So JB1 you think that Irfan should be let off the hook for having a general swipe at a supposed lunatic fringe and sundry Nazis but not elaborate.Indeed why should Danna Vale have to apologise and Mark Steyn not. Further doesnt it strike you as being rather odd, the immense disparity between what Vale and Steyn may have said, and what Islamicists have done. Why are there instant calls for apologies for perceived slights, but when there is major piece of violence by some Muslims group against someone or another, there is almost total silence.
Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that Islam does need to look more closely at itself, and its theology. If you cant hack these comments then you are the one who should just read.

bigmal

I don't have time to look back through the posts on this thread at the moment. It could be here - or in threads related to many other articles that Mr Irfan has written for OLO.

He regularly calls OLO posters who disagree with Islam as "armchair Nazis". He regularly intimates that regular OLO posters do not work or contribute to society. I doubt that he knows any of us on a personal level.

I am not an armchair Nazi. I am a solid and good fairing Australian who is not afraid to assert my opinions.

I am not abusive if another person does not hold the same belief systems as myself.

I am willing to change my mind if I am given sufficient evidence.

Islam has not provided me with sufficient factual evidence.

Cheers
Kay

JB1

Are you talking about Irfan or the 'armchair nazis' like me.

Go to Irfan's blog http://madhabirfy.blogspot.com and read through his posts.

On his blog he has criticised the lebanese, about whom he's probably right. For this he draws upon his own personal experience to make his conclusions, which is how many people do things and though not perfect, is quite valid. However when someone else, be it me, Mr Boaz, Redneck or Cronulla residents draw on their own personal experiences with mossies and draw negative conclusions then were nothing but a bunch of racists.

Response to David_BOAZ:

This is meant as a constructive criticism, but it could save some time if you think through potential rebuttals before posting. I feel like I'm shooting fish in a barrel.

My light-hearted story, was meant to illustrate the problem of guilt by association. In your post, you have replicated the plot of the story and to that extent, condemned yourself. As a believer, you must surely be aware that my imaginary aliens are a symbol for something else.

Regarding the Pact of Umar, if you want to suggest that 7th century Islamic rulers were not paragons of 21st century liberal democracy, feel free. But they could read, they had written laws and offered basic religious freedom. The pact predates the Magna Carta. If anything, the 7th century pact shows Islam as progressive.

I notice similarities on some points with modern practice. In France, conspicuous symbols are banned in the "public square" (a mistake). The USA had prohibition last century (also a mistake.) In Australia, we don't allow mosques to do the 'call to prayer' loudly (a sound idea (get it?))

Let's see what else you go on about:
opulent mosques <--> opulent cathedrals
conversions <--> conversions, colonialism
Wahabism <--> Puritanism

So amazing that you justify your own views based on what happens in Bangladesh, Syria or Pakistan. Are you next going to tell me to fear black people because of Uganda, Rwanda or Zimbabwe? No wrongdoing in any country or situation is ever likely to dent the steel of a principled person.

In the end, my Australian values, shared by my fellow Australians, upheld by our constitution and laws, consistent with the true values of the various faiths, will easily defeat and prevail over any racist, bigoted or otherwise silly values.

To all posters

A naive but sincere question: How many Islamic countries have been engaged in ethnic cleansing and how many Muslims have been engaged in ethnic cleansing?

Thanks
Kay

Ms. Fabijanic,

You wrote:

'Danna Vale's comment is one-half Catholic, one-half Pauline Hanson. And it equals 100 per cent racism. She used a flippant comment spoken by a religious figure to her own advantage: it is authentic because it is spoken by 'one of their own', and then turns it against 'them'.'

Why do you describe Vale's comments about Muslims as racist? I would suggest it is because to say 'religious bias' has less impact. 'Racist' is generally considered to be one of worst things you could call someone, at least in a Multicultural society. Why have you called someone a racist who said nothing at all about race?

Clearly you are trying to use a flippant comment spoken by a political figure to Your own advantage.

If someone insults Muslims, followers of a god they believe in called Allah, how is that racist?

If someone insults Islam, a religion, how is that racist?

How is that racist?