The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The misguided sheikh and free speech > Comments

The misguided sheikh and free speech : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 15/1/2007

The splendour of free speech - the impertinent Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali is no longer capable of corrupting Muslim youth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
Wouldn't it be interesting to see Professor Fraser enjoy the right to free speech. We all landed on him with both feet and the galere applauded because it suited. We demanded his silence. Now it's a case of tolerating what the leader of a non-Christian group has to say.

For those of us who can establish a link with convicts and for those who wanted to improve the alleged contaminated gene pool here in Oz the disappointment must be manifest. The new arrivals haven't delivered the promised renascence. We can't demand a refund either.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 15 January 2007 3:13:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I seem to remember justa few years ago yhe Sheik was being heralded by Miranda Devine and others as being a great proponent for moderate Muslims to emulate.

The Sheik knows exactly what he is doing.He is baiting us and doing his own version of a dog whistle to further divide our community.

Keyser Trad has said a lot worse things than this.Words to the effect that the sons of convicts are like sewer water that should not mix with the pure spring water of their Muslim Culture.Why wasn't he asked to leave also?It has taken a lot of prodding for Muslims to show their disapproval.

Imagine those same words were said of Muslims in one of their countries by a Christian sect.Your life would not be worth living.

People like the Sheik and Keyser have a lot of support,that is why they weren't deposed."We were miss quoted,or that was taken out of context."

Mirko is trying to hose down the flames,whilst alluding to anglo racism as being a factor.

Looking at past track records,I see no happy resolutions to this conflict in our society.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 15 January 2007 4:10:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, Mirko presents an argument that in itself appears logically consistent. I suggest that there are some serious flaws in his article, grounded perhaps in youth and tolerance and lacking a sceptical approach, which accompanies age and experience. The problem is with the mufti, mad, bad or whatever, is that he commands plus a degree of support in the Lakemba area and especially among fundamentalist Muslims. His latest TV exposé, presumably defending the "unclean meat" statement of October 2006 has served only to reveal his ignorance and intolerance. Some fools in the press have been stupid enough to compare his words with those of Cardinal George Pell. That is a category error of the first magnitude.

The grand mufti saw fit to make his comments in Egypt, home of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the umbrella group behind the noted terrorist organizations Jamaat al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, both of which have ties to Al Qaeda. ?

This does not make the Sheik a terrorist, nor does it necessarily mean that he supports the objectives of some of these violent groups. However, with claims in other parts of the electronic media that there is to be a conference on the establishment of a Caliphate, presumably in the region, only the disingenuous would remain sanguine.

In your words he may be an “old stale man” - just like me - but that does not diminish his claims of moral and theological leadership within his community, something I lack. Overseas research shows that the young, socially disadvantaged and alienated are ready recruits for jihadists. You would be wise to read about the crazy mullahs of Finchley in the UK. Some are of the same generation as the Sheik and just as radical. Would it take a bomb to change your mind? I hope not.
Posted by perikles, Monday, 15 January 2007 4:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko has written a basically logical article of reasonable consistency. I guess the real point is, does he does peddle radical incitement “quietly to impressionable minds”? If he is in fact the “unrepresentative voice in the Muslim community”, let him, as John Heard in ‘The Australian’ says, “The best thing for Australia, and for al-Hilali, is to give him all the rope he needs.” For the sake of impressionable minds, however, the metaphor may need to transfer into something more literal (so not as to inflame another 'Cronulla').
Posted by relda, Monday, 15 January 2007 5:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought it was a good article. But it misses an important point. Some of the unease about what the Sheik was saying was due to its covert rather than open expression. There is a sense in which many of us are upset by the behind-the-back nature of these expressions of freedom of speech. All smiles up front, but being expressed in Arabic or on Egyptian TV are radical views that would invite rotten eggs on the Domain. Let the Sheik express his views, but let it be up front rather than covertly addressed to selected audiences in a subversive manner. We worry that secretly a section of our population is being coaxed into negative views of our society. Stand on your soapbox and say Australia is rubbish, but don't push it behind our backs to be revealed only by the snooping of journalists.
Posted by Fencepost, Monday, 15 January 2007 7:00:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If a white Australian made similar comments about Muslims, that person would no doubt be labelled as a 'racist', hounded to give an abject public apology and charged under the Racial Hatred Act. Al-Hilaly has clearly vilified Australia and Australians - especially those of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Nobody I know is even faintly amused (as John Howard advises us to be) at these grotesque and ignorant insults. What kind of buffoon would 'laugh off' such comments about his/her country and its people? Especially from an individual who should not be in the country in the first place.

al-Hilaly should be charged with racial vilification. So should Keysar Trad.
Posted by dee, Monday, 15 January 2007 7:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy