Even I cannot fault Irfan Yusuf on this.

The fact that Islam was tolerant of other faiths - perhaps even more tolerant than the other faiths were of Islam - and Muslims used scholarly argument rather than violence - is to be found in history books available to anyone who cares to read them.

Now, the other religions have moved forward, but Islam has become more confrontationist, more violent and less able to deal with inevitable and relatively harmless criticism?

I wonder why this is.

You are one of the moderate voices within Islam Irfan,

The Pope, known as a scholar and intellectual, made comment on a period of history. Even if their veracity is historically debateable, it is as you say, they show current significance and are confirmed as a truth. Your voice counters this.

Good artcile Irfan,

Ignorance of each other beliefs and can only be dealt with through dialogue. Answering ignorance with violence is not the way forward.
Dialogue should be the one and only way forward to progress humanity.

Welll.. a 7 fold amen to Irfan for this article. In short 'EXACTLY'.

Liegh...I suspect that the tolerance you mention in Spain was due to the rather firm hold the Muslims had on the place. They did not feel threatened.

Today, such is not the case. We have pseudo "Messiah" GWB and company, and the 'American Century Project' etc.. and with the Tabuk style "Hi Mohamed I'm on the same page as you now"(GWB) pre-emptive attacks on those suspected of harbouring possible 'anti US feelings',
the Islamic world feels like it is getting the rough end of the historical stick.... and indeed it is. But I say 'what goes around comes around'.

I also suspect, that even in Spain, if anyone made serious criticism of Mohammed himself, things might have been different, but I'm only guessing there.

We don't need 'religious vilification laws' we need robust adherants to their faiths who CAN stand the heat and give a good response to what is said about them.

Things I am not afraid of being spoken harshly and openly about:

1/ Genocides in the Old Testament.
2/ Atrocities perpetrated by the Catholic Church in South America and during the Inquisition.
3/ European religious wars... Catholics V Protestants, v anabaptists v Calvinists etc etc...
4/ Crusades and the associated land grabs and blood baths.
5/ Christ's sexuality (sometimes claimed by homosexual activists to have been homosexual)

To me, each of the above is a wonderful gateway to a better understanding of God and knowing Him in Christ.

In the same way, Muslims must not be afraid to have Mohamed and Islam itself criticized on the basis of their own foundation documents.

Robust debate does not mean you "hate" your opponent. :)
The belief that anothers ideas are wrong and distasteful, should bring compassion toward him for his ignorance, however sincere he is.

Irfy.. you could do well to re-visit this truth

It's a good article, and along with the other posters, I can't help but agree.

Now I've never been one to be shy about blasphemy, though I prefer to blaspheme in a respectable manner, and use at least, semi reasoned arguments.

There was a time (and, yeah, it was long ago) when criticism of christianity was similarly abhorred. Think joan-of-arc and galileo.

Fortunately, the Christian world has been able to evolve beyond this, and I believe this is due in part to the fact that a higher proportion of Christian believers live in the first world.

Yeah, this is going to be one of those soft lefty dialogues, but bear with me.
Sure plenty of christians live in poor countries - but the establishment and spread of christianity came about via the dissemination from the comparatively developed western world - missionaries, colonists and the like. Thus, the establishment of the religion was founded in this way.

Now plenty of muslims, and dare I say the majority, have evolved their beliefs similarly. One need look no further than the posts of Irfan and Fellow Human. Again, two people who have not (and I'm making an assumption here) spent their lives growing up surrounded by fundamentalist, third world dogma.

Basically, what I'm getting at is belief begets belief. It isn't the precise nature of christianity or islam that is causing difficulty here, it is the interpretation, and one who has been raised in an unsophisticated dogmatic environment will adopt that. Be it a christian dogma, muslim, hindu or even republican (sorry, couldn't resist).

It isn't just the muslim faith - this hypothesis is corroborated by the horror stories you hear coming out of poorest india, or the tribesmen of west papua.

And just to add another point to that - the rise and fall of the sophistication and peaceful attitudes in the muslim faith can be tied to the affluence of the middle east.

While the western world was scrabbling around getting its act together, the muslim world was studying the stars and philosophy.

Now the bulk of the muslim world is poor, and hey hey, the people there have regressed somewhat in their acceptance of other faiths... I guess what I'm getting at is that it is the sophistication of the individual that determines their reaction to a criticism of their faith. Not the faith itself.

All this talk of the bible said this, the koran said that, these ancient texts said.........Hang on! These are all ancient texts written by blokes long dead. They have no relevance to today but they certainly cast a long shadow.
Why should modern people be fighting over what people said a thousand years ago or whenever, it doesn't matter . It is today that matters, not yesterday. Tomorrow isn't here yet.Let us all celebrate today, it is all we have got.

Irfan,

Thank you for the interesting article.

An issue tangential to the article but important is that the Pope made comments as part of a speech at a University. The comments publicised were by an ancient emperor quoted by the Pope.

He prefaced the comments with: "It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian." Thus he carefully avoided any suggestion that it was a fair exchange of ideas.

He also said the point he wanted to distil was marginal to the report. The overall quote was thus not cited for the history or fairness/credibility of the comments. He just wanted to distil one point to develop an argument of non-violence. He dismissed any notion that it was a balanced report of the debate and indicated that it was the view of a Greek Emperor when Constantinople was under seige. That is a strong clear message that the overall quote is rather biased and cannot be assumed accurate.

The Pope indicated it was an unbalanced commentary by an Emperor at war with Muslims. He has since said explicitly that it does not reflect his own comments. Would you like a copy of the speech he gave?

A translation into English of The Pope's address is available here

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/09/popes-address-in-mnchen.html

It seems to have been done by someone to whom the English language is not his native tongue as the idiom is a bit strange. That being said, it nevertheless it does allow us to read the text of his address rather than accepting hearsay from people who think they know what he said.

Great article and great logic, but I'd say that you are more an
exception rather then the rule, in the Islamic world, sadly.

Just a couple of days ago in the West Australain, respected Islamic
commentator Professor Samina Yasmeen was calling for self censorship
when it came to commenting about Islam, in case followers became
violent, given that many of them have low literacy rates.

Hello hello lol, given that Islam is highly political worldwide,
does she think that we should not discuss politics?

To make any kind of progress in this world, we need to be able to
freely debate anything. I respect peoples right to believe, that
doesent mean I have to respect what they believe.

Irfan,
I was desperately waiting for an article like this to come out. It's been so frustrating watching, hearing and reading news about the reactions to Pope Benedict's comments...frustrating because those rallying violently are reinforcing the bloody characteristics which they're protesting about.

Thanks again for the article, great stuff.

We hear so much rubbish about Al-Andalus being a hotbed of multifaith tolerance under the benign rule of emirs and caliphs until it was all ruined by Spanish Christians having the nerve to take back their own country.

What then does Irfan think of the puritanical Almohads of Spain who so viciously persecuted non-Muslims? Before they invaded Spain from their home in Morocco they offered Christians and Jews the choice of conversion or expulsion; in 1165, one Almohad ruler ordered that all Jews in the country convert on pain of death (forcing the Jewish rabbi, theologian, philosopher, and physician Maimonides to feign conversion to Islam before fleeing the country). He fled to Egypt where he started to practise Judaism again - only to be accused of "apostasy"! He then wrote in his Yemen Epistle about the degrading treatment and debasement of Jews at the hands of the Muslims.

Spanish Jews found a true refuge in a WESTERN country - tolerant Holland - unlike the second-class dhimmitude they found in the Ottoman Empire. Dhimmitude refers to the condition of institutionalised debasement of non-Muslims in Muslim lands where Christians and Jews ONLY may retain their faith if they pay a yearly tax, build no new churches and synagogues or repair old ones, wear distinctive clothing, and hold no position of authority over a Muslim. Is this a multifaith paradise?

