Waleed

I've talked to a number of nurses and midmives.

They've seen and delivered babies to muslim girls/teenagers who've had suffered FGM. They were born and raised here.

Some came in as young girls to casualty when the operation 'went wrong'.

Others were 15 or 16 when they bore their first kid through their mutilated genitalia.

The nurses are livid that no one, not even western feminists will listen to theirs or their doctors complaints. Must be tolerant.

An islamic practice? According to Nida ul Islam it is but not mandatory.

Thanks for the very reasonable article Waleed. However, I note that the 'usual suspects' have pounced on it as yet another excuse to bash Islam and Muslims.

It seems to me that, to a vociferous handful of xenophobic and/or racist forum members, you Muslims are damned if you do and damned if you don't: first, they demand that moderate Muslims denounce the behaviour of Islamic extremists. Then, when guys like you, Irfan or Ash do so, they ignore the reasonable dialogue that you're trying to have with them, and revert to their very unreasonable and intolerant agendas.

As I've thought for some time that nothing will satisfy the racists and xenophobes short of deportation of all Muslims, the resumption of the White Australia policy, or mass conversions to Christianity.

Keep up the good work Waleed - some of us are listening to you!

Me thinks Mr Duck is seeing reds under the bed. Not too much in this thread that reeks of racism to me. The only comment that hasn’t contributed to debate has been Mahatma’s. It’s just a tired old attempt to shut down any sort of debate by playing the old reliable “racist” card. Label people who don’t agree with you as racist, (Nazi is another good one Mahatma), and any view they have must be evil and hence should be discarded.
Mahatma; you may think you’re showing everyone how “tolerant” & “compassionate” you are but unfortunately you are showing that you are anything but.

I just want to explain where I stand in regard to Islam. Firstly, as a Christian I see Islam as being a faith that does not lead to salvation. I believe it to be a faith that was allowed to be set up by God, to test humans, in the same way that Job’s faith was tested.

Having said that, I respect the rights of Moslems to believe whatever they want to believe, so long as they, or others, don’t force their belief system on me, or on others. I also do not believe that I can, or should force my beliefs upon anyone.

This means, amongst other things, that I believe in human rights and civil liberties, but also the rule of law.

For anyone to claim that their religion, belief system or system of ethics justifies violence or control over another person, except where that violence or control serves to protect a third person, is wrong. I use this as an illustration because I believe that Christianity grants me the liberty to protect others from aggressive or controlling behaviour. Christianity does not give me the liberty to perpetrate violence against anyone on the basis of their religion.

I also see that the practice of religion must be something freely agreed to and the subject of informed consent, particularly where the practise of religion may lead to physical harm. Therefore, if a group wishes to practise any form of ritual mutilation, then this must only be carried out on those believers who have reached an age and understanding of what is going to happen and the possible outcomes.

Any ritual mutilation, or even tattooing or body piercing, of anyone who is not of an age or maturity of understanding is, as far as I am concerned, assault. The custom of under-age marriage common in some religions and cultures is also abhorrent.

No one should be able to use religion as a basis of a defence in a criminal trial, either as a complete defence or to downgrade a matter from murder to manslaughter.

As one of the people whom the know-it-all duck regards as a racist and xenophobe (even though both descriptions pertain to RACE only and NOT to religion - ignoramuses never let facts interfere with their ravings), I welcome Waleed Aly’s revelation of the stunt three criminals tried to pull in the name of his (Aly’s) religion.
What’s more, I believe there is more chance than not that the barristers concerned were not Muslim.

I just wonder what duck and the other fifth columnist Australia-haters would think if the same article were to be written by a non-Muslim.

I don’t see why even an apparently dreadful person like me would want to criticise anyone who has revealed to others that there are people who will try to corrupt his religion for their own benefit and show utter contempt for Australia and its laws, and clearly demonstrate the same outrage I feel about such things.

It is possible that Waleed Aly, unlike the majority of high-profile Muslims I have criticised, does listen to objections to Islam, or a corrupted version of it, and is concerned enough, and proactive enough to answer them in the way he has

Yes, Leigh and Hamlet, its quite striking, the only contribution which has not added to or contributed to the actual debate at hand has been Mahatma's for reasons well pointed out by Bozzie.

Makes you wonder about Mahatma's claim to have analysed cultures for 10 yrs as a proffessional anthropologist.

C'mon Mahatma, you can do MUCH better than 'name calling'.

I would have to guess that you also meant me as the 'xenophobe'etc.. but if you do, it is a slur on your own credentials, because clearly my own post was well documented and raised critical aspects of Islamic background. "Bashing" ? the mind boggles, I suppose you would describe accurate reports of Whites massacering Blacks as 'un Australian' ? At least, to be consistent you would need to.

HAMLET, a good overview of examples of the topic in other contexts !
The reason I raised the issues I did, is because Mohamed is lauded and held up as 'the' finest example of Islam in action, so to scrutinize what any devout Muslim might find when reading their Hadith is in order I feel. (sorry Mahatma, but it is)

Its also important to show how Waleed Ali's position does not quite 'ring true' claiming the Islamic religion does not containing any justification (by teaching or example) for rape etc... when clearly it does in the context of captive women.

If Mahatma was the astute proffesional he claims to be, he could have (and SHOULD have) pointed out the error if any, in my sources, or a misinterpretation of them... that would have contributed, but no.. just 'name calling'. He could have referred to "Arab Culture" to defend the practice..but again..nothing.

Never mind, it all has value, even if only to show how willfully blind some people can be in the name of political correctness.
Try again Mahatma, and if you see falsehood or error in any post, by all means point it out.

Prediction: Mahatma's next post will be "You are beneath contempt and unworthy of serious responses" ?