Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

That's odd. Only the other day here at Webdiary we were all congratulating ourselves on the success of Australian multiculturalism - as opposed to the apparent failures of the French model.

Except, of course, for those of us who were saying that French multiculturalism was just fine, and what we were really witnessing was class warfare in France.

How is multiculturalism going in Lebanon these days, by the by?

Peter "The Idiot" Woodforde's correct. Despite all the attempts to malign other races and immigrants, multiculturalism does work and Australia is a great example of it working. There will be lots of hiccups along the way because those with vested interests whip up hate. But look at the dismal failure of Hansonism-blazing away like crazy, aide and abetted by politicians using it for their own reasons but just a fizzler in the end.

Deconstructing Rhetoric!
Now there's a volume.

Irfan Yusuf “Nada reminded her audience that Australia has forever been a land of migrants. She remembers the days when Indo-Chinese were treated with suspicion and hatred. She recognised that Australians as a nation are still learning to come to terms with differences in culture and language.”

And in those earlier times, remember the massive Italian arrivals, to replace the “indentured” Kanaka slaves.

Some of the Dagos were from the North – practically White, and Almost Like Us.

But there were lots of Sicilians and Calabrians.

Dark-sinned and clannish. Mediterranean Catholics. Not Like Us.

The women wore coverings on their heads.

They were hated by those who had brought them here for their cheap labour, but found them a touch too “different,” and by Labour, for the same reasons.

They were different to the Anglo Ascendency. All that Catholicism and dark skin and jabbering lingo and women with scarves and shawls.

Funny little kids with big brown eyes “translating” for stolid mums and grandmas and stoic dads and grandpas.

And the whole bloody tribe working like fecken niggers. Horrible. Risky. Thank God they use a different cemetery.

Tabloid and “respectable” newspapers joined the fun often with semi-official approval.

The Black Hand was everywhere throughout the canefields, “some” said.

The good ol’ corrupt Commonwealth Investigation Service, run by the usual rapists, sly grog men, and shifty fraud artists, kept a look out for Anarchists and Communists and trade unionists among the Wogs, and stepped up its vicious, treacherous campaign when Menzies dropped the hanky in September 1939.

Anyone disliked by these lawless, ignorant, loathsome spotted reptiles, fundamentally the ancestors of ASIO+++, would be followed, badgered, harassed, locked up, and generally impugned, on the basis of being a dark-skinned wog.

Not much different to a boong. So much for John Latham.

A hardy few among the “Australian Natives” were welcoming and tolerant, but very, very few. It was dangerous.

You can still find middle-aged Sicilians and Calabrians who recall with bitterness the behaviour of neighbours and officials free to name-call and impose sanctions against the Wogs.

But nonetheless, in 2005, Michael Caltabiano has enjoyed a meteoric career in the Queensland Liberal Party.

And Brisbane is a haven for folks like Santo Santoro and others.

If Mel Meninga, former Queensland copper and footie player of slave descent, ran for parliament in any capacity…well he did.

But that’s another story.

But Mel’s one of the most respected blokes around the traps, even if the Big White Pollies reckon he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Not like Us.

Most of us would say too fecken right, mate. Should be more of it.

Whatever we think of these individuals, Queensland is a structurally stronger and more prosperous part of the Commonwealth because of an old multicultural immigration system, even if it was sometimes as rough as guts and clearly embraced slavery.

Our heritage from Arthur Calwell and Al Grassby, and some before them, is a country which will slowly and clumsily embrace Islamic Australian communities, even at a time when it is dangerous and non-U to do so.

Ordinary people will ignore Howard’s hate campaigns in the gutter media and get on with their Muslim neighbours and workmates.

Mostly because, as with the Wogs and all the other hated new arrivals, it works a treat. Suck it and see.

Kindest regards
Peter Woodforde

I can't understand why the myth that multiculturalism has failed in Australia is so often allowed to go unchallenged.

There is enormous evidence of Australians of all backgrounds living together in peace, but a few lunatics of both the redneck and fundamentalist variety have created a wall and are lobbing grenades across it and the media is happily enjoying the frenzy.

We have to wonder why they are so keen to join in?

The best thing that could happen, Woody, is for the assorted multitudes to leave their soccer in the northern hemisphere. I never thought I'd live to respect AFL, but I have to say it's improved out of sight, since the hey-day of behind-the-play king-hits of the filthy '70s.

Cricket, and all the non-contact games, suffer from the same, inflammatory defect. An AFL player is free to whisper betrothals in his opponent's ear, in the knowledge that retribution may be extracted in the next contest for the ball. Yet our funloving true-blue dinki-di Oi-oi-oi Ozzie cricket "champs" have defined their career moves around the fine art of sledging. And they get away with it, and continue to expand their income-earning opportunities off the field.

It's no wonder animosities extend well after the game, and become part of the inter-ethnic and inter-cultural makeup of some rival suburbs. At soccer's top level it can't do the national psyche any good at all, when all their star can do after a tap on the shin-guard, is go down in a screaming heap and hope the referee can't see through the melodrama. It may not be pretty, but I'd rather see measured match-ups of shoving, bumping or jumper-boxing, than individual performances in anguished writhing.

I make no comment about any of the rugby codes.

The terrible crimes committed against our Islamic community by the Australian public don't even bear thinking about.

One could only wish that our Islamic fellow citizens could have come to this country from their various war torn, poverty stricken hellholes, to have been welcomed into a society that combined the greatest level of tolerance, affluence and acceptance in the world. But it was not to be.

Obviously in inflicting this suffering we have done our Muslim compatriots a great wrong. I feel the only way this can be atoned for is to ask them to forgive us, and to pay for a first class ticket to the destination of their choice, where they will find the tolerance and acceptance so lacking in Australia.

I doubt if even a committee made up of Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tse, Zoroaster, Karl Marx and St Mary McKillop would be able persuade Alan Jones to abandon the path of shock jockery. He clearly knows no other. In any case, there will always be demagogues like him catering to the prejudices out there in the mass population. By its very nature, talkback radio provides him with a huge amount of information as to what his mass audience is thinking.

And he listens to it all the time, day in and day out. So they give it to him, and he in turn feeds it back to them, with bells on. His squawkings are a good indicator of what the prejudices are out there in radioland, and how strong. And he never goes against mainstream opinion.

In connection with the problems faced by Muslims in Australia I strongly recommend Pamela Bone’s piece in this morning’s Age.

But I seek clarification here on the following: “Nada resents the fact that only thick-Sheiks are being made accountable for their hate-speech but not certain tabloid columnists or Liberal backbenchers.” I assume Nada’s ‘thick-Sheiks’ are people like Imam Abdul Nacer Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr. This gentleman (who clearly does not represent mainstream Muslim thought in Australia) is on record praising Osama bin Laden as a “great man” and expressing the view that the whole world should be converted to Islam and governed by Sharia law. He stands out among Muslims because he is so exceptional, not because he is typical. But I am not aware of any tabloid columnists or Liberal backbenchers who are preaching the same sort of thing in reverse. Who are we talking about here?

From my point of view, keeping radical Muslims out of power is not a bad idea, because their record of exercise of political power when they have it is not good, at least not from a Western liberal point of view.

Pamela Bone says inter alia: “[Not]… all cultures equally good, though again we are reluctant to acknowledge this. A culture that sentences young thieves to a community-based order is better than one that chops their hands off. Why must we pretend that a culture that stones women to death for adultery is worthy of respect? It is a pity some of those who call themselves liberals didn't support the reformers in Muslim societies instead of indulging in cultural relativism.”

To which I would add that human rights have to come before religious belief. I take it as self-evident that no matter what anybody’s religious doctrine says, we all have a right to life, and that murder should never be condoned. We all have a right to free enquiry, artistic expression, association and friendship, freedom of movement and travel, and for that matter to choice of religious belief. We all have a right to freedom from fear, and from hunger. We all have a right to clean air, clean water, clean habitation and uncontaminated food.

Getting a bit more particular, we all have a right not to be stoned to death for any act, whether or not it offends someone else’s concept of right and wrong. And we all have a right not to be physically mutilated, which of course includes compulsory genital mutilation. All of these are crimes against human rights as such, and should be regarded as crimes against humanity. But a significant part of Islam condones the stoning to death of women, their genital mutilation, and severe restrictions on their rights to education, freedom of movement, and freedom of association. That cannot be swept under the multiculturalist rug. It can only be opposed outright, and never allowed to take root here.