The most tolerant cosmopolitan city of the world in the 8th and 9th century was Changan, the capital of China - full of Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, Koreans and Malays all practising Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Manichaeism, Buddhism of all schools. It certainly wasn't in Muslim-ruled Spain.

Firstly, well done David Boaz for allowing us a fitful glimpse at your real potential. Pity about that last patronising remark to "Irfy", though- so silly; spoiled the rest- also apply your advice to him, to yourself first ).
David, you succeeded spectacularly where atleast one other individual failed, in actually contextualising ( most of ) your comments.
This was unlike that individual who mentioned the Almohad reaction in twelfth-century Spain. What wasn't mentioned, of course, was that the general reaction in a previously increasingly tolerant and less militaristic Islamic world, followed the appalling atrocities of the early crusades. A "war on terror", perhaps, was launched by new regimes in places like Egypt, when it became clear that Saladin and other more chivalrous types could not provide an effectual response to Crusaderist savagery.
As for 'refusos' and 'conversos' fleeing intolerance to Holland, one might of thought an excellent place to start here would have been during the reign of "Christian" Ferdinand and Isabella and their successors in the 16th century.
At least David Boaz had the integrity to indirectly acknowlege this, and that's a lot better than others involved here.

I believe these comments in an article I found identify the source of the problem quite well:

On Sunday, Toronto-based columnist, David Warren, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on the media-instigated uproar that has led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy and the murder of a nun in Somalia.

By manipulating the event, Warren says, the BBC was "having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world."

Warren wrote, "The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages";word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam, during an address in Bavaria."

While the pope, Warren said, was not offering a "crude anti-Islamic polemic," the content of the Pope's speech, and his key questions in the dialogue between religions and the secular world, will now be ignored.

Warren pointed to coverage by Rahul Tandon who implied that, since his election as Pope, though Benedict has "surprised many with his attempts to improve dialogue with the Muslim world", there have been signs of his earlier views." These Tandon identified as "theological conservatism."

"From now on." Warren writes, "the reporting will be about the Muslim rage, and whether the Vatican has apologized yet. That is the "drama" the media will seek to capture -- the drama of the cockfight -- because they know no better kind"

As a result those who should not be in Abraham's kitchen are going beserk and anti-Christian bigots are having a field day claiming it is proof positive that Christians are bigots.

Thanks, Ifran, for your eloquent article.

If only you were around when Victorian government was drafting its Racial and Religious Vilification legislation, which is now being used by the Islamic Council of Victoria to silence two Christian pastors who dared open the Koran and critique its contents.

Assuming that you have heard about this case, I am surprised didn’t mention it in your article.

The ICV used the courts and jurisprudence like a heavy club to silence the words of their intellectual opponents right in the heat of Abraham’s kitchen. The legislation has backfired, threatening rights to free speech, stifling debate between Christians and Muslims, creating suspicion and antagonism between the two, the very opposite of what the law intended. Hopefully the Bracks government can repeal the law without too much embarrassment.

Michael Viljoen

Boaz, thanks for your comment that the Muslims have had a rough time recently from GWB. Yet it could be believed that Middle East history over the last 90 years has had us whites, including little Israel, almost pushing them into their own Dark Ages. It is well to remember that it was Muslim scholars, also with a knowledge of Greek philosophy which helped Christians get out of their own Dark Ages, as can be proven by an historical account of the life of St Thomas Aquinas.

As I have mentioned before Boaz, even with the risk of again being called a lefty bleeding heart, we still owe them, and so I have also suggested that we take a lesson not only from the Sermon on the Mount, but also from Nelson Mandela who performed the miracle of softly and almost lovingly calming down the South African white arparthaidists who were much more cruel and callous than most Islamics.

The story of Mandela is probably the most wonderful miracle of the age, Boaz, let's pray that we learn the lesson.

George C - WA

Funguy, the point I was making with snapshots here and there in world history, is that I'm fed up with the Islamic world being painted out as some wonderful carnival of tolerance.

