from the responses how you are reviled as the Qur'an determines you worse than Other who God simply refuses to reveal His word for they are already lost to evil.

Prosocial behavior research determines the altruist enforcers of a culture make sure their own are aligned first and if the codex construct so determines those whose purity is suspect, defectors and Other are evil and destined for grievous harm and severest penalty with violence as a recommended method for dealing with all rejectors of the true belief system, even providing example which can be replicated or analogies and this is contained within the goods own sacred codex and exemplar templates then what will always walk from the good floors?

There are no innocents in a biology_culture ideology delivering terror.

Waleed, Sonny Bill Williams, ... You are no different than a Nazi adherant standing outside the gas chambers denying culpability.