Islam and the other major religions of the world have their foundations in antiquity, and much of their present popular appeal is due to that. And “the family that prays together, stays together” as the old saying goes. Substitute for ‘family’ the words ‘village’, ‘tribe’, ‘national minority’ or ‘nation’ and it works just as well. Believing is ultimately about belonging. What the group believes can be quite arbitrary, as long as it is distinctive. Religion’s primary function is as a social glue.

But there is a trap in this. For if there is to be an in-group of ‘us’, to be rewarded in paradise, there must of necessity also be an out-group of ‘them’ to be consigned to hell, or at least outer darkness. It is not such a great step for someone who believes this to believing also that it is all right for a believer to kill an unbeliever, particularly one resistant to conversion, or to kill someone who has fallen out of belief (apostasy), or into incorrect belief (heresy). Christianity has been through this phase, and is now almost completely out of it. Unfortunately that part of Islam most likely to get coverage in the western tabloids is still well and truly in it.

I think that the worst thing a religious minority like the Muslims in Australia can do is retreat into an inwards focused and resentful ghetto mentality. Particularly when they feel themselves under wholesale suspicion, they could do a lot worse than to focus on what unites them to the rest of the humanity around them, not what divides them from it.

The overwhelming majority of the victims of the fanatics and suicide bombers have been Muslims. Street demonstrations against their atrocities are taking place in some of the the cities of the Arab world right now; organised, led by, and made up of Muslims.

Why can’t we have one or two here?

Graham McPherson, I almost spat my coffee all over the screen. Bloody funny.

I'm guessing that the same crew that think that Islam means peace will also be wishing Michelle Leslie got 22 years for her two ecstacy tabs or would be denouncing her for wearing the scarf over the head in court. Fools.

If Nada had truly achieved anything then it would be Muslims calling for the arrest of terrorists. Have another shot at it Nada.

Paul Sinclair, the frontline robotroops of the anti-diversity Mafia are almost always those usually working-class Australians who feel marginalised in terms of some mythical "Australian culture" which once existed in their own version of the "Dreamtime", where everyone was white and Christian. When challenged to identify this period in history and to describe it they are somewhat at a loss, and might mumble about ANZACs and Gallipoli (the Rodent Received Version rather than the truth) but rely on the Pauline Hansons of this world to speak for them. So again given Pauline's renowned intellectual cutting-edge there is a paucity of debate. Instead another demon group is created called the "ay-leets".

The "ay-leets" supposedly are such diverse and fearsome creatures as doctor's wives, university graduates (particularly *shudder* academics), anyone who has a modicum of concern for the environment and journalists and commentators sympathetic to the Left.

Snickering over their latte-chardonnays, the "ay-leets" are hatching plots where globalisation brings bird flu, where innocent white Australian virgins are despoiled by evil terrorists who hate freedumb and dumbocracy, only to become single mothers wearing hijabs, where gay marriage will be compulsory...

Hard though it is to corner these cultural ferals since there are members of all three groups scattered across the country and they tend not to have more than one head, their steely-eyed monoculturalist foes seemed to have pinpointed them principally in inner city Sydney and Melbourne, where they are supposedly found sipping away instead of indulging in true Australian values acquired by ingesting hours of Fuxtel. One suspects that latte-sippers in Adelaide or Newcastle or Dubbo must be feeling terribly left out, have given up the whole notion of being "Ay-leet" and have now switched to slabs of Tooheys or VB and large bags of Smith's as they hatch more dastardly plots in order to further bully and bash the bogans.

Of course every marginalised gripe group needs its heroes as well as its demons, so along came shockjocks Parrot and Tonsil, taking time out from checking their own hefty investment portfolios to descend in Olympian calm down to the battlers' burbs to harken to the entreaties of their flocks, and lo and behold, two supposed academics (but not "ay-leets") like latter-day neocon grump Keith Windschuttle whose academic qualifications I would dearly love to examine closely, especially in view of Stephen Foster's comments from the Right and Bob Gould's from the Left, and ardent monarchist Professor David Flint.

Don't laugh when I tell you that privileged little popinjay David Flint has actually used the term "elite" in his published works and speeches. Who more cosily elite and pampered than he?

It has escaped the notice of many that post-European settlement Australia has always been multicultural.

Indigenous Australians of course have throughout the last 200 or so years borne the brunt of discrimination, cruel treatment and marginalisation, but they have not been alone.

At the same time there have always been attempts by the more lurid commentators, including Henry Lawson, and by members of the Anglo establishment to demonise sections of European-origin society, whether they be emancipists or the Irish (principally the Catholics) or the Jews.

At the time of the Gold Rush it was then the turn of the Chinese to become the demons, and successive waves of immigration saw both resident Germans and Turks imprisoned during WWI, Germans and Italians during WWII, and the flowering of the White Australia Policy.

Petro Georgiou's definition of multiculturalism is perhaps the most compact summation:

In essence, multiculturalism refers to the belief that, within a framework of key common values, members of different cultural and ethnic groups have the right to retain distinctive identities, and that there should be policies and programs to reflect and support this, including measures to ensure equality of opportunity in all key areas of life.

Professor Laksiri Jayasuriya analyses racism here, Robert Tierney looks at immigration from a Marxist perspective, since demonisation of groups is often both related to and proportional to the marginalisation of the demonisers.

An African-American perspective also points out why the Australian experience is unique, and probably why it is more successful than that of the US.

And Sir James Gobbo reminds us it is not just about food.

A Mills, if you cannot comprehend the literal meaning of Islam, then there is no reason for you to even engage in a discussion regarding Islam. Your defiance that Islam does not mean peace is at best laughable, considering that fact that you are not Arab to even give a definition to the word.

In Arabic, Islam derives from the three-letter root S-L-M reflecting the meaning "to be in peaceful submission; to surrender; to obey; peace”. Etymologically, it is derived from the same root as, for example, Salam; meaning "peace".

On a more symbolic level, if you are conveying that the Islamic faith is not a peaceful faith, I would like to then know your qualifications for making such a statement. Do you happen to be an expert in classical Arabic? This is essential to discuss controversial topics in the Koran, especially the notion that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Do you even know anything about Islam outside of TV and radio? Have you read any Islamic books that outline the beliefs of Islam and its origins? Under what basis do you claim that Islamic theology is not peaceful?

Your stereotypical views are not warranted, and if you bothered to even pick up a book about Islam, you would retract your comments. I once used be to offended by such remarks, but as time progresses, I realise that it is the norm in this country for people to make false, racist and often outright militant statements about Islam.

Ian MacDougall, you have made many incorrect and fictitious statements about the Islamic faith. I am disappointed to see that it is very common amongst the academics to make these gross inaccuracies about my faith and my customs.

You quoted “But a significant part of Islam condones… genital mutilation”. Islam does not condone genital mutilation, and there is no link between the Koran and genital mutilation. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a practice that predates Islam and is a result of cultural practices in not only a minute volume of African Muslims, but amongst many of the polytheistic African tribes that reside in Kenya and other parts of Africa. The Koran makes clear that any practice that endangers ones health is a major sin, and FGM is well known to impact a woman’s health.

You also stated that Islamic women have “severe restrictions on their rights to education, freedom of movement, and freedom of association”. Islam does not have severe restrictions on women seeking education. In Islam, it is compulsory for the women and man to be educated and abstain from living a life of ignorance. Muslims are commanded by the Prophet to be the best at their field, and in order to become more effective and more efficient, it is important that women and men seek knowledge to improve in their fields and remain a productive member of society.

There is a strong hadith (sayings of the prophet) that says the “ink of a scholar has more worth than the blood of a martyr”. This applies to Muslim women and men who seek education and do not live a life of ignorance. Muslim women and men are told to be weary of nature, of politics and all that is created on Earth. An example of this was the Prophet's wife Aisha who was heavily involved in politics, and often explained verses of the Koran to the Muslim people.

In regards to freedom of movement and association, once again that is false. Women are entitled to go out and learn and trade with communities. If a woman seeks to travel, the Koran does not prohibit it, nor does it restrict women from associating with friends and family. Islam is a faith that is built on community values and understanding. Therefore, women must not live lives of seclusion, but should be out getting involved in community activities to ensure that the community maintains a healthy and prosperous future.