How do you think the "Islamic World" got that way? Through invasion and conquest of course. How do you think formerly Buddhist Pakistan, Afghanistan, Xinjiang and Bangladesh become Muslim? When I lived in Japan I often noted the look of utter disappointment and loss when I mentioned to Japanese students that the fabled Mahayana Buddhist mystical holy land of Gandhara is today none other than the dour, hardline, Sharia-ruled, intolerant Muslim Pakistan. What a devastating let down...Another example - the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan are a long line of Buddhist images to be desecrated by Muslims in Central Asia - it took 20 Century explosives technology and Saudi funding to finally complete the job on these biggest statues of all.

And Funguy, you conveniently ignored the institutionalised debasement of non-Muslims under dhimmitude, didn't you?

You made me cry Irfan, I love your new Tibetan Islamic Buddhist sect, it is more appealing than the Arabic Islamic sect; I don’t know how much Dialect interpretation it takes to read and understand what is and what is not: But for You Irfan , here is the very first “Quranic” conversion to the English language ; published in the year 1732: For the British Parliament; 1000 pages of it. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7440
Although I would remind you in relation to the Jews (WW11) and the great Satan : “USA” and the Atom bomb, you just cant drop that Post-modern solipsism in you moral equivalent; Can you.

Two points that will send the demons screaming:
If Christianity and the Anglo sphere did not do what they had to do in WW11, then it would be a simple uncomplicated fact Irfan. You would not be here today.

Why does the Revolutionary Left dwell on the "appalling atrocities" of the Crusades (to quote Funguy) when justifying any Muslim bad behaviour? The Muslim self-pitying sob story over the Crusades just floors me every time when I think about the Muslim invasions and slaughter of innocent Buddhists in Central Asia at the very same time. Is this somehow the fault of evil Christian Crusaders too? While I really have no sympathy for any religion (except mabye Buddhism), I cannot comprehend the ultra-left's excuse making for Islam.

And no, Bushbred, we owe nothing to Muslims. After the Muslim conquest of Constantinople many Greeks fled the city and found refuge in the Latin West, bringing with them knowledge and documents from the Greco-Roman tradition that further propelled the Renaissance that was already underway due to the influx of Greek scholars into the West that had began much earlier, especially in the Northern Italian city-states. They had started welcoming scholars in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was the Italians' hunger for Latin Classics and a command of the Greek Language that fuelled the Renaissance. Remember the Roman Empire lived on in the East until the Muslim Jihad finished it off in 1453.

Moreover so-called "Arabic" numbers and the zero were invented by Hindu Indians (only conveyed to West by Muslims), and paper and printing was invented by the Chinese.

Oh please, as far as I can see no-one has questioned why Benedict XVI has singled out Islam to talk about religion and violence. I know Muslims are easy game right now, but hello...where was BenedictXVI as the so-called Jewish state was commiting war crimes in Lebanon, and the daily terror inflicted on Palestinians by this rogue state. Then there are the Christian nations that have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq...and elsewhere...and still counting.
The big question: what are his motives for what he said...and more imporantly, didn't say. Are we to preume that he is unconcerned about present day violations of the Geneva Conventions and more interested in stirring up more hate.

Probably the worst treatment smokers get is from 'reformed smokers'.
Same with Islam. Here is a site which is built by Ex Muslims, and they far exceed the 'Mohamed Cartoons' from the Danish Newspaper.

Warning. If you are muslim and don't cope well with the 'heat'..don't look at this. If you are non Muslim, please don't view this with a 'mocking' intent. Simply view it as information about how ex muslims see their own former faith and in particular the founder of it.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/introduction.htm

It contains some remarkable evidence of Mohammed's view on biology.
Apparently he taught that a child will look like the father if his discharge preceedes the womans, and like the mother if hers does.
I wonder if we have any medical people here who may wish to comment ?

