You are right to condemn the protesters in Sydney. Their behaviour and their determination to cause trouble was, and always will be, reprehensible.

However, your article is simply one of many adding fuel to the fire. In one of your previous opinion pieces you bemoaned the willingness of the Australian people to accept mass media commentary about Israel; yet here you are doing much the same thing about Islam. Even your title is alarmist.

You state:

<<Fairfax Media parroted the vice-president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, condemning the crowd violence.>>

<<An icon of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, often taught that Islam is indeed a religion of “peace” but ... He defined “peace” as a condition where (at best) all submit to Allah or (at worst) all live in an Islamic state (the infidels under onerous conditions). To achieve such goals, war must be waged.>>

<<Daily, Arab school children both in the Muslim world and even in the United Kingdom are taught that Jews are the descendents of monkeys and pigs. And how Adolf Hitler was a great man.>>

Let’s put this into perspective shall we? ‘Parroting’ implies no understanding of what is being said. What you should have said is that Fairfax Media ‘reported’ the sentiments of the AFIC, which is their job. And Ikebal Patel is not Sayyid Qutb – not all Muslims are the same. Why have you brushed aside the AFIC’s comments and concentrated on those of the Brotherhood?

There is no doubt that SOME Arab schools preach anti-semitism and anti-Western doctrine. But not all, as your statement implies. And how does such indoctrination differ from that of, say, SOME Jewish schools who preach Zionism? Intolerance doesn't discriminate.

You ask why there were no demonstrations about Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”. But there were. Many, by Catholics and Jews alike. Even PETA got in on it. The difference was there was none of the violence that is the trademark of Islamic fundamentalist protests. And what you fail to actually state (just loosely imply) is that not all Muslims are fundamentalists.

(cont’)

Finally, and most importantly, there is this:

<<Given the film in question was uploaded to YouTube over eleven weeks ago, on 2 July, one can only conclude that Saturday’s protest – in the light of the slogans paraded in abundance - had little to do with the film but a great deal to do with the way a few Muslims perceive their religion is portrayed in the Western world.>>

Actually, Mr Ariel, the film had everything to do with providing an excuse for the most radical element of Islam to protest. It was not the uploading of the clip onto YouTube in July that caused this outrage. It was the dubbing of it into Arabic and the showing of it on Islamic TV this month that sparked the protests worldwide and is now provoking such strong anti-muslim sentiment. As, of course, it was intended to do by whomever was responsible. It was timed to perfection and it will have huge repercussions over the coming months.

Call me a cynic, but I can’t help thinking that at this incredibly tense time, in the lead up to the US election and with Netanyahu’s wrist still stinging from the slap he received by the Obama administration (and other western leaders) over Iran, Netanyahu and Likud must be rubbing their hands together with collective glee.

Far worse, if the racist and religious bigotry by ordinary western people, as witnessed on this form over the last few days, is any indication of what is to come, then God (and Allah) help us all.

The Premier's job is actually pretty easy:

Step 1: Let the police round up the thugs: they're better at that sort of thing than politicians. And lynch mobs.

Step 2: Let the courts convict the thugs: the separation of the legislature and the judiciary means the Premier doesn't get a look in here.

Step 3: Let the media have a feeding frenzy making an example of the thugs: and boy will they.

The Premier gets to sit around while everyone else does the heavy lifting. We already have laws and mechanisms in place to deal with this sort of antisocial behaviour. All he has to do is condemn the thugs in interviews, support the actions of the police and have faith in the judicial system: that usually satisfies the voters.

Cheers,

Tony

What a particularly good time for some leadership to be shown by the leaders of our political parties, and also from those claiming to speak for the Moslems in the community.

Julia and Tony could perhaps spell out that Australia is a secular society and that the laws of the land overide any personal belief. The defense-"God told me to do it" won't get any consideration in the law courts. Even more interesting would be to know what the word "god" means to them personally. I would welcome anyone's definition provided that is backed by reasoning and solid evidence.

Anyone wanting to become part of Australian society is welcome to believe anything, however absurd; but please don't expect anyone else to be convinced.

In a decent society founded on the Enlightenment - of which Australia is one - NO religion has the power to silence opposition to it. The claim for the right to silence opposition - whether the opposition be anywhere from non-compliance to open debunking including ridicule - is a feature of Islam, in its ideological DNA. The claim is made not only by the “behead the dissenters” bully-boys in Martin Place but all the way through to Islam’s “holy books” and its leading ecclesiastics. The reward offered for murdering British author Salman Rushdie for obliquely questioning some of Mohammed’s assertions has recently been hiked to more than $3 million. It's an open call to Moslems everywhere. Where are the Moslem voices insisting “No way!”?

Half-baked films which can only sneer are not the answer. Condemning terrorism or hooliganism isn’t the answer. The answer is public rebuttal of the intolerance of dissent which is embedded in the basic Islamic texts. It is persistent challenge to all Moslems over where Islam - worldwide - stands on the right to unbelief, to apostasy, to blasphemy, to impiety. No weaselling out, no taqiyya. Religions which unequivocally tolerate dissent are worthy of tolerance in return. Any which doesn’t isn’t.

Two Christian Pastors were charged in Victoria by the Christophobes for saying what John J said in a far mmore loving way. Go figure. The secularist involved in the disgusting case should be held to public shame as the Pastors have been proven right time and time again. What a delusion the Islamic apologist are under as they so often display their Christophobic natures and apologise for such atrocities..