I am also getting this impression that you believe that Islam permits the killing of a non-believer for simply being a non-believer. This act is categorised as murder. There is no verse in the Koran that advocates a person to kill a non-believer because of his faith. Killing in Islam is only warranted in self-defense and the application of capital punishment. Other than these, no individual Muslim has the right to kill a non-believer for his beliefs.

Also, in regards to heresy and apostasy, the Koran does not define any worldly penalties for such a crime. Other than eternal damnation, there is no punishment for apostasy in the Koran. Although, people forget the type of apostasy the Islamic Caliphate were dealing with during their times. Apostates during the time of the Islamic empire were militarily hostile. One apostate declared himself the final prophet upon the death of Prophet Muhammed and banded an army of 3000 soldiers and headed to Mecca. Hence, in order to quell this dissent, swift action and new laws of deterrence were needed. Many westerners paint this impression that apostates are individuals who abandon Islamic faith, sit at home and remain loyal to the state. This was not the case during the Islamic era, as apostates were hostile and openly plotting to overthrow the Islamic empire.

Pamela Bonehead states that “A culture that sentences young thieves to a community-based order is better than one that chops their hands off”. She is obviously referring to the Islamic practice in medieval times of amputating a hand for a convicted thief. She gives an impression that a thief is liable to his hand being amputated for simply stealing an apple, which is far from the truth. She also fails to make a note that almost all thieves re-offend, and that the “community-based” system does not work for the majority of individuals.

In Islamic times, there were not many “luxury” items available to ordinary citizens. Most items were always a necessity, and when these items were stolen, there was no insurance company to subsidise the person's loss. Many thieves attempted to steal gold, swords, or other valuable items needed by families to keep up with making ends meat. Often these criminals were violent, and would attack the inhabitants of a shop or home to steal the item. This would at times lead to deaths or severe injuries, and if the individual succeeded in stealing a persons life savings, (we did not have banks in medieval times), they would be forced to live in the streets. Thus, harsh penalties were needed to deter such a problem from occurring.

It was also known that a person who doesn’t steal for stealing sake, thus, stealing to feed his/her family, is not liable for the penalty of amputation. There is no penalty for one who steals to survive. Though, this was rare, and many thieves maimed and stole for stealings sake.

Pamela Bonehead is nothing more than an intellectual militant whose journals and essays fall short of any scholarly acceptance of her writings on Islamic theology and Muslims. Her disparaging of Islamic teachings, especially in regards to women, renders her analysis as non credible. She fails to comprehend why Islamic Law is derived the way it is, and paints a utopian view of liberalism and democracy, often disregarding the social ills that capitalism and liberty has brought to society.

She openly talks about supporting women who want to “reform Islam”, alluding that the ills of the Muslim people are a result of the faith itself. She believes that a democratic, secularist state would solve the problems of the Muslim people, but does not convey that the Islamic Empire never had an issue of Church and State. Secularism is purely a Western ideology which arose to combat the excesses of the Pope and church, which impacted and hampered European society from progressing scientifically and financially. The problem with the Muslim world is the antithesis, as the absence of a Caliphate and Islamic Law since its abolition in 1924, has resulted in nothing more than wars, death, sorrows and factionalism at a magnitude never witnessed before.

I believe that the issue today in regards to Islam and Muslims is that their isn’t enough knowledge about the faith. I find it disappointing that an academic would give me a voluminous and detailed analysis on the Aztec, Mayan and other extinct empires whose impact to the modern world is all but absent, yet, if I was to ask the most basic questions about the tenets of the Islamic faith, people would be dumbfounded. What disappoints me is that the Islamic faith is basis for the enlightenment period which Europe awoke from, and that it was only three centuries ago the Islamic armies were at the gates of Vienna. Also, it was only a century ago that Muslims were in control of the Balkans. Islam, for 1300 years, dominated the economic, social and military world. And presently, there has been a recognizable minority of Muslims in almost every country. Yet, the amount of knowledge people have about this faith is less than the knowledge people have about the Hyksos.

Graham McPherson and A Mills, your comments are symptomatic of the Australian backlash against Muslims. An instinctive ‘love it or leave it’ reaction. Cheap shots.

When was the last time you were vilified or spat on because of your appearance or religion?

Jeez guys, isn’t it possible to criticise certain aspects of Australia without being, God forbid, un-Australian? I get so sick of people telling me I should stop criticising Australia’s current contempt for human rights because, well, we’re not as bad as some other countries. What a cop-out. Call me an idealist, but I don’t think we should wait until we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel before we start questioning our own behaviour. Australia used to be proud of its stand on human, political and civil rights. Now they’re just elite rubbish, an annoyance.

Is it really a good idea to stereotype every Muslim in Australia and impose a collective responsibility on them for every terrorist attack in the world? Of course they need to engage with these issues, but a guilty-till-proven-innocent attitude by non-Muslims will send us down a dangerous road. Muslims seem to be just as diverse as Christians, from what I can see. Are all Christians collectively responsible for Dubya’s crusade in Iraq, or the shooting of abortionists in the USA? On a body-count basis, Christians are far more bloody dangerous than Muslims.

I agree that there should be fearless and frank discussion between Muslims and non-Muslim Australians about Islam and terrorism. There are certainly aspects of Islam I feel uncomfortable about – and the same goes for Christianity. But some of my best friends are Muslims and some are Christians. I’m an atheist – so what? As the article says, we need “to relate to each other as human beings with human frailties, not as Muslims or Christians or Callithumpians”.

We should feel free to criticise aspects of any religion or culture, in a constructive way. But to leap on the anti-Muslim bandwagon and demonise them all is hardly constructive, is it? In fact, as the article suggests, it’s counter productive because it makes Muslims feel excluded from mainstream Australia. We don’t want to create a ghetto-like mentality among Muslims that will encourage those inclined to violence to lash out. We need to be smarter than that.

When I returned to Oz in '87 after years of living in the UK I was surprised to hear the comments made about Asian immigrants, the most recent arrivals. They were all the same style of comments we hear now about Muslim immigrants, mostly ranging from fear of how they would change Aussie culture - whatever that is, to more banal comments about "leaving their washing flapping on balconies".

Thankfully that all vanished with 10 years so I feel very confident about what is being expressed today about our newest immigrants. We must however recognise the political opportunists who attempt to make capital out of directing the spotlight on racial groups. They will always be with us and they need exposing.

Mahmoud, I base my understanding of Islam by what I have viewed since 1972. Bombing after bombing, outrage after outrage. I can only conclude that the statement, "Religion of Peace" is a farce. If Islam truly meant peace these bombings would not occur with anything like the frequency with which they do. Similarly, all Muslims would do their utmost to ensure that the planners and perpetrators of these outrages were brought to justice. I see no evidence of this. It is time Islam lifted its game.

A Mills, do you also base your understanding of Catholicism on what the IRA did during the last forty years?? Or for that matter your understanding of Protestants by what the UDF did? Or Judaism by what the pre-Israelis did in the 1940s? Or Southern Baptists by what the KKK did? A simple answer, yes or no, will suffice.

Mahmoud Tlais, your defence of Islam reminds me of the sort of ‘rosy glow’ versions of life in the old East Germany, where there was no unemployment, free education for all, etc, etc.

You cherry-pick the good bits, give them a polish, and ignore the rest. You criticise Pamela ‘Bonehead’ for her “utopian” views, then offer us your version of Islamic utopia.

You call someone a bonehead, and then expect respect yourself!

So what if Muslim comes from an Arabic root meaning “peace”? The English words paste, pastry, pasty, pasta and pâté come from a Greek root meaning “barley porridge”.

The simple fact of the matter with regard to FGM is that it does occur in Muslim countries. It is done by Muslims in the belief that it is part of Islam. It is done with the full knowledge of Islamic religious leaders and teachers, who do nothing to stop it.

You talk about “no insurance to subsidise a loss”. You omit to mention that all conventional insurance schemes are a form of gambling and forbidden by Islam.

You say that the Koran does not forbid a woman travelling. You leave out that a woman is not permitted to travel more than 88km unless accompanied by a mahram escort (father, brother, son, uncle, nephew, father-in-law, son-in-law, step-son).

You say that the Koran does not forbid a woman from associating with “friends and family”. That is just a nice way of saying that the Koran forbids her from associating with anybody else.

You know that Muslim women may have only female friends, and a Muslim woman should associate with non-Muslims only with the aim of inviting them to Islam.

And of course, a woman may do only what her father or husband allows.

You say “there is no verse in the Koran that advocates a person to kill a non-believer because of his faith.” Yet Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries prescribe the death penalty for apostates, heretics and blasphemers. They don’t worry about what the Koran teaches “let there be no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) and “let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject [God’s truth]” (Surah 18:29).

Muslim religious courts have sentenced those considered guilty of blasphemy or heresy to death. Two well-publicised recent cases in which death penalties were levied involved the novelists Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasareen.

It's not what the Koran teaches that matters, it's how people who call themselves Muslim actually behave.

Gawd - I find myself partially agreeing with A Mills again. As he himself would say, "maybe that means I should have a closer look at my position"!

As a died in the wool small 'l' liberal I simply cannot respect many aspects of the Islamic religion - foremost of which is the sometimes subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, subjugation of women. You can dress it up all you like Mahmoud, but the fact remains that women are not respected as a man's equal under your religion.

Your statement that Western liberalism often disregards "the social ills that capitalism and liberty has brought to society" reeks of a desire to impose a conservative religious agenda upon us all. I'm also quite affronted by your feeble attempts to justify the amputation of people's hands as a punishment for stealing - particularly your comment that "all thieves re-offend, and that the 'community-based' system does not work for the majority of individuals."

Sounds to me like you STILL think that we should cut off the hands of theives. Give talkback radio a call with that opinion Mahmoud - you'll probably get a lot of support, although not from people like me.

It is true that the Left and Islam have found themselves fighting on the same side quite often recently but, and I would like A Mills to remember this, that does not mean that the Left supports the teachings of Islam. In fact, I think you will find that the socially conservative amongst us have far more in common with Islam than the socially liberal.

I'm not willing to overlook the offensive aspects of Islam merely because we happen to share a common enemy - my beef with the Right in this country has nothing to do with Islam.

I know that doesn't leave me with many allies - but after reading the transparent dribble that Mahmoud just tried to pass off as an explanation of how nice Islam really is I no longer care.

"The simple fact of the matter with regard to FGM is that it does occur in Muslim countries. It is done by Muslims in the belief that it is part of Islam. It is done with the full knowledge of Islamic religious leaders and teachers, who do nothing to stop it."

Bai Ren, of course by that logic, then all Christians condone sexual abuse by priests. Because it occurs in Australia, Britain and the US that must mean that our countries condone paedophilia as well, mustn't it?

Certain Christian leaders have also tried to blame the victims. So of course all Christians are guilty of being apologists for paedophiles?

If you accept your logic then it must be so. And that being the case, are we in any position to be throwing stones?

George Bush is a Christian fundamentalist who claims that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. So does that make all Christians complicit in his crime?

One does wonder at the inability of the some to see the blatant hypocrisy of this.

Ditto to the self righteous anger expressed towards suicide bombers, while they condone the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs, white phospherous, and depleted uranium missiles on Iraqi targets - resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries which we don't even bother to count.

This 'collateral' damage is apparently regrettable but necessary. When one fights a war, it should be assumed that we may likewise suffer 'collateral damage'.

Such is War.

Mahmoud, I have read several books about Islam, in particular the thing that sticks out is that Islam cannot be a religion of peace when it was founded by a warrior. What did the Prophet do to the neighbouring Jewish tribes? And to the Quraysh?

Mahmoud Tlais: “There is a strong hadith (sayings of the Prophet) that says the “ink of a scholar has more worth than the blood of a martyr”.

As the Gospel writers showed emphatically after the martyrdom of the prophet Jesus.

But all the bile in the bloodless veins of Howard’s entourage and his squawk-jocks cannot make up for the lack of real ink in the pulses of the goofy commercial gutter media’s “researchers.”

And any wrongs attributed by these ugly nongs to a hate group – Catholic, Jews, Moslems, Reffos of all colours, and the despised and worthless indigenous Australians - have the most value of all.

Throw in various other hate groups – single parents (mums, not crazy daddies with guns), mad people (but not crazy daddies with guns), invalids and the unemployed generally, and you’ve got an all-star caste of PBL-News Limited Dalits.

Then the wonderful $$$$$$ from the overseas-owned pastoral companies, big miners, and the entrenched, $tickier end of the far Right of Howardism-Hansonism just floods in.

Press the Howard hot buttons and these guys will ejaculate Krugerrands.

Always follow the cash, no matter where it goes, even to TimBuckTwo Blare’s Blubbertron magazine (motto: “Australia for the very, very, very RICH White Men, China for Rupert’s dabbles.”)

Dirty dollars stick together like goat-shit, and they make lots of sticky money from bigotry, well past the seething suburbs.

Peter "The more Idiotis" Woodforde.

Anne Brooks
I do not deny that a number of Christian clergy have sexually abused members of their flock. However, unlike FGM, I have never heard Christian minister proclaim that kiddy fiddling is the right and proper thing to do, or that it is encouraged by Christianity.

Compare that with this quote from http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

The only religion I've ever really encountered in a negative sense and felt somewhat threatened by were the Catholics of the IRA. I heard three massive bombs go off in London which killed many people including a close friend. These terrifying incidents certainly made me view some Irish Catholic relatives suspiciously and indeed some Protestant ones and most Irish people in general. I recovered my senses eventually. Never had a run-in with anyone of the Islamic faith though. I wonder how many Aussies actually have, apart from via the media.

Mahmoud Tlais: "You quoted “And of course, a woman may do only what her father or husband allows”. No, a woman can do only what the Koran says. ... If a husband or father is not following Islamic teachings, she does not have to obey."

You should work for a politician, you're such a spin-meister!

You say that the Koran does not discriminate against women.

The Koran (4:34) says that a man may beat his wife.
Can a woman beat her husband? No.
Can a Muslim man marry a Christian or Jew? Yes.
Can a Muslim woman marry a Christian or Jew? No.
Can a man summarily divorce his wife? Yes.
Can a woman summarily divorce her husband? No.
One man can give evidence in court, but a woman's uncorroborated testimony is worthless.

And infidels cannot give evidence against believers. So if Muslim rapes a woman, and the only witnesses are infidels and one Muslim woman, the rapist won't be punished by an Islamic court.

A woman must obey her husband or father, unless she is commanded to do something contary to the Koran. She cannot say no to her husband, if he wants sex.

You write: "You cannot judge a religion by its adherents; you must judge it by its scripture," but later you say, "The Islamic community is comprised of 85% Sunni and 15% other (Shia, Alawi, Ibadhi, Wahabbi…). Wahabbis, who take the literal meaning of the Koran, are in control of Saudi Arabia, while Shiasm is the dominant theocracy in Iran, hence, the terminology of Ayatollah."

So which of these is the true judge of Islamic scripture? It goes back to what I said at the beginning. We kaffirs have nothing upon which to judge Islam, other than the actual documented behaviour and statements of those who call themselves Muslims.

Mahmoud, I have no qualifications at all in terms of the study of Islam. However if you are going to restrict your debating opponents to those that do then I suggest you are going to be talking to yourself more often than not.

And why would I ask a Sheikh whether Islam discriminates against women when I know that he would simply tell me it doesn't? I've heard/read a hundred scholars of Islam, yourself included, say that women are equal under the Koran - but I can see with my own eyes how women are treated in Islamic countries.

By the way Mahmoud - you state in your last post that you find liberty and secularism offensive - can I ask what you would like to see done about this? Perhaps you would like to see some of our liberties curtailed, such as the right for women to wear bikinis or the right for homosexuals to openly be homosexuals, or maybe a little more religion inserted into our government and/or legal system?

You also had a dig at our liberal democracy - implying that you would like to 'challenge it' since it is not necessarily the best system.

Seriously Mahmoud - if you find elements of our liberal and secular democracy offensive then I assume you would like to see those elements changed. Just what is your agenda mate - what would you like to see changed?

Mahmoud Tlais: "And maybe we see many offensive parts of secularism and liberty?"

So in order to make that criticism, I suppose you have made a thorough study of Western thought since the Enlightenment. Then you've read and digested Smith, Locke, Marx, Popper, Kant, Rousseau, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein for a start.