The reference is in Hadith Bukhari Vol 4 -546
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/055.sbt.html (scroll to 546)

The 'Test of Prophethood' also makes interesting reading. (in the same hadith)

I cringe in horror at some of the stuff put out about Christianity by Chick Tracts.. and they are supposed to actually BE Christian.
We regularly receive mocking and satire on many levels. The book by Ali G is a classic.. "Da Gospel According to Ali G"... it combines pornographic and religious images in one work. Very blasphemous to us, yet the ABC happily sells it. No bombs at ABC shops yet... hmmm... maybe we don't do that kind of thing ? :)

Here is another video portraying Mohamed and his child bride.
Its not very complementary, so Muslims be warned... you would not like this one.
It shows one thing... that freedom of speech is not stopped by threats or violence. There is always 'a way' and this is the kind of result which violent oppostion combined with internet freedom gives.

WARNING.. if you are Muslim and easily offended don't see this.
For others.. I repeat.. it is information, and a quite crude in places. If u are easily offended....don't watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZoE9bdAUMg

This is obviously done by a western cynic about Mohammed.. but, just like Chic tracts and various portrayals of Jews as pigs and monkeys..this forms part of 'the heat'

On the same site are testimonies from people who embraced Islam from Christianity, and Muslims who rejected Islam

Great to see the token Islam-haters again making an appearance.

There's one thing I didn'y mention in my article, a point which Brian Toohey made very well in the Weekend Aust Financial Review.

The Pope's real target in his speech was not Muslims. The real target of his speech was the Reformation process that led to the founding of the Protestant movement.

In other words, the Pope was engaging in some good old fashioned Protestant-bashing. Just as my school chaplain at St Andrews used to regularly engage in Catholic-bashing in divinity classes.

As for the Muslim response, can someone please explain why no one in Indonesia is whinging about Catholic perspectives being published in the Jakarta Post? And why isn't the government shutting down Kompas, the biggest selling newspaper in Indonesia, despite it being owned by a conservative Catholic foundation?

Of course, the Indons have it right. They know the Pope's speech was targetting Protestents and secularists. And they are using it to maximum mileage to lambast the American evangelical movements who are trying to convert Indonesian Catholics to Protestantism.

It also explains why Pope Shenudah II, the Coptic Pope, also attacked the Pope's speech.

Protestants of the world - UNITE! (?)

The Pope's German. Surely someone must've told him, "don't mention the war"?

A gracious response Irfan - may be the pope could learn a lesson.

This may amuse (and it shouldn't offend Muslim sensibilities).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1879703,00.html

Dear Irfan. finally you have the terminology correct 'Islam haters'

We have moved on from 'Muslim haters'.

KHAIBAR.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap21.htm

Amrozi yelled "Jews...remember Khaibar"! he said... So, what we might ask was 'Khaibar' about ?

It was a final and wealthy refuge of the Jews in Arabia.

Muir reports that Mohammed wanted the place and the treasure, so he invented an excuse "Angel Gabriel told me they want to attack us" and attacked them first by surprise.

In summary, the following happened.

1/ Forts were destroyed
2/ Kinana, a Jewish chief of the main citadel, was TORTURED with unspeakable horrors by Mohamed to reveal the location of the treasure.
3/ After finally killing him, (decapitation) and with his headless corpse still laying on the blood soaked ground, his bride was located and deliberatey brought past her husbands remains, and Mohamed decided he would MARRY her. (her beauty was widely known even in Mecca)
4/ This 'marraige' took place well before the lawful period of 4months and 10 days, thus Mohamed contravened his own 'revelations' for the sake of lust. I find no godliness in him whatsoever.
5/ Islamic tradition claims she "readily gave herself to this new alliance", but then... it would wouldnt it, otherwise the character of Mohamed would be even more in question.

Now.. in cases like this, Imams will tell you there is a 'deeper wisdom' involved. But to me, its pretty clear what went on.

So, the reason I am so against "Islam" is because of what the founder did. It brings me back to the concept of Ivan Millat...if he had established a religion, his followers would be saying there is some 'deeper wisdom' about his serial killing activities.

The saddest thing in all this, is that people will stand up and speak about this cruel thug as 'Allahs perfect example'....and actually believe it.
King David, after his own sin based on lust, repented "My sin is ever before me" -Mohamed just revelled in His.

