http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21272685-5001031,00.html

If you want another perspective on Professor Israeli, read the article I've linked above. It also raises questions about the differences between Islamic fundamentalism and other religious fundamentalism.

There seems to be a complete unwillingness amongst many to explore the possibility that Islam condones or encourages violence or misogyny. I completely object to the special reverence all religions and their beliefs seem to enjoy. Everyone should be free to question and criticise these beliefs without being called racist and their questions characterised as hate speech.

If Waleed Aly is right in his claim that Islam is subject to more and harsher criticism than other religions, one certainly has to wonder why. When filmakers are murdered and cartoonists forced into hiding by fanatics demaning death for those who suggest Islam is violent, it is heartening to find people still willing to ask questions and criticise the dogma. In fact, the unwillingness to tolerate criticism amongst many Muslims helps explain and, to some extent, justify the greater questioning and criticism.

Finally, I agree with the author that there ought to be consistency in dealing with various religious minorities and there ought to be equal criticism of religious fanatics of all stripes. But if one group poses greater problems or one fanatics view's are more influential than another's, it is only proper that they are subject to greater and louder criticism.

As noted at the bottom of the article, this opinion piece was first published in The Canberra Times on February 21st (Wednesday). The following day Professor Raphael Israeli had an opinion piece published in The Australian in which he complained that the response to his interview published in the Australian Jewish News was "less than friendly". Today (Friday, February 23rd), The Australian has published a follow-up letter to Israeli's opinion piece in which Mark Leibler and Dr Colin Rubenstein from the AIJAC (Australia/Israeli & Jewish Affairs Council) write that they have "told Professor Israeli AIJAC cannot be further associated with his unacceptable comments, or with his visit". Indeed the AIJAC issued a press release dated February 16th in which the organisation "rejected comments made by visiting Israeli Professor Raphael Israeli in today's Australian Jewish News and Fairfax newspapers which appear to single out the growth of Muslim minorities as inherently dangerous".

However what Irfan fails to recognise is that Sheik Taj Al-Din Hilali's remarks were widely condemned not because it helped to bolster a "monoculturalist agenda" but because they were deeply offensive to all women and to all sensitive men, i.e. the great majority of the Australian population. They were also a throwback to the misogynist rubbish that contemporary society has largely buried several decades ago.

Irfan also fails to realise that there is no valid comparison between the position of Jews in Germany in the 1930s and that of Muslims in Australia (or elsewhere in the world) in the 21st Century. As Christopher Hitchens noted at slate.com earlier this week, with a self-generated Islamic civil war currently raging in Iraq, the use of the term Islamophobia is in his words "stupid".

European Jews in the 1930s were a small minority who had suffered centuries of discrimination and violence directed against them. Today's Muslims constitute about one-fifth of the world's population and enjoy rights in the West which their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia (the cradle of Islam) deny to all other faiths.

Hi Irfan, I would agree that there does appear to be a bit of a double standard in the way Prof Israel's comments were received. Possibly it had at least a little to do with the numbers involved - Sheik Hilaly's comments were possibly insulting to over half the population (ie women, plus those men who didn't like being compared with cats), whereas Prof Israel's were directed at a far smaller segment of Australian society. So this is just my feeling, but the response may have been partly related to the number of people who felt themselves affronted.

As for the politicians, votes are what counts. They will always play to the majority (or at least what they think is the majority).

The last observation in your article, about haw people say things publicly about Islam that they would not about other religions, is an interesting one. I'll have to think a bit about that one. Its a subject I find difficult to be objective about, because many of my prejudices have been firmly implanted by a strict Christian upbringing. Combined with my vast ignorance of Islam (I wouldn't know a pillar of faith if tripped over one), I am probably not the sort of person who should make comments about Islam. However - I will anyway, because I don't think my view is unique.

Islam is seen as fair game because of the behaviour of a large number of its adherents worldwide, who seem to accept violence as a legitimate form of religious expression. Furthermore, Muslim-majority nations around the world seem to have very poor track records on tolerance and religious freedom, not to mention other human rights. Until this situation changes, criticism is inevitable.

The main difference between Hilali and Israeli as far as I am concerned is that one is a nut case who lives in Australia, while the other is a nut case who doesn't!

Oh Irfan: How bloody terrible that moslems are allegedly targeted and by a Jew as well. Do I need to remind you that it is not the Jews nor the YMCA/YWCA the Methodist Ladies guild, the Salvation Army nor even members of a Baptist choir that are engaged in mindless, insane, bloodthirsty acts of terrorism. Nor are hate sermons preached by C of E, Presbyterian, or United Churches condemning moslems even calling for their death as well as likening them to monkeys and pigs. The Bible does not call believers to strap bombs on too themselves and cruelly murder unarmed men, women, children and babies. But ALL of the above are committed by the adherents of the religion of "peace?" - got it in one mate yes the bloody minded pagan moslems. And you wonder why some who want to continue living in a democratic freedom loving fair Australia and in every other western country sometimes are critical of the bloody minded islamic butchers - do you really wonder that mate? Regards, numbat

numbat, I take it then that George W Bush has converted from Southern Baptist Christianity to Islam. When did that occur?