Although to truly understand them you will of course have read them in the original English, German and French, otherwise the lack of context and the loss of nuances of meaning, will render the reading of the text unreliable. Unfortunately it follows that these texts are untranslateable into languages such as Arabic or Japanese.

However, if you lack the requisite skill in these languages, I suppose you could just go one of our temples of learning and enquire of the wise men there as to the true meaning of Western thought. I'm sure that they can tell you what you need to know.

Mahmoud Tlais: "Simon Ellis, I am curious to know what qualifications you have to make theological statements about Islam."

Without buying into the particular details of the discussion between Mahmoud and Simon, I have to say remarks like "what qualifications you have to make theological statements about Islam" really irritate me.

Michael de Angelos: "They were all the same style of comments we hear now about Muslim immigrants, mostly ranging from fear of how they would change Aussie culture - whatever that is, to more banal comments about "leaving their washing flapping on balconies"."

Except Muslims are not mere recent immigrants to Australia. Muslims have been a feature of Australian society for a long time.

And the whole discussions is overshadowed by events since September 11 - and the very real fact that not all Muslims at all welcome cultural diversity, either.

Simon Ellis, I am curious to know what qualifications you have to make theological statements about Islam. Is your quote “You can dress it up all you like Mahmoud, but the fact remains that women are not respected as a man's equal under your religion” a result of your extensive knowledge of Islam and your proficiency in classical Arabic; a necessity if you want to interpret the Koran. I wonder how many years you studied Islam to derive such a conclusion? People like you exist quite commonly in the Australian community. They refuse to accept the peaceful Islamic teachings from learned Sheikhs and students simply because they are content with their false anti-Islamic beliefs; and possibly quite proud of it. I wonder if you have EVER asked a sheikh about the above point, and how much research you have done in order to learn just a little about the basics of the Islamic faith.

There is no doubt that the Koran does not discriminate against women. There are many verses which demonstrate this, and I shall quote the following: “I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other” (3:195).

Anyways Simon, have you ever thought that maybe we Muslims believe that secularist and liberal ideologies are oppressive to women? And maybe we see many offensive parts of secularism and liberty? Why is it that there is this belief amongst democrats and liberalist that this ideology is superior to all ideologies and no other faith or system has any merit in challenging it? This intellectual imperialism being espoused by various western communities and journalist is no different than the militant imperialism espoused and practiced by pre-World War One Europe. We Muslims don’t uphold secularism as some divine law that is infallible, and people should respect these beliefs.

Bai Ren: Are you aware that FGM is practiced by Christian African nations, Polytheists African tribes and Ethiopian Jews? It is also found in Latin America, parts of Europe and other parts in North America. This practice is not discriminatory, and the notion that people of Islamic faith who practice this act must therefore do it as a result of their Islamic teachings, is no different to stating that Atheist who murder must be doing it as part of their beliefs simply because they don’t believe that people have souls. You cannot judge a religion by its adherents; you must judge it by its scripture.

I would also like to make a note that when an individual is being attacked for his beliefs, they will do anything to justify it. This is well known, and the Koran itself tells us that there are Muslims who will commit evil actions and try to justify it through the Koran itself.

I think the reason we pounce on Muslims who commit these acts is that there is a misconception that the 1.5 billion Muslims are overtly religious. This is not that case, as there are millions of Muslims who wouldn’t have a clue about the teachings of the Koran.

You quoted “And of course, a woman may do only what her father or husband allows”. No, a woman can do only what the Koran says. She makes her own decisions, which she is accounted for on the day of judgment. If a husband or father is not following Islamic teachings, she does not have to obey. Examples may be denying her education, social interaction and other anti-Islamic practices. Every Muslim is accountable for there own actions, and every Muslim's loyalty is to the teachings of Islam, not a male human.

You quoted “You say that the Koran does not forbid a woman from associating with “friends and family”. That is just a nice way of saying that the Koran forbids her from associating with anybody else”. That is very sexist, considering the fact that the same rules apply to Muslim Men. Neither Muslim women or men are entitled to interact ALONE other than same-sex friends or family. But groups are allowed, and if there is a group of say 5 men and 5 women, then they are entitled to have a chat. What Islam forbids is a man and women, who are marriageable, to be alone. Other than that, group discussion, etc, are allowed.

In regards to apostasy, I believe that there is more than meets the eye. There are people who convert to a faith that endangers the entrenched family values that Muslims proud ourselves on. Many apostates are openly and aggressively hostile to the government and Islamic ideology, and often make false derogatory statements about Islamic teachings.

Anyways, there is a misconception that Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two countries who are perceived to practice Sharia Law, are actually representative of the global Islamic community. The Islamic community is comprised of 85% Sunni and 15% other (Shia, Alawi, Ibadhi, Wahabbi…). Wahabbis, who take the literal meaning of the Koran, are in control of Saudi Arabia, while Shiasm is the dominant theocracy in Iran, hence, the terminology of Ayatollah.

Your final quote “It's not what the Koran teaches that matters, it's how people who call themselves Muslim actually behave” is correct to a certain extent. Unfortunately, the Koran doesn’t have 2 arms, legs and brain. But, I feel that it is time the media ended this monopolisation of racist and biased statements of the Islamic theocracy. People have a right to an opinion, but people do not have the right to make false statements about the Koran, or any other text for that matter.

From Irfan's article:

"Nada made the important point that Muslims have always been part of the Australian landscape. Muslim involvement in Australia pre-dates the first European discoveries. Northern Australia appears in Arab maps dating back to the 11th century. Muslim fishermen regularly traded with indigenous peoples across Northern Australia. Around two-thirds of Australia's Muslim community were actually born in Australia."

Hi Irfan, I've been enjoying your posts, but I've got to take serious issue with this statement. I've also seen you make similar comment on your own, and other websites, about 'Australian Islam pre-dates European settlement' and 'Islam has been at the heart of Australian life for the last 150 years'.

Sorry mate, but that is highly misleading at best, and utterly dishonest bollocks at worst.

Muslims have only been a significant part of Australian society for barely a generation or two. It only really all started when we abandoned the White Australia policy in the late 1960s and began to allow large-scale migration of Turks and Cypriots (after exhausting the supply of Anglos, then Northern Europeans, then Southern Europeans willing to migrate). And no, a tiny handful of Slavic Muslim post-ww2 refugees from the Balkans doesn't change the overall picture.

Nor does the famous "Ghans" (Muslim camel drivers) of central Australia. (a misnomer based on Anglo ignorance as many weren't from Afghanistan anyway).

They may have been performing a useful and worthwhile function, but it was also a tiny, geographically isolated niche role. They had virtually no contact with the bulk of the Aussie population, many of which were probably completely unaware of their presence.

To suggest that they were 'at the heart of Australian life', or somesuch, is grossly misleading.

Some miscellaneous points:

- broad outlines of Australia on 11th century Arab maps is not the same as detailed and interactive exploration, or anything that could potentially make a 'cultural impact'.

- even when there was interaction, such as some East Indonesian fisherman trading some food with some coastal Aborigines, this can hardly be called "Australian Islam". That's a gross exageration. After all, the Dutch and the Portugese did much the same (long before Anglo settlement), but it would be spurious to suggest that this had any kind of significant cultural impact on either the Aborigines or the later British colonial society.

- I was under the impression that roughly 2/3 of Aussie Muslims were born overseas (not the other way around as Nada says). I'm happy to be corrected on this. Anyone got an accurate citation?

So in conclusion, by all means, let's defend the human rights of the modern Islamic communties in Australia today. But exaggeration and the creation of 'false history' is not the way to achieve that.

This exaggeration could potentially contribute to a 'victim role' among young Aussie Muslims (which I personally believe would be a very bad thing). Some radicals may start to hanker for a 'lost', mythical, pre-European "Australian Islam" that never existed.

And it may also creates distrust among non-Muslims who become suspicious of the motivations behind this exaggeration. I willingly admit that it certainly raises my hackles.

Ian Maxwell, apologies for the tardy response.

No, I do not base my views on Catholics on the crimes of the IRA (to choose but one of the groups named in your post). The Irish are but one of the many nationalities under the Catholic Church. To view all Catholics based on their actions would be stupid. Islamic groups, be they terrorists or those opposed to liberal western thinking, come from Algeria, Morocco, Croatia, Serbia, Chechnya, Jordan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc.

A better question for you to ask would be something along the lines of a comparison between Catholicism and Islam. If given a choice I would ask for a third option as neither are acceptable to me. Any ideology that treats women as second class citizens or gays as third class citizens or any other minority group is completely unacceptable to me. I would choose, in fact, the general Australian way of life (or general UK, French, German, etc way of life). It may take us a while to come around on certain issues (eg gay rights, equal pay for women) but we get there in the end. Islam will never come around on these issues (or is Mamoud going to tell me I'm not scholarly up there on this?)

James Squires, the story of the prophet’s life is a sad story. As you possibly know, the prophet was harassed from the first day he preached Islam, and for 13 long years in Mecca he was stoned, spat on, physically and verbally abused, and had assassins attempting to take his life on many occasions. On one occasion, he was reported to be covered in so much blood from the stones thrown at him by the Meccans, that he was virtually unrecognisable. Yet amongst all this barbarism espoused by the tribes of the Quraysh, the prophet restrained from harming and breaking treaties with the Quraysh.

The notion that the prophet was solely a warrior is false. The prophet revolutionised Arabia culturally, economically and militarily. He was a combination of all the characteristics needed to survive in a world that was hostile to Islam. The prophets teaching stopped many of the disgusting practices such as infanticide, oppression to women, beating of slaves, and the constant unjust wars that these tribes fought. A history of pre-Islam Arabia would be reviling, and would reveal how barbaric these tribes were to their own communities and their neighbours.

The prophet was a warrior for 10 years, in which he fought nothing more than wars of defenses. The Quraysh continuously broke the treaties with the prophet and sent armies to crush him and the Islamic faith. The irony of this is that these same tribes would leave their gold in the hands of the prophet to mind so it would not be stolen. So while they attacked him, they also charged him with the role of safe keeping their gold.

The history of the Quraysh and the Muslims is a story of the Quraysh aspiring and conspiring to destroying the Islamic faith. It is filled with treachery, barbarity and a determination to kill the prophet of Islam and its adherents.

In regards to the Jewish tribes, are you referring to the Banu An-Nadir, Bani Qainuqa and the Bani Haritha who broke their treaties with the Muslims repeatedly and even allied militarily with the Quraysh in many battles, thus ending in their expulsion from Medina. You cannot expect that these tribes to not to be expelled for their treason and treachery. People have to think reasonably, and people can’t expect tribes who threaten the state to roam freely.

On a final note, it is universally known that the Prophet Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.

A Mills, if I was to use your definition for assessing an ideology or faith, then is it not correct for me to judge secularism by a fixed date? Let us say, since the 20th century. Are you aware of the imperialism espoused by the secular Europe who famously termed Africa as “one big cake”. The inhabitants of Congo are reportedly to have had over two million deaths alone.

We have seen other wars, World War I & II, Vietnam, Korean War, Falklands War, and Iraqi War just to name the few. These wars by the peaceful secularists have generated in tens of millions of innocent dying, a feat that has never happened in history. The secularist systems of today, including the ones in Arabs states, are responsible for deaths of innocent at a magnitude never witnessed in any religious wars. They are also responsible for the development of weapons which do most damage to civilians than soldiers.

What I think is the scariest of all is the common mindset of the inhabitants of secularist countries, and that mindset is that it is perfectly normal for innocent people to die in modern warfare, regardless of the magnitude. We don’t see uprisings or protest when a missile is fired on a target in a city which kills majority civilians. We accept this as “part of modern warfare”. This disrespect to life can be interpreted, according to your definition, that all of the west must be the right hand man/women of the devil. Although, rationally thinking, we know it’s the fault of the governments. Do you see the stupidity in judging like this?

Bai Ren, I am well aware of the Egyptian case which lifted the ban of Female Genital Mutilation in 1996. You obviously are not aware of the reasons, and the so-called “scholars” who attended the court for having this belief. I would convey that the amount of scholars in this world can be counted on the palm of your hand. It is quite common amongst the Muslim and non-Muslim community to ascribe the word scholar to Sheikhs or people who have studied Islam for 5 years. Scholars, on the other hand, have a job where he will bet his entire life on a religious ruling. He also does not cease to study Islam, and continues to study it until he retires.

In regards to the case, one must understand that the Koran does not mention anything about FGM. It doesn’t say that it is allowed, nor does it say it isn’t allowed. It is simply never mentioned. The reason for this is that the Arabian tribes in the Middle East simply never practiced it. The only reference of FGM is two “weak” hadith (sayings of the prophet). What I mean by “weak” is that it does not meet the strict criteria to be considered unquestionable (classified as mursal, ie missing a link in the chain of transmitters in that none was among the original Companions of the Prophet.) In addition, it is found in only one of the six undisputed, authentic hadith collections that are in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (Chapter 1888). According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are not authentic.

Sheik Youssef Badri dismisses the notion that FGM doesn’t provide sexual pleasures to women, and that it has severe health defects if practiced. According to him, women increase sexual sensation and do not incur any health problems.

The way FGM would become illegal in Islam is under these two categories. A woman has a right to sexual pleasures, and if FGM limits that, then it is not allowed to practiced. Also, any procedure that endangers the health is also not allowed, and if FGM does this, then it is definitely illegal in Islam.

Webdiarist:, personally, I believe the problem lies with the diversity of Islam. Since the Koran does not discriminate on which race can obtain prominence, provide Islamic religious edicts and become leaders, we sometimes see other non-Islamic cultural influences impacting decisions. In some of the non-Arab communities we see a glimpse of this, where Muslims have not assimilated into mainstream Islam, and have still adopted practices that were evident prior to the coming of Islam. An example is FGM, or some Pakistani tribes that sentence women to be raped for the actions of one of her siblings or father. These practices are not known in the Middle East, but can be identified in some off-shoot non-Arab Muslim tribes.

Graham McPherson, I was waiting for someone to make such a statement. I would like to convey that there is a big difference between classical Arabic, and other foreign languages.

The classical Arabic language is unique in that it is a language that truly cannot be interpreted accurately by a foreign language. In almost every translation of the Koran an introduction will notify the reader that this is a guide, and that it is impossible to get a very accurate translation of the Koran. The reason is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of words which would require an explanation the size of an encyclopedia. That doesn’t mean one should not attempt to read the Koran, but it does mean that if are trying to make incorrect statements such as “women are unequal in the Koran”, then you need to have some very good Arabic to back up such a statement.

C Parsons, I am sorry that this is the way you feel, but I think it is important that journalist and other academics are aware that their University degrees or Masters does not give them the skill to interpret the Koran on a controversial level. This belief that a degree or English proficiency gives an individual merit in interpreting the Koran on controversial matters is simply a sign of arrogance and academic imperialism. It is also a sign of disrespect to the faith itself.

E Burrows: I totally agree that there may have been exaggerations to the impact of Islam on the Aboriginal communities in medieval times. There is no doubt that there may have been some conversions as a result of intermarriage, but this would not have impacted the Aboriginal community greatly.

Although, I believe it is a disappointment that Islamic communities are resorting to this exaggeration, I believe that the Muslim community convey this story to non-Muslims because we are currently feeling insecure about our status in the Australian community. As stated before, I believe that many Muslims believe that we are simply guests of this country, and that our status may have greater prominence if the Australian community shared the belief that Muslims were here before the Europeans. It is sad we, as Australians, have reached this stage.

Simon Ellis, you put me in a very prominent position, likening me to a scholar or Sheikh. Let me tell you that the knowledge I possess about Islam is a fraction of what a Sheikh would have, and the Shiekh's knowledge is a fraction of a scholars knowledge of Islam.

By putting me this position, it shows your lack of knowledge of Islam. To be honest, it shows that you know next to nothing about my faith. That is not a bad thing, as I know next to nothing about Christian faith. But, what separates me from you is that I do not make statements about Christian theology because I do not have any credentials to speak about the faith. Why then, should you comment about my faith incorrectly, when you yourself admitted you don’t have the skills to comment about Islam?

Simon Ellis: “And why would I ask a Sheikh whether Islam discriminates against women when I know that he would simply tell me it doesn't?”

