I guess the Michelle Leslie 'issue' can be seen from many angles. I guess alot of Christian women may live their lives in a way deemed "immoral' by some Christains who have a particular view on such things. To others, there is no issue taken.

Many Christains are Gay and many Catholic women have abortions. Some elements would disagree, others would tolerate, and others would accept. I guess thats why we have different denominations, and degrees within particular faiths. Religous history is full of splits, reformations, revivals, etc etc. Although it did seem a little 'conveinient' that Ms Leslie was parading in her undies one minute, then embracing Islamic head dress the next, the author does have a good point:

"...belief is a matter of the heart. Only Michelle Leslie and her Creator know what is in Michelle Leslie's heart". I guess thats whats important here.

Cheers

SM

Irfan's humane and tolerant attitude, recognising as it does the central truth that faith (or the lack of it) and faith-related behaviour are a matter for every individual, is a lesson to us all. It is a shame that most Islamic officialdom (if I can use that term), in Australia at least, is like the first-generation migrants of a few decades ago: rigid, tied to traditional social attitudes imported from the "old country" and prescriptive. As if such people have a direct line to Allah, God, the Prophet, Christ or whoever, and it's their duty to impose their narrow perspectives on their co-religionists.

Out of all the comments so far, Silent Majority has pretty much summed it up for me.

Michelle Leslie can worship her god in whichever way she choses, but I did think it was a bit rich to one minute don the burqa and then suddenly turn up in a tank top the split second it was all over. I personally wouldn't have had the confidence to make such a drastic dress change so soon after the event.

To question the right of a woman to dress (religious or non religious) as she wants, is hardcore fundie islamist, no matter how Salam Zreika cloaks it in the article “Michelle Leslie please explain” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3853

Or to as Yusif even more subtly attempts: “Leslie has taken an enormous step. She has changed her faith. It WILL take her some time to change her lifestyle. Human beings are not robots or computers that can be programmed into a new set of habits and behaviour.”

What’s this “will” take her some time business? What is Yusif assuming she “will” do as a female muslim bikini model in Australia? Changing a lifestyle to come to terms with islamic laws on “modesty” when you are a bikini model is as insane… even if “moderate” Yusif kindly is willing to allow her “some time” to do this.

Obviously the sad truth of the issue is it’s taking “some time” as in generations for muslims in Australia to “change their lifestyle” to one that is respecting, accepting, dare I say encouraging of Australian laws on freedom.

Muslim or non muslim …. Michelle DOES NOT have to do or change anything as an Australian muslim women she is free by Australian law to wear bikins, drink beer (even even a hell of a lot of it), cuddle pigs or have sex with any man or woman or transsexual they want to. She may even want to criticize Allah who knows.

She IS FREE to do all this under Ozzy law.

There is no sharia and there will never be sharia. Never forget for a second we are actually free here!

Dr Ameer Ali's suggestion (edict?) that Michelle Leslie should choose either to be a "decent" (fully clothed) Muslim or not a Muslim at all is one way to blur the lines between reality and a particular vision of what's ideal.

Another is the media's pumping of the question: In her own mind, is Michelle Leslie a Muslim? That is, has she had a "fake" conversion/reversion to grease the wheels of her case? Quite a few people I've spoken to are deeply suspicious of her conversion/reversion because her behaviour doesn't seem to conform to the stereotype of a covert - that is, "more Muslim than Muhammad". But that's just a stereotype, and one that is perpetuated and reinforced by Dr Ali's comments.

Now I don't think anyone would argue that Dr Ali, as an individual, isn't entitled to say what he thinks is appropriate. But the question is whether Dr Ali IS merely speaking as an individual OR whether he is speaking as a representative of the entire Muslim community, with all its divergent practices and contestable (and contested) theological intricacies. Dr Ali DID seem to be giving the impression that he was functioning as a representative, and yet, with his palm-card account of "acceptable" Islamic behaviour, was simultaneously FAILING to actually represent the diversity of views within the Muslim community as a whole. One can't fault Dr Ali for what he said as an individual Muslim, but one can definitely fault him for appearing to act as a representative while proffering unrepresentative views.

Michelle Leslie changed her story several times during her trial.

This, together with her abrupt change of dress type, lead the public to believe she was not being truthfull and her credibility was blown out the window.

Whether the public perception is right or not, time will tell.

Few people care whether she is Muslim or not.