Irfan,

Protestant bashing seems almost as lateral a possibility as Muslim bashing. However it is arguable. Why do I think the BBC has given you and the article writer you referred to playful ideas which will have less serious consequences than the BBC's mischief?

Sunisle,

“where was BenedictXVI as the so-called Jewish state was commiting war crimes in Lebanon, and the daily terror inflicted on Palestinians by this rogue state.

Easy. In a public statement cf. University lecture on the 16th July after Israeli attacks at that time he said:

“In recent days the news from the Holy Land is a reason for new and grave concern for all, in particular because of the spread of warlike actions also in Lebanon, and because of the numerous victims among the civilian population. At the origin of these cruel oppositions there are, sadly, objective situations of violation of law and justice.”

Then there are the Christian nations that have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq...and elsewhere...and still counting.

As a Cardinal he reportedly condemned the war ab initio.

“As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.””

"The big question: what are his motives for what he said...and more imporantly, didn't say. Are we to preume that he is unconcerned about present day violations of the Geneva Conventions and more interested in stirring up more hate."

As a conclusion to the straw man argument that would be correct - had he not commented on those issues. However he did comment on those issues and unless you wish to cling to the BBC’s early reporting he clearly did not attempt to stir up hate in his speech.

Some quite lucid points you make mjpb,
The Pope (even if I'm not a Papist) is a part of "Abraham’s spiritual kitchen" - he eats from the same table as Irfan, so to speak.

Perhaps, no matter how logical the dialogue of Pope Benedict, he's simply not judged on this basis. He's judged more so politically and on the 'irrationality' of religion, Catholicism in particular - any other platform he has seems to be ignored.

In the same vein, I prefer to think of Irfan, not as a Muslim but as an 'Aussie' bloke who could give me a good argument down at the pub -and I would probably share a meal with him (if invited).

Don’t I even get a thank you Irf; I did supply you with the answer, and the documentation to your Hypothetical questions that nobody in the kitchen could answer,
Not bad for an Illiterate White Anglo Trash of Convict stock hay Irfan. Your words “Remember”? And I am not even the Pope.

For the record, I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim, so I have no partisan axe to grind. I have, however, read the Quran. As I write this, I have before me a translation by the highly-regarded Iraqi-born scholar N.J. Dawood. Wading through the Quran has been a task as tedious as wading through thick mud. It is mind-numbingly didactic and repetitive. It contains virtually none of the poetic beauty of the Psalms, or the sublime transcendence of the Hindu Upanishads. For every sura that advocates mercy and declares that there should be no compulsion in religion, another can be revealed which commands Muslims to kill non-believers wherever they are found. It is manifestly false to claim that all of those aggressive verses are written in a purely "defensive" context. Muhammad had a knack for having politically-expedient "revelations".
When periods of tolerance and mutual respect did exist in the past under Muslim rule, it was not due to a literal interpretation of Quranic dogmas in all areas of social life, but to the more enlightened and broad-minded perspectives of certain individual Muslim rulers.
Even during the so-called Golden Age of Islam, it was not unusual for Christians and their priests, such as those in Spain, to be executed for the mere "crime" of being critical of Muhammad.
If the Pope had openly insulted Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Guru Nanak, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster or Baha Allah, how likely is it that Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians or Bahais would be rioting in the streets, burning churches and shooting nuns because of the mere expression of an opinion? About as likely as the Pope dressing like Madonna and performing half-naked on stage. Yet Muslims have proved, repeatedly, that they will riot at the drop of a hat. In the field of psychology, it is commonly accepted that a tendency toward impulsive knee-jerk anger and violence is a clear sign of deep-rooted insecurities. If Muslims are so confident in the alleged objective truth of their faith, it is pertinent to ask why they are so thin-skinned in the face of mere criticism.

Criticise Islam all you like. It's no skin of my spiritual nose!

relda,

As far as the pub thing I would agree. He is hardly a BBC knee jerk reaction kinda Muslim. As far as the dinner thing I'll let you two work out that type of thing for yourselves. ( :


"Criticise Islam all you like. It's no skin off my spiritual nose!"