Is this a joke? Are you telling me that you are aware that the Koran does not espouse inequality to man and women, yet will not yield your current perspective because of what your “own eyes have seen?” Have you ever thought that your eyes would be prejudiced because of your belief in secularism? Or that maybe your eyes have only seen no further than TV?

In other words, it’s ok to generalise and make fictitious statements about Islam even though you are aware of the truth! What credibility would you receive by having this view?

If I was to judge an ideology by its adherents, I could categorise Western countries as the most barbaric in the world. I could use your same criteria and make the following statements:

Western citizens abhor women since they are rapists, as they have the highest rate of rape.

Westerners do not value life, and do not care about civilians, since there wars result in deaths of innocent.

Westerners are racists, as the media portray Muslims negatively.

Westerners are imperialist, as they subjected Africa to brutal occupation and imperialism.

Westerners lock up children in inhumane detentions, since Australia does it.

I could go on like this, and use your criteria to paint a rather ugly portrait of western people, but mind you, if a Muslim or any individual came into my house and quoted the above, I would throw him out the kitchen window. No individual has the right to generalise or attach the policy of a group or government to a faith, ideology or culture. We should be beyond the stereotypes and generalisations that plagued society in many areas. Tolerance, respect and honesty would render all stereotypes ranging from the Islamic ones, to the Western ones as obsolete. Then, and only then, can all faiths, cultures and ideologies live in peace and harmony, something I feel we have lost over the years.

Also, are you aware in many Islamic countries which the “inequality” takes place, the country is ruled by secularist regimes?

You stated earlier “By the way Mahmoud - you state in your last post that you find liberty and secularism offensive - can I ask what you would like to see done about this?”. Nothing, just practice what you preach, and that means “freedom of religion”. Let the Muslim women wear the Hijab, the youth grow their beards, and the elders wear their turbans without being scrutinised or termed “Islamic extremists” or “cultural boycotts”.

You also quoted, “You also had a dig at our liberal democracy - implying that you would like to 'challenge it' since it is not necessarily the best system”. I have no intention in challenging this democratic system. That job is for the crooked politicians out there. I just abhor the notion that people believe this system is infallible. I believe it has many loopholes, and that it is a system that doesn’t work. Although, I do believe that there is some positive elements in liberty and those elements should be embraced.

You must understand that as a Muslim I do believe that the Koranic Laws are superior to any man-made laws. If you are endeavoring to change that belief amongst Muslims, then you are asking them to abandon their faith. Although, that does not mean that we have to not obey the law of the land. This is a democracy, not Sharia, and because of that, we as Muslims are commanded to obey whatever act or law that the constitution proposes. Our loyalty is to Australia and the Koran, there is nothing in our faith that says you can’t be both.

In regards to my agenda, it is not complex, but rather simple. I believe that people have the right to an opinion, but do not have the right to make false or deceptive comments. This applies to not only Islam, but to all ideologies and faiths. I also believe that the monopolisation of anti-Islamic sentiments in media outlets must be stopped. There are consequences for these actions, and as day progresses, I am feeling more and more alien in my country. This is sad, as it was only five years ago that tolerance and respect amongst all communities was apparent. I believe that organisations should do more to stop media outlets from making false statements about my faith, the Christian faith, and every other ideology in the world.

On a final note, I would also like to convey that Islamic theocracy is not represented by a minority of adherents, and that it is important to think, assess and evaluate Islam thoroughly before making inept conclusions about my faith.

A Mills, the democratically elected East Timorese Prime Minister, Mr Alkatiri, is a Muslim. The Indonesian general who led the 1974 invasion was a Catholic. Just thought I'd let you know.

Yes, Anne Brookes, it's all Howard's fault. Perhaps you should ask the question of what would happen in a world without Howard. Ask an East Timorese next time you meet them about oppression under Islam.

Give it some more thought Anne and give thanks for the freedoms that you possess.

Mahmoud (apologies for previous spelling), you have avoided my line of argument completely. I would be interested in your views on womens' and gay rights under Islam.

"Why then, should you comment about my faith incorrectly, when you yourself admitted you don’t have the skills to comment about Islam?"

Unfortunately Mahmoud, sypcophantic Howard supporters (like Howard) don't believe in letting objectivity spoil good diatribe.

Violence and oppression has been the weapon of many religions leaders through the ages.

It seems unreasonable to judge a religion one admits to knowing little about, and handpicking a few select quotes from a holy text to justify themselves.

For example;

This site seeks to justify the use of the death penalty in the US citing the Old Testament, and twisting the words of Christ to do this, against Christians who are against the death penalty. (See heading: Capital Punishment and Christianity.)

To assert that because some Muslim leaders agree with capital punishment, then all of them must, is simplistic at least and sophistry at worst.

This on Jihad:

"Jihad has also an important non-military connotation, namely, that each Muslim must strive to live up to the tenets and requirements of his religion by constant manifestations of charitable deeds. This is what pious Muslims term the greater jihad, while the militant aspect is called the lesser jihad. This is the side of jihad that Western scholars tend to ignore"

It is time we stopped scapegoating, and sincerely looked at where Howard's path will take us.

Do we want a future of fear and ignorance, or respect and understanding.

Sure, there are differences in cultures, but we also have similarities as well. Desire for peace and prosperity, and a good environment to live and raise our families.

No one system whether religious or economic has proved to be perfect, none have a right to claim superiority over the other, this is counter-productive and engenders inequality and discrimination.

IMHO we need to focus on the similarities that we have with the diverse cultures that make up Australia, and work with those to create better understanding of each other.

Irfan, what's your point? That the East Timorese did not suffer under Islam? Not taken.

Mahamoud, isn’t the reason that the Prophet didn’t break any treaties with the Quraysh in Mecca because he didn’t have a strong support base? The taunting you speak of is why he left to go to Medina, where he was given asylum and able to build his supporter numbers up.

Once he had done this, he started his expansion of Islam. And once he had conquered the Quraysh, and had control of Mecca, he again kept trying to expand (right up to the borders of the Byzantine Empire, which he launched an unsuccessful attack against). He expanded Islam by marching great armies out to various towns and cities, and demanding people convert to Islam, with the choice being to convert or die/slavery. Does not sound like much compassion there? In fact, isn’t his death attributed to the poison he was given by one of his “wives” (a Jewish girl taken by force)?

“The history of the Quraysh and the Muslims is a story of the Quraysh aspiring and conspiring to destroying the Islamic faith. It is filled with treachery, barbarity and a determination to kill the prophet of Islam and its adherents”

Then why didn’t they kill the prophet when they could have? When he started in Mecca? (I know his uncle gave him protection). They didn’t throw him out of Mecca until he tried to convert their members. Remind me again of what the Koran says on leaving Islam? It might put some perspective on why the Quraysh were so peeved!

“In regards to the Jewish tribes, are you referring to the Banu An-Nadir, Bani Qainuqa and the Bani Haritha who broke their treaties with the Muslims repeatedly and even allied militarily with the Quraysh in many battles, thus ending in their expulsion from Medina. You cannot expect that these tribes to not to be expelled for their treason and treachery. People have to think reasonably, and people can’t expect tribes who threaten the state to roam freely.”

Interesting, so the Koran is in favor of the war on terror? I mean after all, a tribe has threatened / attacked the state, so they cant expect to roam freely? But more importantly, those tribes you mentioned were punished (and rightfully so), but after the victory over the Quraysh, and control of Mecca was gained, the prophet went about forcibly converting various tribes and cities.

I ask these questions as the Prophets story is quite fascinating, from a historical perspective. Although I would say it is a fairly typical rise of an empire story. He starts by building his support base, and at this point in the Koran, there is a lot of mention about accepting other religions, and kindness and compassion. Let's face it, if he had preached otherwise, the other tribes would have wiped him out. But, as he builds his supporters, and grows in power, the tone changes quite dramatically. Rather than compassion, he shifts to an aggressive and assertive policy, during which time we get many of the quotes used on this site previously. This 'tone' doesn’t die down however, until near the end of the Prophet's life, when he has achieved great expansion.

Anne Brooks, just to clarify, Mahmoud's line of: "Why then, should you comment about my faith incorrectly, when you yourself admitted you don’t have the skills to comment about Islam?" was directed at me, and I'm no Howard supporter. Scroll back though Webdiary's archives over the past five years and you'll find that I'm one of his more passionate critics.

