I haven't been on these boards long but i've already noticed that many posters see an article that mentions muslims as an invitation to air their predjudices.

This article is really more of a statement than an argument. Hussein basically says three things, that the Sheik was misquoted, that the Sheiks views are not endemic to muslims, and that muslims have as much to fear from terrorism as non-muslims. All are valid points.
How this becomes a prompt for anti-muslim sentiment is a wonder to me.

Good article Shakira,

It prompts me with a rather important question:

I grew up in Egypt, a country with Muslims majority in the middle east. Imams would usually preach young Muslims on behaviour in a female presence or temptation is 'to look down' or 'avoid staring', they would bring stories from the Quran, etc..

Only in Australia that I found local Imams can come up with such a weird comment like 'women deserves it'. To me it implies that they never professionaly studied religion neither have formal accreditation to preach. Imam is a critical place to be in. In Egypt an Imam must have a degree in religious science which is 4 years study in Azhar University or similar to be able to preach. The best candidates get assigned larger Mosques and the more senior get assigned heritage mosques, etc..

How does it work here? What accreditation is required for an Australian Imam before he gets to the podium?

Some Moslems do fear for their lives as do we, and as explained before in the Psychology of the perpetrators.
But in the West ,we have learnt that in the era of Marxism and associates, they implemented other mind bending conundrums: Such as Antonio Gramsci on how he intended to take over the established institutions and change the way they operated to institute their Theology, by Psychology.
As it would not be of any surprise that Islam has once again adopted the Mantra of our easily identifiable pathological left, and engaged on the very same doctrine. Without Violence. As noted here: http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/10/30/opinion/edbaran.php

Shakira

Beauty has been given by nature ( and for the religious souls by god ) to be displayed, not to be covered in hijabs and dark habits. Have you seen a rose sprouting a dark leaf to cover its beauty or a peacock to grow a black feather to cover its beauty?

The wearing of the hijab has nothing to do with modesty, as no modesty can last the "darkness of the night". It has to do with PRIDE. The pride of a Muslim man that he is the SOLE owner of that beauty, and the pride of a Muslim woman that she is morally superior to all other women in "skimpy" clothing.

This attitude has nothing to do with modesty, it has to do with "pathology".

KOTZABASIS

Go to my blog: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

It may be true that men in the street ogle young women in short skirts with thoughts of sexual encounter. But no one has the right to touch, accost or corner a young woman against her will. However for a religious teacher to proclaim from a religious platform that there is some level of justification for rape if a woman has exposed skin is totally illinformed and irrisponsible. Such teaching is not behaviour modification, but incitment to rape.

F_H a very good question. "What accreditation is required for an Australian Imam before he gets to the podium?" The Muslim community here has a responsibility to weed out these weasels

Themistocles,

I was about to comment on your posting but I thought I visit you blog first to explore your views and what you stand for.

I was suddenly taken by the feeling of a surgeon who, after running the first test on the patient found cancer everywehere. So he decides in the last second not to operate and wished him the best.

So, all the best.