Stephany, G Z Tan and Savage Pencil,
I have some respect for Irfan and do not envy his task of defending Islam. He has in the past critisized Sheik Hilali, that That sheik Faiz Mahommed and the mob that undertook the retalitory attacks after Cronulla. He also does respond to comments to his articles.

However I share your frustration in getting a direct answer for questions put to him. He usually offers a strawman for the questioner to chase. Try as I might, he would not agree that we have a problem with the anti-social behaviour of Leb muslims. He wants more statistical evidence even though the problems have been there for many years. The behaviour of the Leb muslims must be abhorent to Irfan as to all others. I even asked him for any suggestions but got no responce. You can see all this earlier in this thread.

I do not see what can be done about it. One can only put forward ones opinion and leave it at that. Good luck!

I do have some respect for Irfan (especially when comparing him with Fellow_Human):

1. he writes articles, that naturally makes him a "target".
2. importantly, he responds to comments (except mine of course, but that's another matter)
3. his evasiveness is crude. So I find him a rather simple man (and do not regard him very deceptive)
4. I do not find him patronising. (whereas Fellow_Human makes me spews)

Fellow_Human's stated "mission" is to address "misconception" about Islam and I know him as a very closed-minded person.

"The members of our research group belong to various bodies. However, this project is our private initiative. It grew informally."

=> Perhaps you could start by naming the 'various bodies'. You can then name the imams you interviewed and the mosques where these imams preached.

"Irfan's behaviour is all too typical of what we found when confronting Muslims."

=> It seems you entered your research with a pre-conceived notion of what is 'typical' Muslim behaviour.

"This exchange is pointless. I'm not going to continue unless you post a substantive response to the issue of antisemitism in the Ummah."

=> How can I provide a response when you refuse to provide details of what evidence you have, who you have interviewed and which organisations took part in the research? All you have provided are a few quotes from Imran Khan and a few links to groups and thinktanks that repressent the Israeli far-Right (such as MEMRI, Daniel Pipes' organisation etc).

=> Do you expect me to take Daniel Pipes seriously when just about nobody in the field of Middle Eastern Studies takes him seriously? Or would you also expect me to take David Irving seriously in the field of Holocaust studies?

=> I think the real evasion comes from your end. Why aren't you prepared to reveal which organisations were involved in your research? Why not start by naming which organisation you represent? You know who I am. Who are you? Why aren't you prepared to say who you are and what interests you represent?

I don't know about anybody else at this forum but I represent the cats of Australia ... who have made their choice and it ain't Sheik Taj Al-Din Hilali.

LOL,

More black ink of the octopus, Irfan.

Irfan mentions Daniel Pipes. His scholarship on Islam is sound but he is zealously pro-Zionist. In my view this often warps his judgment. It leads him to embrace George Bush who is, in my view, unhinged.

Unfortunately there has been a reluctance to tackle the issue of Muslim antisemitism. Anyone who has any attachment to a university social sciences department will understand why. The McCarthy-ism of the left means that anyone who even raises the issue could suffer serious career damage. This is, of course, why I shall not reveal the names of my collaborators.

To see ONE EXAMPLE of the strength of Left McCarthy-ism consider the following article from the Education Guardian.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2034778,00.html

The Guardian at least covered the story albeit giving it as favourable a spin as it could. (It's only a procedural issue) Most of the mainstream media ignored Leeds University's outrageous suppression of free speech.

For a more straightforward account see of the incident, see:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1517364.ece

Here is Kuntzel's own version of events.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/is-there-still-room-for-debate

Quote:

"Should you invite him [Matthias Küntzel] in the future," says a letter from the head of the university’s German department to those who invited me, "the university would look closely at the proposed content of the talk. I do not see this as censorship. The university has clear legal requirements to do this, designed to guarantee free speech but also to promote respect and tolerance".

In other words, discussing an aspect of Muslim intolerance is "intolerant." This is the sort of twisted logic to be found in universities today.

Irfan, of course, understands this perfectly. He can hide behind my refusal to reveal more specifics about my collaborators because he knows I would risk damaging them if I made their names public. As is the case with homosexuality, I believe that the decision on whether to out yourself should be a personal one.

"Unfortunately there has been a reluctance to tackle the issue of Muslim antisemitism. Anyone who has any attachment to a university social sciences department will understand why."

=> Yes, it's all those nasty lefties. The reds still hide under the bed.

"Irfan, of course, understands this perfectly. He can hide behind my refusal to reveal more specifics about my collaborators because he knows I would risk damaging them if I made their names public. As is the case with homosexuality, I believe that the decision on whether to out yourself should be a personal one."

=> You and your "collaborators" (if they exist outside your imagination) are conducting 'research' on the basis of isolated media reports, defective translations and interviews with 5 imams from 2 countries. Your sample is so small as to be meaningless. I'm not sure if statistical and demographic principles are being used in your 'research'.

=> Your refusal to identify yourself makes your claims even more suspect. You are casting aspersions on 1.2 billion people spread across all countries on the earth. You expect me to accept your aspersions on the basis of work by anonymous researchers interviewing 5 imams.

=> Unless you are prepared to reveal your identity and that of your so-called researchers, I'd be safe in regarding you as yet another internet fraud.