You might want to consider why you so quickly branded me a Howard supporter simply because I was criticising some elements of Islam. Do you believe that women are treated as equals to men under Islam?

Mahmoud - thanks for your reply. You're starting to say things that I can agree with. You mentioned that you wanted me to espouse freedom of religion, and to "Let the Muslim women wear the Hijab, the youth grow their beards, and the elders wear their turbans without being scrutinised or termed “Islamic extremists” or “cultural boycotts”.

You'll not find any disagreement from me there. As a dedicated small "l" liberal I absolutely support the rights of all people to wear what they want, worship however they want and to live without fear of prejudice or discrimination.

Can you say the same about Islam? How do Muslims feel about homosexuality, for instance?

I will generally fight against all those who seek to discriminate against any religious group merely because of what they believe - but if those beliefs contravene any of the basic principles of equality of all people and universal human rights then I cannot in all good conscience stay silent.

Mahmoud - I am a passionate believer that a secular government is absolutely fundamental to ensuring a free and fair democracy. There is simply no way for minority religious groups to avoid persecution if the government is controlled by the majority religious group. Ask the Shi'ite Muslims what it was like to live in Iraq under Saddam, ask the Muslims or Christians living in Israel what things are like for them and I think you'll get my meaning.

I will defend your right to practice your religion only up to the point where your religion starts to attack some of the fundamental principles of the liberal democracy that I know and love. Calling for an end to secularism, supporting amputation as a form of punishment, harassing homosexuals or insisting that women conform to the Islamic concept of 'modesty' are always going to provoke a negative reaction from people like me.

To be brutally honest I remain concerned that those of Islamic faith would undermine some of these basic tenents of our liberal democracy if they had the chance. Many of your comments in this forum have only reinforced this concern.

A Mills, the East Timorese did not suffer at the hands of a religion but rather at the hands of a savage form of national chauvinism which Islam itself frowns upon.

Now that I have answered your question, can we get back to the topic? And did anyone send Nada some flowers?

Greg Moylan, last time I checked, Greg, wasn't there a moderate to large number of Christians in Indonesia? Indeed, I seem to remember 1000 churches being burnt and 10,000 Christians being killed in Indonesia over the past 15 years. Like those Christian girls who recently had their throats slit.

And a look at the actions fundamentalists in Indonesia here and here and here and here and here (it's an article from the Australian that has been screenshot).

Those links are about a thousandth of the total number out there. Though I must say that there is also persecution of the ethnic Chinese minority, and atrocities committed by Christian guerillas as well.

But in the end, there seems to be a hell of a lot of stuff going on that doesn't reach the 6:00 news, it seems. I wonder why? I'm pretty sure that if 1000 mosques and 10,000 or so Muslims were destroyed by the Christian majority in the US there would be an uproar in the press, and elsewhere, that could be heard out near Mars somewhere.

That leads me to ask this question as well - why the difference? (It isn't just directed at you, it is a general one).

A Mills, why would I do that. I prefer to stay here and try and be part of the solution.

As a mother of three, I would like to think that my children will not grow up in the kind of country that abuses ethnic groups, or any minority for political expedience.

I hope that they will appreciate the many cultural threads, that woven together make up the fabric of our society, and that without this diversity our country would be all the poorer.

We are all inhabitants of this country and this planet, we must learn to live together - and work to ether or face a bleak future.

If you cannot accept that basic premise then you will continue to be part of the problem.

A.Mills I will answer the question you have asked Irfan , "Did, or did not, the East Timorise suffer under (which ever particular brand you care to name or choose) Islam?"

The answer is that, NO, the East Timorese DID NOT suffer under Islam under any brand you care to name or choose.

While the majority of its people are Muslim, Indonesia is a secular state which, under its founding ideology, Pancasila, accords freedom of religious belief and worship to its people. While it is not perfect, Indonesia does a pretty good job of honouring that principle and, whatever its many faults, the Suharto regime cracked down on religious extremists, particularly Muslim extremists.

The East Timorese suffered under the corrupt nature of the Suharto regime which was Java-centric and which treated all the outlying provinces as economic resources to be exploited for personal enrichment.

However, the rapine and exploitation they visited on East Timor was just for base mercenary reasons, and had no religious element. Under the Suharto system to be the military governor of a province, the real position of power under the system, was a five year licence to extort and exploit the province so that you could set your family up for life, and for their next five lifetimes. However, religious conversion or oppression was never on the agenda. They'd treat the locals in any other province, even when they were Muslims, just as badly. Think, for example, about Aceh Province.

A further point is that, under Suharto, Christians were disproportionately represented in senior positions in the military and in the civil service.

Sorry, but you have given Islam an unfair rap on this one.

Irfan, you have avoided my question. Did, or did not, the East Timorise suffer under (which ever particular brand you care to name or choose) Islam?

Anne Brookes, by your comment I can assume that you will only be happy when all anglo-saxon males are dead and that you felt the Berlin Wall fell the wrong way. Since you hate the West and its media so very much why don't you go and live in a more tolerant society where the media isn't as you describe.

A Mills, the official state ideology of Indonesia is NOT Islam. In fact, it is the "5 principles" or "Pancasila". The founders of the Indonesian Republic deliberately left sharia and other Islamic political notions out of the Indonesian constitution so as to avoid conflict between the various religious groupings.

Further, Islam in Indonesia is not understood by all Indonesians in the same way. For instance, Acehnese tend to have an understanding that more closely aligns with the sufi Yemeni Islam, whilst Javanese Islam is heavily influenced by indigenous Hindu and Buddhist influences.

The variety of Islamic practices in Indonesia is quite amazing. It's almost as if people are practising different religions.

To be brutally honest Simon Ellis, I don't think women are equal anywhere, even in Australia.

Any rights women have in the west, have been hard fought for by womens groups, not granted by benevolent male peers in Government. We still have along way to go.

Until our society is above reproach, what right have we to take the moral high ground over others, and use differences to demonise another culture.

My comment about sycophantic Howard supporters was directed at yourself, C Parsons and A.Mills, and others.

I may have been incorrect in your case, but then I am not a regular of this site. If so I apologise for any offense taken.

It does annoy me though that you and others judge all Muslims on your perception of their religion, but do not the same benchmark to Catholics, or any other brand of Christianity.

Abbott and Nelson are the religious fundamentalists who directly threaten our freedoms here, why not rail against them.

Are all Christians questionable because of the motives and actions of others?

On the contrary, A Mills. The problem is a lot bigger than Howard. The problem also lies in a compliant media, and ignorant people who are unable to see past labels and judge a person by their merits.

It would seem that you choose fear and ignorance, though, what value is to be gained from this is unclear.

Well I reject that. I support the right of my fellow Australians, to live without fear and oppression in our 'lucky' country.

I pity those who because of their prejuidices or ignorance are unable to appreciate others and the contribution they have made and continue to make.

I detest those that nurture this hate and intolerance for their own political agendas, because we are building the world that all our children have to live in.

A Mills, exactly where did Anne Brookes state she hated Anglo Saxon males? You really need a reality check.

And as Irfan and Greg pointed out you are incorrect about East Timor as well.

By the way, your hero Howard had nothing to do with liberating East Timor. Look instead to the tireless lobbying of the East Timorese themselves, pressure from moderates in his own party and the Opposition, and the threat of a national strike.

Discrimination against women is kept to a large extent under wraps in this country only because there is an array of legal sanctions in place that have been tested many times in court, not because of any miraculous sudden change of attitude on the part of certain institutions, or a development of maturity and tolerance in certain individuals, so do not assume any "superiority" of any one group over another in this regard.

Simon Ellis: “Calling for an end to secularism, supporting amputation as a form of punishment, harassing homosexuals or insisting that women conform to the Islamic concept of 'modesty' are always going to provoke a negative reaction from people like me”.

I have never called for this to be practiced in Australia. I believe the culture of “separation of church and state” in Australia is far too strong and deep rooted in our hearts to propagate any religious law. If a faith was to enforce its beliefs in Australia, I believe it could backfire miserably.

Ann Brookes: “If you cannot accept that basic premise then you will continue to be part of the problem.”

Well said, I give you a thousand claps. I wish we could direct these comments to Imam Alan Jones and Scholar Pamela Bone.

In this maddening world, there is no better glory than staring in the eyes of children. If only humanity could imitate the innocence a child.