Senator Pauline Hanson recently made headlines for comments she made about radical Islam’s incompatibility with the values of Western democracies such as Australia. While many in the media have taken her words out of context to imply that she said there were ‘no good Muslims’, it is important to listen to what she actually said.

To put the interview in context, Senator Hanson was first asked about why the Albanese government has been unable to give an unequivocal answer as to whether or not the Isis brides would be allowed back into the country. Here is a transcript of the exchange which then followed:

Senator Hanson: Sharri, we’re in a situation where you can either go down one path and we will reap the rewards of our tough stance against Islam and the radicalisation that we will be facing.

Or if we open up the borders and allow more into this country we’re going to suffer. Future generations will, as other countries have, like France and Denmark and England … and Canada. All these ones who thought, ‘O well, we’ll welcome them.’

I’ll tell you what, I’ve got no time for the radical Islam, their religion concerns me because of what it says in the Quran. They hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about.

You know, you say, ‘O there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry, how can you tell me there are good Muslims if jihad is ever called and people must understand this. Go and research, go and understand about this.

The ones who will suffer, as those Jews did on [October 8] … when they were murdered and slaughtered. And that’s what we’ve got to realise could happen.

Sharri Markson: Pauline, there are a lot of moderate Muslims in Australia who are as you put it ‘good Muslims’, but I think we agree that radical, extremist Islam that doesn’t support Australian values has no place here.

Pauline Hanson: Correct, I did mean that.

At the heart of this entire controversy is the question of what does it mean to be a ‘good’ Muslim? One might also pose the similar question of what does it means to be ‘good Catholic’ or even a ‘good Jew’? Senator Hanson immediately clarified, as well as in subsequent later interviews, that she was not saying all Muslims were morally corrupt but was instead referencing the cultural impact radical Islam.

What does it mean though for someone who submits to the religion of Islam to live as a good Muslim? In particular, will the practice of their Islamic faith result in them seeking to ultimately implement Sharia law upon the rest of society such as the wearing of a burqa for all women? In short, will these ‘good Muslims’ seek to express their faith theocratically as they have done so repeatedly in history, and are currently still doing throughout the world?

This is where it is crucial to understand the symbiotic relationship between ‘Islam’ and ‘Sharia’. As the Middle East expert and author Dr Raymond Ibrahim helpfully explains in his short video, The Sharia Controversy Is Worse Than You Think, whereas the term ‘Islam’ is the descriptive name of the religion, ‘Sharia’ is the prescriptive way of upholding it.

In short, while the two terms are distinct, there is no fundamental difference between Islam and Sharia and an inextricable link. But as Dr Ibrahim argues, this is the precisely the mistake people in Western democracies routinely continue to make about people who are Muslim.

The Distinction without a Difference Fallacy

This type of fallacy occurs when a speaker attempts to argue that two things are distinct based on phrasing or terminology, despite there being no meaningful or practical difference between them. However, this is also the error many in the media have made regarding Senator Hanson’s comments.

While there is clearly a distinction between the term ‘Islam’ and ‘Sharia’ they are in practice one and the same thing. What’s more, they propose a significant cultural challenge as to how everyone who is a non-Muslim lives as well. As Dr Ibrahim explains:

Here at last we come to the root problem. The Muslim way of life is in many respects antithetical to the Western way of life. Not least in the latter was – at least in its origins – based on the Christian way of life.

Think about it. Hate for, discrimination against and jihad on non-Muslims, wife beating, polygamy, even sex slavery, draconian punishments for including execution of those who blaspheme against Muhammad, or try to apostatise from Islam.

All of these are part of Sharia. That is all of these are part of the Muslim way of and to life no less than Islam’s so-called five pillars, prayer, fasting, etc.

In short, to be a practising Muslim is to be a Sharia-compliant Muslim. They are one and the same.

Are there morally upright citizens in Australia who are Muslim? Of course there are! But are those who are good Muslims – just like someone might be a ‘good’ Catholic or a ‘good’ Jew – actually good for the nation state of Australia?

Well, that’s a very uncomfortable question, but it is also an increasingly important debate that we clearly need to have. Especially if we believe that criticism of Islam does not nullify the core democratic value of free speech.

As many are starting to realise, this is a difficult conversation that we must start to have. There are obviously many moderate Muslims who are morally ‘good’ people. The real debate we need to have is are ‘good’ Muslims bad for democracies such as Australia?

The answer to that question is one which, right now, only the leader of One Nation has the courage to give. Perhaps that also explains why their popularity in the polls is exploding so rapidly.