It is so much to see a display of integrity in here. I am continually highlighting nastier examples of hypocrisy. Further, in those examples I have criticized the hypocrisy of the people doing the attacking. In their position integrity should be easier to maintain.

mjpb,
Haven't had the dinner invite yet :) - might have to stay with the 'pub-talk'.

Like many, I'll too take criticism in good faith. It are the ones who are a little fragile I worry about.

I won't fall into the same trap again, and get myself kicked off for responding to cowards who claim to disagree with one of colour is to be a racist.

You people can't even see that it is you who are discriminatory. To condemn people for having legitimate concerns about racist tribes who have brought their racist cultures with them is laughable.

I point to a simple, yet clear interpretation:

Australians aren't and never have been racists. When we first came here there were many hatreds between Scots, Irish, English, yet somehow they got along (not perfectly of course, there were incidents) and developed perhaps what was the best country in the world.

The White Australia Policy was a myth. It wasn't about race, but a diction test, and during it's reign, many a wealthy Chinese family immigrated here. It has been hijacked by extremist leftists who want to have an open door immigration policy (bizarre that it's not these people, then, demanding colonialism of the states the middle-class asylum seekers flee, to be turned into western style nations).

Are you people really saying that, Australia, which has never had a history of race trouble, riots, until Muslims came here (this by no means means they are all bad, anyone who thinks that must think that way and is likely a racist themselves - people have got so petty that if one comments on another ethnicity they must be doing it for racial reasons, wake up people, this isn't Africa or the middle-east, or Asia, where ethnic hatreds are the norm)

That, we have taught our kids tolerance in schools for decades, that women are equal, that everybody has the same rights under the law, that we, are racist? As opposed to cultures that we have brought on mass that come from lands with inherent racism, ethnic and tribal divisions, religious violence galore, such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, um...every Islamic nation but Turkey?

Get real people......

Our media is fine with reporting these things on the news every night, although somehow tries to blame America for the vile racism between the different ethnic groups in Muslim lands.

It is truly astonishing how most people really don't have an understanding of what context means.

"The US armed Saddam!" they say, well, of course they did. Look at the lovely neighbours next door, and next door to them.

The whole region is a pit of racism, violence, misoginy, and corruption. Does anybody truly deny this is because of their cultures, that of every man for himself (yes, capitalism!).

Afghani widows begging for food because husband was killed fighting the Russians were whipped, hit, spat on, no Centrelink there, it's every man for himself.

Yet still Muslims are furious we are in Afghanistan. Do you not see what that means? From here, in Australia, with it's Medicare, Centrelink, hospitals, they can't get over their racism. We simply want to turn that dump into this paradise, shouldn't they be for it, they chose to live here!

Racism is a powerful concept, ill-defined in our society to mean one who comments against multiculturalism, but in a real sense, racism is rife everywhere but in European cultures.

Racism is seen in marriage practices, in not swimming in the pool if infidels are present, but especially in how whenever the bigoted Muslim leaders make their vile comments, the Muslim community never protest to have them removed.

THIS IS WHAT STICKS IN THE MINDS OF AUSTRALIAN-AUSTRALIANS. It's the same about how there were no phone calls to dob in those dogs who kicked that guy at Cronulla, not to mention the stabbings, threats of pack rape as woman are accustomed to now from certain groups.

Isn't it funny to that whenever England plays Scotland, we don't have the millions of anglo's going for their homelands? Perhaps we are the only who truly consider themselves AUSTRALIAN.

Benjamin

"You people can't even see that it is you who are discriminatory. To condemn people for having legitimate concerns about racist tribes who have brought their racist cultures with them is laughable."

Tell that to the aborigines.

Ifan and Boaz_David,
As you know, I wrote to the Minister for Immigration regarding to what information we gave to prospective migrants, about our culture and society, BEFORE they actually decided to come here.

I now have a reply from the Minister's office, which refers me to the Departments website, www.immi.gov.au, saying "There is a myriad of useful information for prospective migrants....."

Ifran was right, we leave it up to the migrants to find their own info on which to decide if they come here or not. I cannot find much useful info on the website regarding our culture and society and even less about what different cultural matters are not permissable here. What info there is on the website is designed for immigrants AFTER their decission is made and have their visas.

I am now convinced the info we give to would be immigrants is woefully inadequate. No wonder some immigrants become anti-social.
I believe we have an obligation to properly inform migrants. For far too long we simply have been telling them that we are multicultural and all cultures are acceptable. I think that is deceitfull.

While I am dissappointed, I am not surprized, and I invite you to see the website yourselves and make your own assesment.

I will try to take this matter further.

Here is a post sent to me by a Muslim via 'youtube' the video upload site.

[Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
Is the greatest, most honest, righteous, most modest, sincere creation of god EVER!
You know nothing about his life and who he is!
He never hurt anyone for no reason!
The only reason he fought was in self defense!
He was the greatest person EVER!]

Clearly he knows very little about the man.

Khaiber alone:
-Invasion (not self defense)
-Torture (to find the treasure)
-Decapitation of the tortured Chief (Kinana)
-Forced marraige to the tortured, decapitated Chiefs bride (on the battle field, not after the 4months & 10days prescribed by Allah)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap21.htm

Somehow... that young chap seems to have missed a few things, or filtered them out of his hard pressed brain.

Kevin,

what do you mean tell that to the Aboriginies?

It never ceases to amaze me how little people understand things. When I talk of culture, and tribes, I'm not simply thinking of mine as better because it's mine, I'm thinking of the underlying aspects, the values, the bedrock, of western civilisation, not going to the footy on sunday or having a bbq.

I believe that the Aboriginies culture wasn't the way to go. I believe that the aim of mankind is to control our environment and leave this rock, to sow our seed in the universe.

I don't believe that one culture should have particular dominance over a piece of land, it's all about morals.

It depends what you mean when you think of cultures, people, races.

I see us all as human beings first and foremost, with basic rights and responsibilities.

This is why people like me can never accept a value system based on anything other than reason(ie, Islam) and yes, tribal savages who see everyone else as the enemy must go too.

Aboriginal culture is, as all cultures are, bogged down in useless tradition.

OF COURSE THE ABORIGINALS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WESTERNERS IMPINGED ON THEIR WAY OF LIFE, and I'd say that the west has evolved more since then, but the basis of reason was still there.

With my values, human rights (as opposed to me being in charge of you because you are born into a lower tribe or caste, say) I can discuss with you why they are better, and logic proves that they are....

.......You will never convince me that a woman in Islam is anything but a sex object, no matter how hard you try. To cover one up at age of nine (woman is nine in Islam, many prominent Muslims like Khoemeini had 9year old wives) has no basis other than "mohammed told us so", so religion, in this sense, can never be accepted as the value system through anything but forced conversions - as it has in the Muslim world.

In one sense, we have destroyed Aboriginies culture, but in another sense, they, one day, would be exactly where we are today. Women in such tribes, whether we came across them or not (that is important though, as if it was say, the Japanese, they wouldn't even be here now would they) would have q'd the idea that they be given away as child brides to an elder.

THAT IS WHAT THE WEST IS, AN ETERNAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH. WE Q EVERYTHING, NOTHING IS OFF LIMITS, although due to extremist leftists who are having a stroke over the "ethnic other", Islam is, for now, off limits.

This can only mean that Islam is weak and can't stand criticism. It can mean NOTHING else.

Think about it, the way we in the west practice multiculturalism is that we all expect others to adhere to the values we developed - which are based on reason (the do unto others approach).

I believe that all the west takes from others is their food, they haven't much to offer in the way of value systems do they?

Would you take on Islamic values of a woman being worth half a man in an Islamic court? Of a girl becoming a woman at age nine?

Of stoning to death for the relatively minor crime of adultery?

Or values from Asia? Or values from Africa?

Or values from Europe before the enlightenment? Of course not, they are all decadent and inverted.